Ther was a thread a wee while ago about a possible change in UK law which would allow stray or abandoned animals to be used by lab's in experiment's. I got in touch with my local mp ( Ming Campbell ) and asked him to find out what the deal was.
A few days ago I got a reply that he'd been in touch with Theresa May to get to the bottom of it.
It's a lengthy reply from Theresa, so I'll give you the abridged version.

Article 10 requires that dogs and cats may only be used in procedures if they have been purpose bred. Any exception to this requirement must be justified on scientific grounds. Article 11 prohibits the use of stray or feral animals of domestic species except in essential studies relating to the health and welfare of the animals, or serious threats to the environment or to human or animal health. Where such an exception is to be granted, there must be a scientific justification that the purpose of the procedure can be achieved only by the use of a stray or feral animal. We propose to implement the requirements of Article 10 and 11 by means of the standard conditions to be applied to project licences.

As current UK requirements are not stricter than those of the new directive in this regard, it is not possible to place an absolute prohibition of the use of stray dogs and cats on the face of revised UK legislation using Article 2 to the directive. Nevertheless, under the 1986 Act, exceptions relating to the use of feral animals have been extremely rare and no use of stray animals has been authorised .

We do not envisage any circumstances under which the use of stray animals will be justified in the future and we therefore propose as a matter of policy, to continue this effective prohibition on the use of stray animals under revised UK legislation transposing the new directive.

I think what it says is " no, stray animals won't be used, but in the case of some outbreak of rabies or foot and mouth, they might be " but I may have got that wrong, politician speak is not my forte lol.

I think what it says is " no, stray animals won't be used, but in the case of some outbreak of rabies or foot and mouth, they might be " but I may have got that wrong, politician speak is not my forte lol.

:-) Yes, most of us speak plainly with no double or triple meanings and 'get out of jail' clauses, alas, so much of that can be twisted to mean just about anything.

Any exception to this requirement must be justified on scientific grounds.

Isn't every scientific experiment covered for that one? It's not done for fun or because they woke up that morning and decided let's do this... it is all done for research of some sort. Also to justify something means that someone would have needed to question it, if strays are taken and used who would know and ask them to be accountable?

Article 11 prohibits the use of stray or feral animals of domestic species except in essential studies relating to the health and welfare of the animals

It does not mention abandoned animals and those in rescues? Only stray or feral........

However regardless, that statement of only relating to health and welfare studies, it could be anything from a skin condition which for many would be classed as essential **shrugs shoulders** to something serious as there is no grading as to what category strays would be used for, stands to reason they could be used for any experiment as all can be classed as essential one mans meat.....

One would hope that enough are purpose bred for whatever related experiments/studies needed, but obviously if the question of strays being used comes up at all for this reason there must not be enough.

Yes, at first glance it looks good and would re-assure but the law can be twisted to suit anyones purpose.

A simple: STRAYS, RESCUE, ABANDONED AND FERAL ANIMALS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BE USED FOR ANY EXPERIMENTS  would mean what it says on the tin. Alas that is not what the bill says, therefore of course they will be used, just wrapped up very nicely to look as though they won't be.

Just make sure all pets are chipped or tattooed to find their way home with that bill they may well not. :-(

> Also to justify something means that someone would have needed to question it, if strays are taken and used who would know and ask them to be accountable?
>

As I understand it in the UK all experiments involving animals have to go before an ethics committee for a licence.
To be honest, I can't see any ethical difference between stray and abandoned animals and those bred for the purpose.  

I can't see any ethical difference between stray and abandoned animals and those bred for the purpose

I'm not against animal studies/experimentations of course it is needed, I don't like the thought of it, really don't like the thought of it,  but I know animals are mostly treated with dignity and care under our many acts in the UK.

Logically what you say is correct the unwanted puppy farmed dogs, the dogs abandoned by haphazard owners to many there may not be a difference particularly to those who run the studies a dog is a dog and a cat is a cat! But I do see an ethical difference Stooge an abandoned/stray dog has had a different life to those purposely bred, before you say it yes, some may well have had horrible lives the puppy farmed dogs for inst, but that to me would make it all the sadder for them to then become guinea-pigs (sorry guineas :-D) it turns my stomach.

Most people do not like the thought of what goes on, but we turn a blind eye to it as the dogs/cats/animals used have never been pets in the sense of what we regard a pet to be. It makes it easy. But dogs brought in from elsewhere and us knowing about it, that makes it different.

It is worth thinking what if one of our dogs is stolen and the chip removed then re-homed and abandoned ending up being picked up for a study/experiment could anyone bare that to happen to their dog?

If it's not acceptable to use my dog then it isn't to use others who may also have started off as household pets, I don't work in the field so I think like a pet owner not a scientist so I can let my heart rule my head in this inst. :-)

That is one way of looking at things but perhaps another is to consider that these dogs are here and it could negate the need to breed yet more just for the purpose so you end up with two dogs instead of one having a less than happy life before, probably, the same fate of early extinction.

Your point does make perfect sense, why breed more, when there are un-homed dogs that could be used instead many who may well be pts. But, I can't help it......... it just rests really uneasy with me.

Your point does make perfect sense, why breed more, when there are un-homed dogs that could be used instead many who may well be pts.

That's all very well,

But what if it's YOUR "unhomed/stray dog",  who you delivered at birth yourself,  who is so trusting and loving,  who you haven't been able to find within the time frame despite doing everything you possibly can to find, that is now being used for experimentation?    What then?

Chips can and do stop working, often 'rescues' or dog wardens don't even look for a tattoo :(   And if there was some kind of remuneration for these animals...

Yes, not a very nice thought but you are back to considering whether that fear justifies breeding more when there are others already destined to be destroyed anyway.  I'm not sure it is.

Your point does make perfect sense, why breed more, when there are un-homed dogs that could be used instead many who may well be pts. But, I can't help it......... it just rests really uneasy with me.

Couldn't have said it better.

Sir Ming wants me to reply to him to say whether or not I'm happy with Ms May's reply....." gulp"

I think some people have gone a bit astray here..

For the very VAST majority of all scientific research, you would need animals bred for the purpose with known histories, animals for disease research for example, must have a known medical background so you know they have never had any relevant diseases before - or they would render the results invalid.. animals for psychological research, you need to be sure that animal hasn't been taught something else before (or you need to know WHAT that animal has learned previously).

All these things mean that stray, feral, lost animals are  NOT suitable.

What they MIGHT be necessary for is looking at disease control amongst feral or wild populations, which only happens when we get an outbreak of something like foot and mouth or bird flu and even THEN its highly unlikely that feral/stray/lost animals would be of any use, but it means that IF its necessary, it can be done.

I am pretty certain that to take animals out of pounds and rescues, and off their owners, you would need to pass specific law in the event of a national emergency, otherwise no one is obliged to hand over or sell their animal for such purposes. (Now whether there are some pounds and rescues who would willingly sell ON animals for such purposes IS another matter and not one particularly relevant to THIS legislation).

Yes, not a very nice thought but you are back to considering whether that fear justifies breeding more when there are others already destined to be destroyed anyway.

No

It makes me think I'd be better off putting to sleep my animals now rather than risk them falling into the hands of the type of people who would do this to them.     As it stands, without the risk of them going for animal testing they would stand a good chance of being rehomed.  Once it is allowed for strays to be tested on there would be far less chance of them being rehomed at all :(   Once testing on strays becomes common place then the need for it is likely to increase simply because of the ready availability of stray animals :(

The sad fact is that there are alternatives to using animals for research.  They don't even provide reliable results as their physiology is quite different to ours.   There are things that we can eat (grapes or chocolate for example) that are poisonous to dogs.  There are things that dogs can tolerate that would kill a human.    The only reason aniikmals are still ui8sed is that they are relatively cheap and easily available :(

> If it's not acceptable to use my dog then it isn't to use others who may also have started off as household pets, I don't work in the field so I think like a pet owner not a scientist so I can let my heart rule my head in this inst. :-) <IMG class=qButton title="Quote selected text" alt="Quote selected text" src="/images/mi_quote.gif">

I would take this statement one step further and say if it's not acceptable to use my dog then it isn't acceptable to use any dog-- whether he started off as a household pet or was bred specifically for the purpose-- never having seen anything outside a cage or felt the grass beneath his feet-- what a miserable existence. All dogs have the same potential to have a life, and all suffer equally. There is no need to use animals in vivisection. There is a lot of evidence that shows that scientists' obsession with using animals as "models" for humans has done a lot more harm than good to the advancement of science.There is no place for this torture in the 21st Century.

I'd like to know that a drug used to treat my dog/s had been tested on dogs, and wasn't just some chemist's pipe-dream.

> Once it is allowed for strays to be tested on there would be far less chance of them being rehomed at all

I doubt very much that would ever figure, there are thousands of dogs put down for the lack of a home.

>There are things that we can eat (grapes or chocolate for example) that are poisonous to dogs.&nbsp; There are things that dogs can tolerate that would kill a human.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Yes, but there is very much more that we do have in common and some of the testing will be for veterinary use.

There's a lot more to vivisection and the horrors inflicted on animals than a bit of drug testing.

I am by no means a whole hearted supporter of animal testing, I think we should be making much bigger efforts to find alternatives...

BUT - my GOD there is a lot of ignorant twaddle being talked here, really!

Firstly, there is a LOT of relevant information to be found from animal testing - it is NOT purely done because it is cheap - you and possibly more relevantly, your PETS, benefit from animal testing whenever you go to the vets or the drs.

There is not going to be a sudden change from animals being bred for testing, to using stray, homeless, unwanted animals, as I have already explained, they are not suitable for the majority of experiments and procedures

You cannot suddenly MAKE them suitable, if a procedure requires the animals history to be documented from birth, its breeding to be known and specific, then that is the requirement, you can't change that and make stray animals suitable.

Most procedures and experiements DO need that - that is WHY animals are bred by laboratories for their experiments or bred by specific establishments that meet certain criteria - thats why you won't ever find an outfit trying to buy in mice to use for testing purposes from say, me (I breed mice), because my mice WONT fulfill their specific criteria.

How much use do you think a stray dog would actually be, when you don't know its medical history, you don't know what surgery it may have had, you don't know if it has had any injuries in the past... I can tell you, basically, NO use at all.

The only time I have heard of unwanted dogs being used for any sort of educational veterinary purposes, was greyhounds being sold to vet schools to be used for surgical practice (under anaesthetic, and then euthanised without waking them up) - there was (rightly) a huge outcry about it and as far as I am aware (and I know a fair few vets) it is not and never was common practice.

Even so, that is still a FAR cry from what people are envisioning here, which is just NOT going to happen!

>There's a lot more to vivisection and the horrors inflicted on animals than a bit of drug testing.

I'm aware of that - but the drug testing is vital.

> How much use do you think a stray dog would actually be, when you don't know its medical history,

Less use admittedly but as you say not all testing requires a full medical history.  Nor should you get carried away by the medical history thing :)  No laboratory animal is going to be kept in a fully sterile enviroment and will be exposed to different factors from his brother in the next cage.

>The only time I have heard of unwanted dogs being used for any sort of educational veterinary purposes, was greyhounds being sold to vet schools to be used for surgical practice (under anaesthetic, and then euthanised without waking them up) - there was (rightly) a huge outcry about it.

Presumably these dogs were destined to be put to sleep anyway, or worse.   Now, I suppose vets just learn their skills on peoples pets.

Zan it depends on what is being tested and studied rats and mice are generally used in finding antidotes and cures for viruses, plagues, disease and hereditary conditions, cancers, aids etc due to their genetics.

Most of us have seen vivisection horrors, I always remember that poster of the cat being tested for it's pain threshold when I was younger, I'm not even going to pretend that animals have not been put through terrible pain because they have. Although the laws on this have been tightened up, I also believe it probably still goes on....

But JG is right everything has to be checked for its safety for our domestic animals and livestock, just as everything that we may use or take from tablets to injections it has all had to at one point be guaranteed for its safety and known side effects.

I do not like animal testing, I just try not to think about it too much, as I know it is a necessity if things are to be deemed safe. Medicine has progressed, we cannot go backwards, we continue to find cures and understand the mind and body more and more and this is one of the ways in how it is done, maybe as we continue to evolve and progress technology wise we will eventually find other ways as we are already, but I dare say that will be a long time in the future and it will only happen due to the data we've accomplished prior.

I'm ok with what happens in a lab stays in a lab with lab bred animals. (Under strict guidelines) Because IMO we have to be......

Taking animals from outside of that environment and deciding their fate IMO always leads to bad things when one group is decided not to be as important as another we know how that goes, we also know how some humans love power and being the first to discover things and we know how that goes too, IMO we should never allow any group to be rounded up and deemed suitable for testing reminds me of a man with a german accent and mustache not so long ago............

Unless there is a real emergency it should never be thought of as ok to do that.

How much use do you think a stray dog would actually be, when you don't know its medical history, you don't know what surgery it may have had, you don't know if it has had any injuries in the past... I can tell you, basically, NO use at all.

I'm not disagreeing with this comment at all, I know it to be true, but it makes me wonder what sort of experiments are done on stray's in the US, where stray's are bought by lab's for testing ?, LD 50 perhaps ?

http://www.whale.to/a/fox.html

This is the first link that came to mind, but anyone interested should read some of the work of Dr Ray Greek.

Possibly, and is it just medical or is it cosmetic/chemical type stuff - because the latter is not what is being talked about here in the UK (for example some companies will test the same products or combinations of products that have already been tested.. again and again).

The UK has by far the most stringent rulings on what testing can and cannot be done - thats not to say it couldn't be MORE stringent of course.

> when one group is decided not to be as important as another we know how that goes

But you are doing that as well by saying dogs bred for the purpose are different to those that were once perhaps a pet. 
I don't think I would go anywhere near so far as to compare you with Hitler though :)

> The UK has by far the most stringent rulings on what testing can and cannot be done - thats not to say it couldn't be MORE stringent of course.

Yes, so I don't think the fears that this sudden extra supply could allow scientist to get carried away is at all well founded.

I don't think there is anyway they could get carried away as the process that institutions go through to get funding is quite robust.

I do think though there is an very big issue about not knowing the back ground of a dog and what they have been subjected to.

If you were using humans you could get a very good medical and environmental exposure background.

Strays you wouldnt have donut does pose a significant risk to the results

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/10/animal-experiments-increase-buav-outrage_n_1661541.html?1341925973

They don't need to start using strays to increase the number of experiments-- they are doing more and more all the time, with no attempt at reduction. Numerous experiments are duplicated over and over again. The misery endured by these animals is awful.

But you are doing that as well by saying dogs bred for the purpose are different to those that were once perhaps a pet. 
I don't think I would go anywhere near so far as to compare you with Hitler though :-)

Best compliment I've had all year! :-D

Your right I am grouping purpose bred lab animals as it being ok to experiment on, in effect I'm also choosing a group :-( but it's what I can live with, we all have our different cut off points for what we count as our morals and ethics, which is why it should just stay in the lab and not involve animals outside (unless an emergency) so that people like me don't know what goes on......... as I don't want to.

> If you were using humans you could get a very good medical and environmental exposure background.

To a point, but we are also exposed to things that we are unaware of or simply don't remember.  Some of these things can be revealed by blood tests for antibodies for example but this would also be the case for an animal.

I think everyone should be as informed as possible about everything that affects them so it is simply not good enough to say you don't want to know. To me it is really weird to think that it is okay to experiment on a dog who has been bred purposefully for experimentation, and who therefore has had no life at all, simply an existence. I cannot help but put myself in that dog's place and feel the misery of its existence. A dog with the potential to love life as much as my own dogs. It makes it no better to me, in fact I think it is maybe worse, that this poor being has come into this world and has been denied any sort of life at all.

I cannot help but put myself in that dog's place and feel the misery of its existence.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't know, we are not scientists we are not helping the human race or every domestic animal etc to be cured from terrible diseases, viruses, cancers, plagues etc, you show me pictures of animals suffering and it will make me outraged, probably tearful, but I'm wrong to want to stop a scientist from doing work to help cure and save.

Whether we like it or not it is a necessity, I'm not saying it is not abused at times I think that depends on the person running things, but there are plenty of laws and groups keeping an eye on things.

Legally everything we use has to be tested so that we know it is not going to destroy our organs or burn us etc.  IMO, If experiments are being done as humanly as possible we need to keep out of it as most of us wouldn't have the stomach for the job.

Ok you are being emotive and understand why.

I am the same however I have a different way of taking the emotive bit out of my own personal argument .

I had the privilege ( I say that in the most positive way ) to be able to have time over a few months to meet and be given a full explanation and tour of what is  a reputable ( this is one of the top 5 institutions in the world ) animal testing units.

It is far from the PETA version of what happens.

I for one absolutely support these places that to me do crucial studies and I am so thankful for the advances in medicine that I have seen in my lifetime .

I can't agree that it is a necessity. I think animal experiments are holding up scientific advances, not helping matters. The laws are weak, even in the UK where they are probably as good as it gets, and the "groups keeping an eye on things" are denied access to everything except the most mild and sanitised stuff. A guided tour round one establishment, carefully prepared for the outsider's eye, does not tell the whole story. I have had to watch hours of undercover video, and video from the scientific establishment itself and it will be with me always. Oh, and I am not talking about PETA here.
This is too big a subject for this forum so I won't go on and on, but I hate to see people burying their heads in the sand while comforting themselves that everything is okay because it is a necessity and must be being done "humanely". There are a lot of scientists who say it is not necessary, and most of what goes on is impossible to call humane.  Dogs are dogs, whether they are your pet or a beagle bred to be killed.

I can't get my head around how many people discussing this appear to think that it would be OK to use stray pets for animal testing and all that entails, yet when the RSPCA used captive bolts to kill German Shepherds a while back it was deemed beyond the pale.  

Just because our view of animal testing is sanitised by those who wish to continue it, and justified by those very same people, doesn't mean that it's the right way to carry on.   There is money to be made by testing on animals  and where money is involved ethical behaviour often comes a poor second :(

> yet when the RSPCA used captive bolts to kill German Shepherds a while back it was deemed beyond the pale

I am not sure that was the same people, certainly not in my case.  However, not sure you can compare the two as you would have to look at the justification in each case seperately.

>There is money to be made by testing on animals&nbsp; and where money is involved ethical behaviour often comes a poor second :-(

Not sure there is money to be made in testing animals.  I am sure there is money to be made from the results of those tests but then we all benefit too when that drug or whatever comes to market.  They make no profit unless they find or develop something that is of benefit to us and can therefore be marketed.
If there were no profits to be made who would take on the huge expenditure of scientific research some of which will never be of any financial use?
I am also sure without the checks and balances we have under the licencing rules we would see ethics go out the window but we have them and against the risks that may remain we have to consider whether we would not want more research, more exploration of what there is out there in science for the benefit of all.

>They make no profit unless they find or develop something that is of benefit to us and can therefore be marketed.

If only this were true.   The sad fact is that the people who propose and conduct the tests get paid regardless of whether the results lead to something useful.  Otherwise they would not be able to continue, no-one works for free.

Whilst animals are so readily available and allowable for research, there is less incentive to develop and adopt alternative methods of research which surely should be a priority.  

> The sad fact is that the people who propose and conduct the tests get paid

Who pays them? 

> regardless of whether the results lead to something useful.&nbsp;

Well, that's the nature of research.  You start with a theory but you can never be sure it will be found to be correct.  You wouldn't need the research if you already the facts!

In my own view,there's research and then there's research, some necessary, and some not, it's the stuff that's not, that concern's me the most.

Some experiment's I have read about are truly horrific, and i hope to hell they weren't true, as quite frankly, whoever ( potentially ) thought them up, need's help, these were experiment's done some time ago admittedly.

I also don't agree with the continued testing of the effects of smoking on animal's, isn't there already enough data out there ?.

> In my own view,there's research and then there's research, some necessary, and some not

That's why it is good when it is done in the UK as we, at least, have a licencing system which requires the parties wishing to do the research to justify it to an independent ethics committee.