RECENT
INITIATIVES BY FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVES IN THE UK |
ABOUT FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVES |
|
| Focus on Alternatives (FoA) was established in 1998 to enable UK animal
protection groups that fund or promote alternatives to animal experiments to work together
and to focus on facilitating the replacement of such experiments. The common aim of the member organisations is to replace animal experiments with non-animal alternatives, and this enables them to cooperate on issues of common concern. The strategy taken by Focus on Alternatives is to: · Identify and promote replacement methods. · Facilitate access to information on alternatives. · Educate those who conduct or fund animal experiments. · Organise workshops and meetings on specific topics of concern. · Lobby relevant stakeholders. |
 |
| Examples of FoA's past achievements and current initiatives are described below. Further information on FoA initiatives can be found on the FRAME website (http://www.frame.org.uk/Committees.htm). | |
ADOPTION OF ANIMAL WELFARE PRINCIPLES BY UK REGULATORS |
|
| FoA has lobbied UK regulatory bodies regarding their commitment to replace
animal tests. FoA asked each regulator what actions they have taken to implement a set of
animal welfare principles drawn up by UK regulators, in collaboration with the Home
Office, in 1997 (1). These principles state that non-animal methods should be used in
place of animal procedures where possible, and that animal use and suffering should be
minimised. FoA has published the findings of this consultation exercise, which includes examples, provided by regulators of how the Three Rs have been implemented (2). For example, some regulators fund research to develop non-animal methods, whereas others actively promote international regulatory acceptance of validated replacement methods. |
|
 |
As part of this
initiative, FoA made a number of recommendations including: · Resources
should be made available to enable data submitted to regulators to be reviewed and
analysed to help validate non-animal tests and minimise animal use and suffering. · Regulations
that require potential notifiers to contact regulators before starting animal tests should
be implemented, and others should be introduced in areas where they do not presently exist
to enable data sharing and reduce repetitive testing. · More
funding should be targeted to the development of replacement methods and regulators should
indicate the proportion of their budgets which fund such work. · Continued
and improved efforts should be directed towards the harmonisation of international testing
guidelines.
|
1.
Anon. (1998). Animal welfare in the assessment of safety and risk. (Appendix C) In: Report
of the Animals Procedures Committee for 1997. pp. 23. London, UK: The Stationery Office. |
|
EU CHEMICAL TESTING PROGRAMME |
|
FoA is extremely concerned that the proposed EU chemicals testing programme will not only mean suffering and death for large numbers of animals, but also that these animals will be used to generate hazard data that might not be relevant or necessary for risk-assessment purposes. FoA has contributed to the debate on this policy in the UK and in
Europe. In the UK, FoA submitted evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the
European Union during its deliberations on the EU White Paper's proposals. The Committee's
subsequent report, Reducing the Risk: Regulating Industrial Chemicals, emphasised that
well-funded programmes to develop alternative, non-animal testing methods must be at the
top of the agenda. In Europe, FoA sent its policy statement to the rapporteur, and to all
the UK members of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament, and to the
Commissioner for the DGs for Environment and Enterprise. FoA made the following
recommendations: |
|
| · The EU should not require, recommend or sanction any chemical testing
under the programme until all existing data - whether relating to humans or animals - have
been collated and analysed. · Funding should be increased to accelerate the development and validation of non-animal alternative methods, to ensure that animal testing under the programme is kept to a minimum. · The EU should require all substances to be assessed in the first instance on the basis of their physicochemical properties and their in vitro toxicity. |
 |
SUPPLIERS OF IN VITRO-PRODUCED MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES |
| In 1999 the British government placed severe restrictions on the use of ascitic animals in monoclonal antibody (MAbs) production, but it did not restrict the import of MAbs produced in animals. Consequently, FoA researched and published a list of companies who produce MAbs solely from in vitro hybridoma sources, to enable researchers to make humane choices. Several research-funding bodies are now encouraging their grant-holders to purchase only in vitro-produced monoclonals. |
DECISION-MAKING STRATEGY TO EMPHASISE ALTERNATIVES |
| FoA has produced a poster to show a decision-making strategy for considering
alternative approaches when designing research projects. The aim is to help scientists to
meet their obligation to use non-animal methods wherever possible. FoA also produced an
accompanying handout sheet, which shows both the strategy and a worked example of how it
may be applied to a hypothetical proposed project. Early planning for a project that might involve animals A general strategy for a project that might involve animals
|
FETAL CALF SERUM & POLYCLONAL ANTIBODY PRODUCTION |
|
 |
FoA
is keen to find alternatives to fetal calf serum and polyclonal antibodies, so
that research can continue without the need to use these animal-based products, which have
welfare
problems associated with their production. Questionnaires have been sent to commercial producers asking them what welfare measures they implement to minimise the number of animals used and the suffering that they undergo, and whether they produce alternatives (e.g. human serum). |
The questionnaires also aim to identify the problems incurred during the development and
use of the humane alternatives. Informative input has been invited from the scientific
community via journals and newsletters. If you can contribute any information please
contact FoA. |
|
ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL MODELS WHICH CAUSE SEVERE PAIN AND DISTRESS |
|
FoA
is especially keen to identify and promote alternatives to animal models of conditions
such as septic shock
and acute diabetes mellitus, which can cause severe pain and distress to the animals used.
Currently, FoA
is identifying specialists in these scientific disciplines, and experts on relevant
alternatives. If you have the relevant
expertise FoA would like to hear from you. The aim is to hold a workshop to discuss how alternative approaches could be implemented. |
|
FoA WORKSHOP ON ACCESSING INFORMATION ON THE THREE RS |
In
1998, FoA held a workshop in London to assess the effectiveness of existing information on
the Three Rs, and to identify what is lacking and how it could be provided. The workshop
was attended by 34 participants, including IT specialists, scientists, representatives of
government regulatory bodies and research-funding agencies, animal protection societies,
and other non-governmental organisations. A report was published based on this workshop
(1). A number
of difficulties were identified with existing information resources. FoA’s
report included recommendations aimed at improving existing information facilities, and
identifying new resources required such as: · Specialist databases dealing with aspects of the
Three Rs need to be established. · A super-search facility, permitting users to
interrogate all relevant databases simultaneously is needed. · Publishers and editors of scientific journals
should be encouraged to request authors to highlight aspects of the Three Rs. FoA is
delighted to see that many of its recommendations are in the process of being implemented.
1. Langley, G. et al. (1999). Accessing information on the reduction, refinement and replacement of animal experiments. Report and recommendations of a Focus on Alternatives workshop. ATLA 27, 239–245. |
