Home » Bulletin 2005
European Voice article attacks revision of the Directive
EBRA Council member Dr Francois Lachapelle published an opinion article in the authoritative journal European Voice.
European Voice is the primary opinion leader publication for the European institutions. On May 15th it carried a strong article highlighting the dangers of the revision of the Directive on animal experimentation creating excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy.
The article began by pointing out that, "European medical research is still among the greatest in the world. The pharmaceutical industry and small biotechnology companies benefit from research carried out in universities and academic institutes which enables them to make new and better products and to be among the most successful industries in Europe, as well as to improve the health of our fellow citizens. But if some of the ideas coming out of the European Commission and the European Parliament are taken up and implemented, the drift of research centres to other countries – particularly to Asia, already making giant strides in these fields – will be hastened."
It then went on to describe the current proposals to revise the Directive, and commented "But rather than focusing on what these proposals are, have we asked why these changes are needed? Careful analysis of what the existing directive already covers reveals the significant reasons given by the Commission for review: the need to reduce the openness to interpretation, to increase the regulatory nature of the directive and to make ethical review and full authorisation mandatory for every experiment, however small.
Analysis of the significant reasons given by the Parliament for review are concerns about implementation on the current directive, addressing problems with collecting statistics, avoiding differences between member states when they implement the directive, further increasing the level of authorisation needed for all experiments and making ethical review mandatory. This reduction in flexibility, increase in regulatory burden and centralisation of power seem to run contrary to the current political messages from the Commission. It certainly goes against pragmatic and flexible implementation in each country. More regulation will hardly address the Parliament’s concerns on implementation – if that is poor, that should be tackled now."
Dr Lachapell pointed out that competativeness - the current EU zeitgeist - was important to everyone, politicians, industrialists and researcher alike. "The days of sitting in a laboratory figuring out a problem with no idea of its eventual application are long gone, particularly where the use of animals is involved. My thoughts should be on how science helps new treatments, not on the administrative burden that obstructs my work and does little for real animal welfare. So scientists who work with and care for animals hope that the Commission as a whole will take a pragmatic approach to revising the directive. More rules for rules’ sake hinder scientific progress and distract those who care for animals from their jobs. Rules don’t ensure animal welfare, people do. A simpler approach to the forthcoming revision would ensure both animal welfare and competitiveness - there is no reason why the two should be mutually exclusive."