Skip to main content

ANIMAL TESTING OF DRUGS

EDM (Early Day Motion) 92A1: tabled on 25 July 2006

Tabled in the 2005-06 session.

This motion has been signed by 17 Members. It is an amendment to an existing motion.

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

This is an amendment to an existing motion

This motion was originally tabled by Mr Mike Hancock on 17 May 2005. This is amendment number 1.

View details of the original motion

Suggested amendment

leave out from `House' to end and insert `is concerned about any unnecessary suffering of animals and insists on the toughest possible regulation of medical research using animals to the highest possible welfare standards and only where other effective options are not available; recognises however that medical research using animals is currently both essential and valuable; believes that efforts should be directed at the 3Rs - refining techniques to reduce suffering, replacing animals with non-animal techniques when these become available and reducing as far as possible the number of animals used; notes that complaints against claims made by Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP) that harm is posed to humans through animal experimentation methods have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority; further notes that the polling organisation which asked GPs their views on animal testing has disassociated itself from the interpretation put on the poll by EMP; and notes there have already been numerous independent inquiries into animal research and its efficacy including by a House of Lords Select Committee, the Animal Procedures Committee and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, all of which have concluded that the use of animals in medical research and drug safety testing is valid and, at present, necessary.'.

Original motion text

That this House, in common with Europeans for Medical Progress, expresses its concerns regarding the safeguarding of public health through data obtained from laboratory animals, particularly in light of large numbers of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions that were not predicted by animal studies; is concerned that the Government has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments, and has no plans to do so; and, in common with 83 per cent. of general practitioners in a recent survey, calls upon the Government to facilitate an independent and transparent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research.

The first 6 Members who have signed to support the motion are the sponsors. The primary sponsor is generally the person who tabled the motion and has responsibility for it. The date shown is when the Member signed the motion.

In addition to the sponsors, the following Members have signed to support the motion.

There are no withdrawn signatures for this amendment.