Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree, and I will speak a little about that later.

Modern, non-animal methods give the best possible chance of securing medical progress, since they are not hampered by translating from one species to another. An estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials, even though they had passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Just over 30% of those that pass are subsequently re-labelled with warnings of side effects not predicted by animal tests, and almost 10% are completely withdrawn from the market.

New non-animal methods, based directly on human biology, include the use of computer modelling and organ-on-a-chip technology, which can be much more relevant to the human body. I went on lab trip recently with the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research to visit the Animal Replacement Centre of Excellence at Queen Mary University of London, and I saw in person the pioneering work that is being done to provide medical breakthroughs without the use of animals.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a bit of a disconnect between the scientific possibility of non-animal alternatives and what is happening on the ground? For decades, there have been suggestions of ways that we can use non-animal alternatives, yet we are not using them. Will she also commend the work of Cruelty Free International, which is producing a new list that explains exactly how we could switch from one type of experiment to the other?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, and I will speak about that in a minute.

A study published in Communications Medicine found that the non-animal liver-on-a-chip device was able to correctly identify 87% of drugs that carried a risk of liver toxicity in humans, despite having passed through animal safety tests. Another example is research at Edge Hill University, where scientists are developing a human cell model of the blood-brain barrier to study the link between irregular heartbeat and an increased risk of brain damage, stroke and dementia. Normally, large animals such as dogs would be used to study heart disease. This work will be relevant to patients and will provide a real case for phasing out testing on dogs.

Comprehensive analysis in a paper authored by Dr Jarrod Bailey found that dogs are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans and that, when considering whether a compound should proceed to testing on humans, the predictions that dogs can provide are little better than those that could be obtained by chance or tossing a coin. A simple example is that some foods, such as grapes and chocolate, are poisonous to dogs, and some drugs that are safe for humans, such as ibuprofen, are highly toxic to dogs, even in small doses.

Animals are used in research because of their genetic similarity to humans, yet although we share up to 98% of our DNA with some animals, the small yet important differences make us distinct. There are many historical examples of deadly drugs that appeared safe in animal tests: thalidomide was tested safely on animals, but caused severe birth defects in thousands of babies, and the painkiller Vioxx was linked to thousands of heart attacks and deaths, despite cardio-protective results obtained in animal tests, including on dogs.

The current approach to alternatives to animal testing is to fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research—more commonly known as the three Rs. However—in relation to the point made earlier—there is little funding for non-animal methods. The all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science estimated that human-relevant, non-animal method funding

“represents between 0.2% and 0.6% of total biomedical research funding in the UK and ~0.02% of the total public expenditure…on R&D.”

Creative Industries

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who is an excellent chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, even when she is telling me off for going over my allotted time.

Growing up in Manchester in the ’90s, I saw at first hand how culture can breathe new life into a city struggling with the aftermath of deindustrialisation. In the face of economic decline, it was community cinemas, street art and independent venues that became the beating heart of Manchester city centre. Spaces like Canal Street flourished, not just as a hub for Manchester’s LGBT community, but as part of a vibrant city centre that reflected the city’s cultural and inclusive spirit—all powered by the music, creativity and diversity that defined our nightlife scene. I am giving away my age.

That scene was accessible to me, as I grew up in Salford, right in the area that MediaCity now calls home. The BBC’s move marked the largest relocation of any public sector organisation outside London this century. Since then, Salford has seen a remarkable 142% growth in employment in the creative and digital sectors, along with a 70% increase in the number of digital and creative businesses. MediaCity stands as a powerful example of how the creative industries can deliver both economic and social benefits to local communities. That experience shaped my belief in the transformative power of culture to regenerate communities and drive economic revival. Culture turned the tide for Manchester, and I believe that today’s generation deserves that same opportunity.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

South Side Studios in Leighton Buzzard repurposes vacant spaces on the high street, which brings people to the high street. We also have the Peppercorn team, who want a cultural and heritage centre, which would bring people into the town centre. Does my hon. Friend agree that cultural industries can bring growth to not just cities, but our market towns as well?

[Jo Platt]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on an issue that I will come to. I think the Government will be focused on that change. For the Labour Government, this is a pivotal moment—a chance to make culture truly accessible for all, and to ensure that communities like mine in Leigh and Atherton experience culture as a driving force for positive change.

I have spoken many times in the Chamber about my previous role at Leigh Spinners Mill—I am sick of sending it copies of Hansard, as it costs me a fortune in postage—but by revitalising a once dormant 100-year-old cotton mill, we created a thriving creative hub where artists, musicians and creative businesses could set themselves up. It proves that towns like mine are full of rich, creative talent. That effort mirrors the important work done by the Music Venue Trust, which is dedicated to creating spaces where grassroots music can flourish. One such example is the Snug in Atherton, which has become a cornerstone of the town’s nightlife, playing a crucial role in revitalising the town centre over the years. We see there a model of local ownership and community-driven success, which aligns perfectly with Labour’s vision and the values of co-operatives. It fosters local empowerment and ensures that communities can take ownership of their spaces and their futures.

However, as much as we celebrate these successes, we must acknowledge the challenges facing the creative industries. Grassroots creative artists—particularly in towns like Leigh—have often felt left behind, and too many talented individuals feel overlooked by the larger cultural institutions, and excluded from the opportunities that they deserve.

I welcome the Minister’s comments, and his focus on the creative industries. He is putting them at the heart of the forthcoming industrial strategy, which will play a key role in the Government’s plan for change. I am not under the illusion that we will get some huge financial institution investing in Leigh, creating thousands of jobs—that is not going to happen. What we need is growth in our existing industries, and the many creative industries that keep our small towns working. We need to reassess funding models, rethink policy frameworks and build stronger educational pipelines to ensure that everyone, regardless of background or postcode, can access careers in culture, media and sport.

I would like to ask the Minister about the introduction of a well-publicised proposal that could be a game changer for visual artists: the smart fund. That initiative, backed by creative industry organisations, could unlock the economic potential of the sector by creating new support mechanisms for freelance artists and the wider visual arts sector. That would be a vital step towards bringing the UK into line with other countries, and ensuring that creators from all backgrounds have the support that they need to thrive.

It is essential that any funding reaches grassroots artists and organisations—those working in town centres and local communities. I am passionate about creating the physical and financial space for the creative industries to flourish, not just in cities, but in smaller towns like Leigh and Atherton. The impact of nurturing local talent cannot be overstated. It brings people together, creates jobs and builds stronger communities. I am sure that the Government are working hard to address the challenges facing the creative industries, including funding issues, the threat of AI and skills shortages. This is about more than just jobs or culture; it is about building stronger, more connected and more vibrant communities across our country.