With the publication of the 2024 Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain just around the corner, I thought I’d use this month’s blog to reflect on the statistics from previous years, and the work we’ve done to improve the statistics.

What are the statistics, and why do they matter?

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the UK’s animal research legislation, research establishments must collect data on the use of animals in scientific procedures. This is then published by the Home Office in the Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain. The report outlines data including:

• the total number of procedures using protected animals
• the number of procedures carried out for different purposes and research types
• the specific species used
• severity levels of procedures

These statistics are vital for transparency in order to accurately know where and how animals are used in research. As a charity focused on replacing animal use in science, the statistics also help us monitor where animal use is being effectively reduced and replaced, and to see where more needs to be done, and efforts need to be focused on the development of alternatives.

Trends over time

Last year, we saw the publication of the 2023 statistics, with a total of 2.68 million procedures conducted using live animals in Great Britain. This was a decrease of 3% on 2022, and the lowest number of procedures since 2001, which is great news and hopefully a trend that will continue!

Year on year, we tend to see the same areas of research with the highest number of procedures, and the same species being most often used. These are:

• Basic research, usually accounting for around 50% of all experimental procedures.
• Mice, fish, birds, and rats, usually accounting for use in 95% of all procedures (both experimental, and breeding of GA animals.)

These are where we tend to focus our efforts, and why we prioritise our work in basic and applied research. Over recent years, basic research usually accounts for just over 50% of all experimental procedures. Similarly, the most commonly used species have been mice, fish, birds and rats for many years.

The creation and breeding of genetically altered animals generally account for around 50% of total procedures, with even more experimental procedures using GA animals.

What about future statistics?

The annual statistics give an insight into where and how animals are used in scientific research in Great Britain; however, there are definitely opportunities for improvement. So what are some of the areas that we have been pushing for?

Inclusion of data on animals that are bred, but are killed or die before use in a procedure

This is one of the statistics issues that I feel particularly strongly about. There is currently no requirement to record or publish data on animals who are bred, but killed or die before use in a procedure, except for genetically altered or specially protected animals. With no requirement to record this data, it means that a large number of animals are slipping through the system, and not being accounted for, making the overall statistics inaccurate.

Previously, under EU law, the UK collected and published these data. They showed that there were an additional 1.81 million animals bred for scientific procedures but killed or died without use in 2017. Having left the EU the UK is no longer legally bound to publish this information, however not doing so at best compromises the use of the annual statistics to accurately reflect the full scale of animal use and, at worst, is actively misleading the public on the total number of animals involved in all points of research and testing.

As a minimum, the UK should continue the collection and publication of this data every five years, but ideally, it should be included in the current annual statistics publication to more accurately represent the full scale of animal use each year.

As this data has previously been collected and published, the processes to collect it should already exist and be easily re-introduced.

Where most animals are used

Prior to 2021, the type and number of establishments that held a Home Office establishment licence, such as universities, government departments, etc, were recorded. In 2022, the Home Office removed the breakdown of establishment type for the publication, stating that ‘establishment type is not an indicator of the types of procedures carried out and often establishments could be categorised as more than one type.’

Knowing which establishment types hold the highest number of licences and conduct the most procedures is vital for transparency and would also help ensure that frameworks and training to support change can be focused on the correct, specific areas, like universities, for example. Similarly to the animals bred but not used, the collection process for this should already exist, and therefore should be easy to re-implement.

Inclusion of animals that are ‘rehomed’

If you read my last blog, you will already know my thoughts on the ‘rehoming’ of animals in labs. If not, here’s a quick overview of why it should be an important addition to the statistics.

Under the legislation, ‘rehoming’ is defined as several different actions, including being moved to a new home (as a pet, to a farm, to an aquarium or zoo), being transferred to a slaughterhouse, or being moved to another research establishment abroad. As such, this definition is highly misleading, as ‘rehoming’ tends to imply that an animal has been removed from the research system.

Adding information on ‘rehoming’ would improve public understanding of the fate of animals used in research, specifically where they are ‘rehomed’ and the number who are ‘rehomed’. This is particularly vital if they are ‘rehomed’ to another research establishment, where they may be used in further procedures with added potential to suffer.

Improved data collection and auditing

In the past, there have been issues with errors in the statistics, indicating that the data is not being audited properly and bringing into question the validity of the statistics. In 2023, this led to a compliance check that highlighted issues with the current system. Inaccurate statistics make it much harder to not only understand the number of animals used and why, but also makes it more difficult to tackle replacement effectively.

Some improvements have already been made around data collection. For example, the introduction of an online licensing system which has a built-in end-of-year collection system. However, establishments still have to find their own way of keeping data throughout the year. A simple solution that we have been calling for is to implement a system for data to be collected throughout the life of a project licence, instead of only once a year. In terms of improving auditing, engaging auditors externally from establishments and the Home Office would be an effective solution.

Moving forward

We have raised these issues with the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Policy Unit and MPs many times over the years, and will continue to do so. With the 2024 statistics expected soon, we have another opportunity to make sure our calls are heard and change can be made for future publications.

What other data would you like to see in the statistics? You can write to your MP to make sure your voice is heard, and make sure to let us know in the comments!