I know when I think about the rehoming of animals, my immediate thought is the rehoming of pets, especially those who are in rescue centres, who are getting their second chance in their new forever homes. Now, of course, I can’t speak for everyone, and as someone who has rehomed a dog and a hamster, my view may be biased, but I reckon that this is a pretty common definition of rehoming with the general public.

But what about the rehoming of lab animals who have been used in research?

In the UK, we have the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which regulates the use of animals in regulated scientific procedures. Alongside this, there is also the ‘guidance on the operations of ASPA’, which outlines how the legislation is administered and enforced. Within the guidance, rehoming of lab animals after use in procedures isn’t mandatory, but is encouraged. However, the definition isn’t quite as clear-cut as you would think.

It’s all in the meaning

In an ASPA rehoming guidance document, rehoming is defined as ‘the movement of a relevant protected animal from an establishment to any other place that is not another establishment under ASPA’. Whilst this does include rehoming animals to new homes as pets, it also includes several other actions that are a bit more controversial. These include:

• Moving animals to a commercial farm, zoo or aquarium
• Moving animals to a slaughterhouse, or to be killed as a sentinel at a non-licensed laboratory (sentinel animals are used to monitor the health status of animals within a specific group or facility. They are killed in order for their tissues and organs to be analysed at a diagnostic laboratory. They are often killed at the establishment in which they live, but on occasion, they will be sent to the diagnostic laboratory to be killed. Diagnostic laboratories are not always licensed.)
• Moving them to a non-licensed establishment for non-regulated research or to be killed. Sometimes, animals may be bred for use in a regulated procedure, but will ultimately be used for non-regulated research. This can include non-regulated behavioural research at an establishment which does not require an establishment licence. Because they were originally bred for regulated research purposes, they must pass through the rehoming framework.
• Transferring them to a research establishment abroad

Including all of these actions under ‘rehoming’ is incredibly misleading. Rehoming implies that they have been removed from the research system, yet they can be moved to another establishment, as long as it’s not in the UK, or not licensed. Similarly, if we were talking about animals in a rescue centre, nobody would think that they were being sent to another rescue centre, or being sent to be killed, if you were told that they had been rehomed.

Who can be rehomed?

Not all animals who are used in regulated procedures will be eligible for ‘rehoming’. Each project involving animals, and each establishment, sets different provisions, so rehoming is generally considered on a case-by-case basis. Consent must be given by the Home Office to rehome an animal, and is usually written into the licence for the project involving the animal.

Guidance states that animals should only be rehomed if it would be beneficial for their welfare. All animals must also pass a rehoming framework before being moved, to assess their general health, socialisation, severity of procedures they were involved in, risk to human, animal and environmental health, and suitability of the new home, among other aspects.

How do we know who is going where?

Despite re-homing being encouraged, there is no data published on if, or where, animals are rehomed after use in procedures. So the truth is, we have no idea of the number of animals year on year who are successfully rehomed, and where they end up. This is particularly concerning considering the breadth of rehoming destinations.

What should be done?

Firstly, we would like to see information on rehoming collected and published in the annual statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain. This should include:

• The numbers on many animals have been rehomed,
• The specific species who have been rehomed
• Exactly where their final destination is

This would improve public understanding of the meaning of rehoming laboratory animals, and the fate of the animals that are being used. As well, understanding the fate of the animals being rehomed is important when considering the welfare of these animals. If they are rehomed to another research establishment abroad, they may be used in further scientific procedures with added potential to suffer. Increased transparency and data publication in this area is something we have been calling for, and pushing with the Home Office.

As well as data publication, we believe that alternative terms could be used to better reflect an animal’s ‘rehoming’ destination more accurately. For example, ‘discharged’ (from the Act) is a more reflective term that has been used historically within the legislation. Similarly, ‘transferred’ could also be an alternative term. Whilst this wouldn’t change the outcome of where animals end up, it would make it clearer and less misleading.

Ultimately, the best outcome for animals is to not be used in research in the first place, and that remains our priority. But, until then, we believe that greater transparency around what happens to research animals is critically important to achieving our goal.

Did you know how broad the definition of rehoming was for laboratory animals? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this and what you would like to see changed.