andMr. Kitt asked the Minister for Health the total Government grant for medical research during 1975; and the proportion of it expended on research with living animals.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Living Animal Experiments.
17.
Mr. Healey, Mr. L'Estrange, Mrs. Desmond, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Gogan, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Dowling, Mr. Wyse, Dr. Thornley, Mr. Malone, Mr. Moore
The total contribution of £468,000 made by my Department during 1975 for medical research was divided between two bodies.
The grant to the Medical Research Council amounted to £293,000 of which approximately one-third was spent on experiments involving living animals.
£175,000 was paid to the Medico-Social Research Board. None of this money was expended upon research or experimentation involving live animals.
The Parliamentary Secretary made the point that £100,000 was expended on experimentation on live animals. Is that so?
The total contribution was £468,000. The grant to the Medical Research Council was £293,000, of which approximately one-third, that is approximately £93,000, was spent on experiments involving live animals.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary enlighten the House or give us more information on this appalling commentary on current civilisation—£93,000 expended on experimentation involving live animals? Can he tell us the form of the experiments, who performed them, what type of animals are involved and the reason for the use of animals in these circumstances?
The answers to some of those questions will come up in the following question.
18.
Mr. L'Estrange, Mrs. Desmond, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Gogan, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Dowling, Mr. Wyse, Dr. Thornley, Mr. Malone, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kitt
andMr. Healyasked the Minister for Health the reason for the very large increase, amounting to 25 per cent, in the number of experiments performed during 1975 under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.
The increase in the number of experiments performed during 1975 under licences granted in accordance with the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 over the number carried out during 1974 was mainly due to—
(1) increased work on cancer research performed by the Medical Research Council, which involved an additional 7,193 inoculations of mice, (2) increased research carried out by the Agricultural Institute for the purpose of control and eradication of brucellosis in cattle, which involved an additional 3,346 inoculations of cattle, and
(3) increased work in connection with pyrogen testing and toxicity testing of drugs which was carried out by the Wellcome Research Laboratories at Trinity College, Dublin and which involved an additional 5,563 inoculations of rodents.
When the Government are giving money for medical research involving live animals, do they write in the condition that such animals must be given an anaesthetic before they are actually experimented on, particularly small animals?
In the case of most of the operations the Deputy will appreciate and agree that very little pain is caused anyway in the inoculation of mice and cattle.
I do not mean cattle so much. I mean smaller animals and experiments carried out on them. In the experimentation on small animals could they not be given an anaesthetic so that they might be saved any pain?
I am quite sure that the medical inspectors would ensure that as little pain as possible was caused in all cases.
Is there any alternative source to the experimentation on mice, cattle and rodents? For instance, what is the end result in the case of mice? Do they die as a result of the inoculation? Is there any alternative to the use of mice in experiments for cancer research?
There is no alternative to the work being done and the usage of living animals at present. One must bear in mind the invaluable results of this research for both humans and animals.
I appreciate that. I am not getting away from the point that I am totally opposed to the idea of using animals in this form of research. What I am asking is if, in the meantime, there are any alternatives to the experimentation on animals? For instance, are dogs used in this form of experimentation? What other types of animals are used in addition to the three categories mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary?
According to my information, those are the only ones used.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us an idea of the hardship, if any, involved on the animals? I understand that the people conducting these experiments would be highly qualified—I am not making any criticism of them. It is the principle involved in using animals.
I want to assure the Deputy and the House that it should be borne in mind that the provision and use of animals for experimentation is a costly and burdensome affair and would not be undertaken if an alternative method or technique was available.
19.
Mr. Healy, Mr. L'Estrange, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Gogan, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Dowling, Mr. Wyse, Dr. Thornley, Mr. Malone, Mr. Kitt,
andMrs. Desmond asked the Minister for Health if, in view of the large increase in the number of experiments on living animals in this country last year and the growing public disquiet over such experiments as well as for economic reasons, he will impress upon the Medical Research Council the urgent need to find, possibly in collaboration with similar bodies abroad, alternative methods and techniques not requiring the use of living animals.
I am not aware that there is growing public disquiet over the number of experiments on living animals in this country. The fact is that the vast bulk of the experiments consist of simple injections in rodents which do not cause significant pain. They do not involve surgical operations. There is no practicable alternative way of doing this work which is of vital significance in the prevention and treatment of disease in humans.
My medical advisers keep themselves fully informed on developments elsewhere in this field.
I do not, therefore, consider it necessary or desirable to devote any of the available funds to research designed to seek alternative methods and techniques.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he does not intend making money available to seek alternative techniques? As a matter of information—and without being contentious about the matter—is it really true that these experiments are confined to mice, rodents and cattle only? Do dogs or other animals come into these experiments or are they confined to the three categories already mentioned?
I thought we had all of these questions before.
I have already told the Deputy that my belief is that they do not.
That they are confined to the three categories?
That is my belief.
20.
Mr. Healy, Mrs. Desmond, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Gogan, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Dowling, Mr. Wyse, Dr. Thornley, Mr. Malone, Mr. Moore, Mr. Kitt
andMr. L'Estrange asked the Minister for Health the number of applications that have been received from 1st January, 1975 to date by his Department for licences under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 in respect of persons or premises; if any of these applications were rejected as having no relevance to the alleviation of suffering or the prolonging or saving of life; and, if so, their number.
From 1st January, 1975 to date 23 applications for licences have been received. Twenty licences have been issued and the remaining three are still under consideration.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us from whom the applications have come? I appreciate that it would be a long list in the context of his reply but could he give us a cross-section of individuals, groups or companies who applied for these licences?
I have not that information with me but, if the Deputy wishes, I can get it for him.
In relation to the matter of making money available for alternative experimentation on animals generally, why have the Government not moneys available to them to seek alternatives to the experimentation on animals?
As I have already told the Deputy, the medical inspectorate keep themselves well informed of techniques used abroad and will use them if and when they think it desirable and in the best interests of the community.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is the efficacy of the techniques found abroad? Quite clearly, there are alternatives to the experimentation on animals in relation to the very important research being conducted.
I have already told the Deputy that if and when they prove to be efficacious they will be used by the Department of Health.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary expand somewhat on the latter part of that question? Were any of these applications rejected as having no relevance to the alleviation of suffering or the prolonging or saving of life and, if so, what number?
Does the Deputy want the reasons why the three applications are being considered?
Yes.
Of the three under consideration one case is being examined to ascertain whether or not the proposed research is original. The qualification of the second applicant for the proposed experiment is being examined. In the third case the additional information regarding the proposed project is being sought from the applicant. The Deputy can take it that those licences are not issued at random.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the word "research" in relation to cancer in animals. What other forms of research are conducted to find out other diseases? Surely it is not confined solely to research on cancer?
No. As I mentioned in an earlier reply even brucellosis in cattle——
Surely there are other forms of experiment carried out, for instance, the effect of smoking on human beings. I would not think that form of experiment is carried out here but certainly it was carried out in England until the Anti-Vivisection Society brought it to the attention of the authorities. Experiments were conducted on dogs over a three-year period. Cigarettes were stuck into the mouths of dogs.
Question No. 21.
I hope that sort of thing is not carried out here.
So do I.
The Parliamentary Secretary is not sure.