The European Directive 86/609 sets the legal framework for national laws in EU member States for the Regulation of Animal Research and is being revised.
The UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act implements this Directive.

It’s clear that this directive revision will be challenging with some animal protection campaigning groups spreading claims that research and testing is immoral and unreliable. However many MEPs are wise to the more outrageous claims of groups like ECEAE whose credibility can be judged by the fact that the UK member is BUAV.

Also the EU approach of encouraging consensus does mean that biomedical researchers are firmly seen in the middle ground, and again extreme positions are frowned upon. The recent protracted debate on balancing environmental protection and animal testing, REACH, has injected a heady dose of realism into MEPs. The Commissioner for Research, Janez Potočnik, also struck such a considered and realistic tone in his recent blog:

People are using plants and animals for many purposes. Our forefathers lived in the middle of nature. To find food, they gathered plants, fruits and hunted animals. When we evolved, we learned to cultivate crops and keep animals for their milk or their meat. We used their pelt for our garments and used their power for our work. As years, indeed centuries, goes by we realised we could learn from animals as well.

The discovery of the smallpox vaccine came from noticing milkmaid’s immunity after catching cowpox from their animals. The discovery of electrical current came from Galvani’s experiments with frogs. And as medical science developed, we realised that their bodies and ours have certain similarities. That is when we started using animals for scientific purposes.

We have to acknowledge our debt to animal testing. New medication, bringing relief and new hopes to millions of people, depend to a large extent on animal testing. And, less than sixty years ago people died of using certain eye cosmetics or hair dyes. But as science and society progress, we have to recognise that there is a public concern about the number of animals used in the testing of cosmetics and chemicals, or for research in a wide range of fields.

The Cosmetic Directive will stop all testing of cosmetics on animal from 2009, but we still need to make sure the cosmetics available to our consumers are safe. This is why the EU has invested millions of euro in research to find alternative methods that refine, replace and reduce animal testing. Society demands this and I want to make this happen. The Joint Research Centre has a European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, which looks for new methods and also verifies methods developed elsewhere. My colleague Gunter Verheugen and I launched last year the European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), which includes representatives of those industries that have in the past relied on animal testing to check the safety of their products.

This Monday I will participate at a conference of the EPAA to see where we have got to. The conference will bring together representatives of industry, academia, animal welfare organisations and national, European as well as international institutions. As many scientists believe that it will be impossible to eliminate all animal tests, it is extremely important to find alternatives and minimise the use and suffering of laboratory animals.

So let’s look forward to a more rational debate, not same old lies, in ... soon to be 23 other official EU languages!