Anna Firth: Bad for animals, bad for science and bad for taxpayers

Anna Firth is the former MP for Southend West and is a Trustee director of Animal Free Research UK

As I watch my cavapoo, Lottie, dozing peacefully at my feet, I can’t help but think of Herbie — a 15 year old gentle, sweet-natured beagle bred for laboratory research, but spared by sheer luck, from being used for experiments.  Across the UK, thousands of animals just like him are not so fortunate.

In the week of the inaugural World Animal Free Research Day, I’m proud to join public figures including Pete Wicks, Deborah Meaden, Diane Morgan, Kirsty Gallacher, Russell Kane, Jake Lambert and Pandora Christie in backing Herbie’s Law — a campaign calling for an end to animal testing, particularly on dogs, by 2035.

Spearheaded by the charity Animal Free Research UK, the campaign is named after Herbie — who now stands as a powerful reminder of what is possible when compassion and new science replaces cruelty.

Every minute of every day, six animals are used in research in the UK. Yet, according to a recent report called the Roadmap to Reducing Animal Testing in Preclinical Safety Studies produced by the Food and Drugs Agency in the US, over 90% of new medicines that pass through animal tests don’t work in humans.

In 2023 alone, more than 2.6 million animals were experimented on in UK laboratories — including mice, rabbits, monkeys and dogs.

Among them were 2,500 dogs, subjected to nearly 4,000 procedures — 734 of which were classified as causing moderate or severe harm.

That harm includes the appalling practice of oral gavage, where tubes are forcibly inserted into a dog’s throat — up to three times a day — to deliver substances directly into the stomach.

Beagles are often chosen for these experiments because of their gentle, trusting nature.

Shockingly, nearly 3,000 of these procedures were for regulatory purposes, even though there is no UK law that mandates animal testing.

This is not just an ethical scandal — it’s also a scientific failure.

Despite decades of animal research into conditions like cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes and strokes, none of these tests have resulted in reliable, effective treatments in humans.

In the face of such overwhelming failure, what rationale can possibly remain for inflicting so much pain on animals?

As far back as 1927, Members of Parliament were calling for an end to experiments on dogs, describing them as both unnecessary and cruel.

Yet, nearly a century later, thousands of dogs are still being subjected to invasive procedures — often in the name of drug development.

For a country that proudly calls itself a nation of animal lovers, this is truly abhorrent.

The Labour Government has stated that testing drugs on dogs results in a 96 per cent success rate when applied to humans.

But that figure relies on outdated research and is directly contradicted by more recent, comprehensive analysis.

Studies now show that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans — producing results no better than those that can be obtained by tossing a coin. It’s pure chance.

Far from protecting public health, this outdated approach gives us a false sense of security and slows down the development of vital new medicines. Why? Because dogs — like all animals — are biologically different from humans in crucial ways.

A 2023 review of the Government’s own National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) exposed a systemic failure to uphold the legal duty to replace animals in research wherever possible.

Oversight is largely left to internal Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs) — but these groups, along with the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU), rarely recommend using non-animal alternatives. In effect, the medical research community is marking its own homework — at the animals’ and tax-payers expense.

This lack of accountability is unacceptable — particularly given the influence of powerful pharmaceutical interests.

The Labour Party’s manifesto pledge to “partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing” was welcomed by campaigners and the public — 70 per cent of whom support a ban on animal testing.

But nearly a year later, despite ministerial round-tables, parliamentary debates, and growing public support, no meaningful action has been taken.

Meanwhile, other countries are racing ahead.

The Netherlands has invested €125 million in a Centre for Animal-Free Biomedical Translation — a body fully focused on non-animal science, unlike the UK’s NC3Rs.

In the United States, the FDA Modernisation Act 2.0 has removed the federal requirement for animal testing in drug development, with further legislation already under way to accelerate validation of human-specific models like organ chips.

One such innovation — the Liver Chip developed by US firm Emulate — was able to identify 87% of drugs that would later prove toxic to the human liver, even though all of those drugs had previously passed animal tests.

If the UK fails to invest in technologies like organ-on-a-chip systems and 3D human tissue models, we risk falling behind scientifically — and morally. These methods are faster, safer, and more reliable. They create jobs, attract investment, spare animals immense suffering and save the Government and the tax-payer money.  This is a win–win opportunity for the Government.

Animal suffering for data that is unreliable cannot be justified — especially when we have the tools and knowledge to do better.

As philosopher Immanuel Kant once said: “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”

He was right. As a nation of animal lovers, we should be leading — not lagging.

The science is clear. The ethics are clearer still. It’s time for the UK Government to grasp the nettle and consign the outdated practice of animal testing to the dustbin of history — for Herbie, for the animals still suffering, and for the future of truly humane, effective science.