Animal suffering ‘not prevented during tests’, court hears
Known by names including Pinocchio, Tweety, Minnie and Beast, it was alleged there had been a failure to take adequate measures to minimise their suffering.
Richard Drabble QC, appearing for the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, accused the British government of failing to enforce adequate controls at Cambridge research laboratories.
The QC criticised the staffing levels and arrangements for monitoring overnight and post-operative care.
The union is seeking judicial review against the home secretary as the person legally responsible nationwide for the “culture of care” for research animals.
The case was launched after the union conducted a 10-month undercover investigation of neuroscience research on marmosets in 2001. It reported that monkeys had the tops of their skulls sawn off, strokes had been induced and the animals were left unattended for up to 15 hours. Some monkeys were found dead in the morning.
When the union complained, the then chief inspector of animal research Jon Richmond was asked to make inquiries.
But Dr Richmond rejected claims that “severity limits” for three licences for experiments should have been set at “substantial” not “moderate”.
Yesterday Mr Drabble argued the British government had been wrong in 2003 to accept the report drawn up by Dr Richmond.
He argued it could be “reasonably concluded that the ‘severity limits’ for the Cambridge licences were not correct”.
It could also be argued the staffing and monitoring arrangements for the animals were so inadequate they were in breach of statutory duties of care under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Parliament’s intention was that a licence holder would provide staffing and make other arrangements “to ensure that animals are adequately monitored so as to prevent or reduce to a minimum pain or discomfort”.
The alternative was to “immediately kill” animals experiencing unacceptable levels of pain.
The hearing continues today.
