Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the ethical implications of the projects (1) ‘Neuronal Basis of Somatosensorial and Pathological Pain’, and (2) ‘Spinal circuits underlying pain sensation’ included in the Home Office report Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Non-technical summaries for project licences granted January – March 2026 that require a retrospective assessment, published on 11 June; in particular in relation to the impacts on mice used in the projects and why so many mice have were used.

These projects sit within the Government’s broader strategy to support research that advances the understanding of major public health challenges. The non-technical summaries explain that most animals used in the Spinal circuits underlying pain sensation project are expected to experience effects below the legal threshold for a regulated procedure or mild adverse effects, with a smaller proportion expected to experience moderate or severe effects. For the Neuronal Basis of Somatosensorial and Pathological Pain project, the majority of animals are expected to experience mild or moderate adverse effects. These anticipated harms were considered as part of the harm-benefit analysis undertaken before the licences were granted. The licence applicants estimated animal numbers based on previous experience of conducting similar research, statistical advice and established experimental design tools, including National Centre for the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) resources.

All project licence applications under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) are assessed by medically or veterinary qualified inspectors within the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU). Under ASPA, no project can be granted without a harm-benefit analysis, where an ASRU inspector makes a rigorous assessment of the scientific rationale for the programme of work and must be satisfied that the harms of the proposed project are justified by the likely benefits. Inspectors also assess the appropriateness of the scientific methods proposed and whether the legal requirements of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) have been met. This means that animal use cannot be approved if a practicable non-animal alternative exists, the number of animals used must be the minimum necessary to achieve the objectives of the research, and procedures must be refined to reduce pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm.

This Government has also committed to the long-term goal of phasing out animal testing in science and research in all but exceptional circumstances. In November 2025, the Government published Replacing animals in science: a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods, backed by £75 million in funding.