It’s always humbling to be made aware of what you don’t know. As regular followers will know, we work quite extensively with university animal research departments to support them in replacing the use of animals where possible. A key part of this is the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB), which reviews all applications for project licenses to use animals. A number of the team have backgrounds in research management and governance, and we are very familiar with the processes and drivers in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

Changes in UK university animal research

In the context of the financial pressures being faced across the Higher Education sector, a number of institutions are looking (again) at how to reduce the costs of animal work. As such there are a number of new arrangements emerging with private sector organisations, including for example contracting to run establishment facilities, or outsourcing research work to other facilities.

Commercial animal research facilities have long been a feature of the regulatory testing space, often providing specialist support and facilities for conducting the animal testing required by safety regulators for household chemicals or new pharmaceuticals. Many conduct in vitro and other tests in addition to their animal work and some are quite active in supporting the development of NAMs; however, we’ve not known them to be such a significant feature of basic animal research in the academic context (as opposed to ‘animal testing‘).

Some questions

This left us with a number of questions about how the arrangements might work, and who (beyond the individual researcher) ultimately has the responsibility to ensure that replacement is being prioritised. The bigger question is, if this is a trend that continues, is it a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing for the replacement of animals in research?

And some answers (but not many)

The answer is that we don’t yet know. The legislation and safeguards (such as they are) that exist to ensure that the 3Rs are implemented apply equally to commercial organisations as to public sector ones. So ostensibly if, for example, a private company is contracted to run a university animal facility, they may then be classed as the “establishment” and would have the same requirements under ASPA to have an establishment license holder, named persons, and an AWERB.

The establishment would also be subject to the same audit process by the Animals in Science Regulatory Unit. However, these arrangements would be dependent on the individual contracts in place, which might differ for different universities, and which are not in the public domain. So will we know who is responsible for what in each instance?

Pros and cons (and many more questions)

In thinking it through I’ve realised that my concerns are maybe more behavioural than structural. So, for example, I find myself ruminating on whether the introduction of a profit imperative changes the likelihood of replacement being effectively implemented. Whilst universities are clearly financially driven, they do not seek to maximise shareholder profit as their prime purpose in the way that a commercial organisation does.

Whilst of course they should be, I wonder whether named persons employed by a company would feel free to raise objections and concerns regarding the replacement of research being brought to that facility? We have had many technical and named staff who support our cause by volunteering with us – would they be free to do that, or would a commercial employer view it as a conflict of interest?

On the other hand, many university animal facilities are in poor repair, and so outsourcing to purpose-built facilities might actually drive up welfare standards. If universities had a choice of providers to deal with, would there be more incentive for those providers to follow best practice, and perhaps also greater repercussions in terms of loss of reputation and future business for license breaches? Would having to contract with an external facility make the true financial cost of animal research more apparent to researchers and others, and thus make it less appealing? There is often an indirect pressure for universities to make use of animal facilities due to the sunk capital invested in them: could releasing that pressure to continue doing things the way we’ve always done “because we’ve put so much money into it and need to make use of our facility”, actually make it easier for researchers to transition away from animal use? Will we see the development of a greater number of larger regional hub facilities, which if seen alongside a divestment of individual institutional animal houses, might be an interesting step on the phase out pathway?

Watch this space

It’s fair to say that there are currently many more questions than answers! Some of these issues are not new and the current changes just cast them in a slightly different light, and some are in truth more nuanced than I’ve presented here, but what we do know is that the motives of powerful stakeholders and the introduction of greater commercial interests in the public sector can have a huge influence on the pace of change, as well as the potential for unintended consequences. The academic research sector is at an interesting point and time will tell whether these newer arrangements we are seeing will be overall positive or negative for replacement, but you can be assured that we will be in there, talking with and working with whoever we need to in order to ensure that the replacement of animals in research is always prioritised.

If you have any insight into the trends mentioned or have a story you’d like to share, do get in touch!