Animals being tortured at research laboratory East Lothian, SC (UK) Incident Date: Friday, Dec 31, 2004 Disposition: Acquitted Person of Interest: Inveresk Research Laboratory

Case ID: 7848 Classification: Mutilation/Torture Animal: dog (non pit-bull), captive exotic, rodent/small mammal (pet) View more cases in SC (UK) Login to Watch this Case

A laboratory in the Lothians which was at the centre of an investigation into allegations of animal cruelty has been cleared of any wrongdoing. A report by animal rights group Animal Defenders International (ADI) in 2005 sparked the Home Office investigation into whether Inveresk Research - which does tests for some of the world's biggest drugs companies - had breached its animal testing licence conditions by carrying out tests on dogs, rats and monkeys.

The report included images of dogs restrained by harnesses with masks over their noses and a monkey clamped down so its head couldn't move, allowing gases to be pumped into its lungs.
ADI also alleged that several beagles had a toxic drug mistakenly pumped into their lungs, causing an agonising death, while in another experiment, rabbits were said to have breast implants inserted into the muscles on their backs.

But the Home Office said today that the laboratory tests carried out on animals at the lab in Elphinstone, East Lothian, were licensed, and it had no further concerns about the tests. However, ADI today said the Home Office was not given details of individual tests carried out on animals, only the chemicals being tested, so would not have seen details of the cases described in the welfare group's report. Much of the information requested by ADI about the licences was exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, because of the threat from radical groups such as the Animal Liberation Front. However, the Home Office said it was important there was more transparency about the regulation of animal testing. It agreed to release some details about the two licences covering the seven experiments listed in the ADI report.

Both licences were for five years, and allowed the company to conduct experiments on "a group of chemicals" to assess toxicology of chemicals and medical or veterinary products. Inveresk was asked to justify its choice of species for testing, and refine its test methods as opportunities arose. Individual tests are not covered by individual licences, and the details about these tests are kept only by the laboratory carrying out the experiments and the companies that commission them. A Home Office spokesman said it had found "no evidence of concern relating to the licensed tests carried out at Inveresk". "It is not usual to comment on specific animal licences, but this is an example where the information has been made public and it was thought appropriate to provide some assurance that the tests were licensed."

Jan Creamer, chief executive of ADI, said: "The Home Office does not retain the details of the individual tests. The licences awarded to Inveresk and others are for tests on groups of chemicals. They do not have exact details of each test. "These are kept by the laboratory and are the property of the lab and the client. We think this is entirely unsatisfactory. "The public would be amazed that the Home Office has no details of animal tests, and would not see the details of tests such as the ones we have described. "The public is always given the impression that animal tests in the UK are tightly controlled, but this is not tight control in our view."

American company Charles River Laboratories, which merged with Inveresk last year, insisted when the report was published that it was committed to humane animal research, and that the company adhered strictly to codes established by the world's leading regulatory authorities. No-one at Inveresk Research International was available to comment.

References

Scotsmen News - February 14, 2006

Not sure what these icons mean? Click here.

Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.

For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.