Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether her Department defines the statutory term scientifically satisfactory under Section 2A of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as being legally dependent upon formal regulatory (a) validation and (b) acceptance by international bodies.

Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), the statutory duty in section 2A requires the Secretary of State to ensure compliance with the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (3Rs principles). In relation to the principle of replacement, the statutory framework requires that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory non‑animal method must be used instead of a regulated procedure.

ASPA does not prescribe in detail how “scientifically satisfactory” is to be assessed. That assessment is a matter of scientific and regulatory judgement, exercised in the context of the statutory framework (including consideration of a harm–benefit analysis and the wider 3Rs principles).

All project licence applications are subject to a rigorous harm-benefit analysis, required under ASPA. The harm-benefit analysis ensures that a project is only granted where a trained Home Office Inspector is satisfied that the likely harms to animals, including pain, suffering, distress and any lasting harm, are justified by the expected benefits for humans, animals or the environment.