Analysis… “A fantastic mistake”
BRUSSELS: Portal spoke to LERU secretary general Professor Kurt Deketelaere on the implications of annulling the 2010 directive ‘on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes’.
Professor Kurt Deketelaere © Veerle Van Kerckhove
In 2010, the European Parliament and Council of the European Union adopted fresh EU legislation ‘on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes’. According to the European Commission, Directive 2010/63/EU gives particular focus to the 3Rs, that is ‘to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals used for scientific purposes’.
Other guidelines set down by the EU legislation include provisions for the use of ‘foetuses of mammalian species in their last trimester of development and cephalopods’, ‘animals used for the purposes of basic research, higher education and training’, ‘minimum standards for housing and care’ and a ‘systematic project evaluation requiring inter alia assessment of pain, suffering distress and lasting harm caused to the animals’.
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) ‘Stop Vivisection’ seeks to abrogate Directive 2010/63/EU and urges the Commission to introduce “a new proposal that does away with animal experimentation and instead makes compulsory the use – in biomedical and toxicological research – of data directly relevant for the human species”. According to the League of European Research Universities (LERU), the EU could take several steps back from the progress made in regards to animal welfare if such moves were to take place.
Research university response
Prior to the Commission’s decision in June, Portal gained the views of the university organisation by speaking to Professor Kurt Deketelaere, the secretary general of LERU. Deketelaere outlined his concerns regarding the ECI and the potential implications if a ban on animal testing were to be introduced: “If the Commission decided to withdraw the existing 2010/63/EU Directive, that would be a fantastic mistake that would have enormous consequences for biomedical research in Europe. This is something that we cannot afford to do as a continent.
“The directive was just adopted in 2010 to make sure that animal testing was tackled in a more structured, harmonised way, guaranteeing a level playing field for these kinds of activities throughout Europe, introducing a 3R approach. This helps to ensure that animal research is only done when there are absolutely no other alternatives in order to tackle a number of problems and diseases with which we are confronted within the human and the animal world.”
Members’ thoughts
Portal also asked Deketelaere how members of LERU had responded to the publication of
the ECI: “They have reacted with enormous disbelief in the sense that they say, ‘What are those people talking about? They simply do not know the daily practice in our institutions and research institutes. Maybe they should come and have a look and see what kind of care and what kind of precaution animals are treated with, and which animals are used.’
“At the same time, there is enormous worry that work which has taken enormous amounts of investment – time, financing and resources – may all be in vain, would all have to be stopped, and would all result in nothing. There is an enormous anxiety in our institutions about this, and all of our staff members have asked very explicitly that we speak up loud and clear on this issue.”
Competitiveness
Deketelaere commented that if a ban were to be introduced, Europe’s scientific competitiveness would certainly be harmed, leading to a possible ‘brain drain’ of top scientists to other parts of the world.
“If Europe says it is finished with this kind of activity, then it’s clear that we will see a move of specific research in need of animals to other parts of the world. What is even worse is that it is most likely the people here in Europe, who are absolutely top notch in what they are doing, that will move together with the research. We will not be in the lead of various medical research issues anymore, and we will lose the great people that we have here at the moment in Europe.
“It’s clear that a delay is going to be introduced for tackling and for doing research on issues, which is going to cost the lives of people and animals.”
Testing
In a video posted on the Stop Vivisection website, Professor Jeremy Rifkin, president
of the Foundation on Economic Trends, commented: “For years, governments, corporations and researchers have argued that the testing of animals to assess the risk of chemicals to human health is essential to ensure the wellbeing of our own species. But now new breakthroughs in the field of genomics, bioinformatics, epigenetics and computational toxicology are providing new research tools for studying the impact of toxic chemicals on human health that are far more accurate in assessing the risk of these chemicals to human beings.”
In view of such breakthroughs, Portal asked Deketelaere for his thoughts on the need for vivisection to its current extent or, in some cases, in terms of toxicology studies. “The practice now,” he said, “on the basis of the 2010 directive, and even on the basis of the previous regulation, is that animal testing only takes place when there is no other alternative, and if it is taking place, it is done completely in line with what the directive is saying.
“Certainly in those fields or for those issues in which better scientific alternatives to animal testing have been established, as this directive states, other tools, other instruments, and other practices have to be applied.”
Balancing arguments
Concluding the interview, Portal asked Deketelaere how best the concerns of ECI supporters could be addressed whilst also balancing the need for vivisection research. “At my own organisation,” he replied, “I have absolutely no problem in entering into a debate, holding conferences and discussions, and coming up with best practices and new efforts to look for alternatives; we are already doing that and investing in that.
“My expectation is that there will be a number of announcements that the Commission will make: conferences, best practices and a search for alternatives; that’s all fine for me.
“Let’s put everything that we collect in this way on the table and let’s put that into the review, which will take place by 2017. In a lot of EU member states, this directive has just been implemented and has no practical application yet; there are even member states which are being challenged before the Court of Justice for the wrong and incorrect implementation of the directive. There is still some experience and practice to be gained, which could be very useful for the review.”
The European Commission published its response to the ECI in early June.
Professor Kurt Deketelaere
League of European Research Universities
This article first appeared in the seventh edition of Horizon 2020 Projects: Portal, which is now available .
