---

Ministry of Defence

Answer

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the procedures used in the peritonitis experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down; if the pigs were anaesthetised; and what measures were taken to protect the pigs' welfare; [142130] (2) if he will publish the cost/benefit analysis applied to the peritonitis experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [142129] Dr. Moonie: [holding answer 13 December 2000]: No formal financial cost/benefit analysis has been applied to the work involving pigs to study the potential benefit of treatment with pentoxifylline following septic shock initiated by haemorrhage and peritonitis at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at Porton Down. However, balancing `cost' to the animal and the likely scientific benefits to mankind is a pivotal consideration. This research was part of an ongoing programme to improve the treatment of military casualties injured by weapons. Haemorrhage was induced by the withdrawal of 40 per cent. of the blood volume and peritonitis by the placement of known quantities of bacteria on a small quantity of sterile faeces within the abdomen. The animals were then resuscitated (blood volume increased) with intravenous fluids, and pentoxifylline was administered. The pigs were anaesthetised throughout all procedures and never allowed to regain consciousness. The anaesthetised pigs were monitored for 24 hours and those still alive at the end of this period were culled while still under anaesthesia. As a standard veterinary practice prior to anaesthesia, the pigs were allowed access to water but denied access to food for 12 hours. All of these procedures were carefully monitored by a veterinary surgeon. All work with animals undergoes an Ethical Review Process and has to demonstrate that as much as possible has been done to replace the procedures with alternatives not using living animals, to reduce numbers of animals used in particular studies, and to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm prior to the issue of licences to undertake work. In this particular case, reduction was achieved by minimising the numbers of animals used through focused experimental design; the work was terminated when the specific scientific question of the effect of the drug had been answered. The results were published in `Resuscitation', a peer-reviewed scientific journal. All work is also undertaken in accordance with the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is overseen by the Home Office.

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

360 c180-1W; 142130;142129

Session

2000-01

Subjects

Animal welfare Animal experiments Cost benefit analysis Pigs Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Porton Down (Wiltshire)

Legislation

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Contains statistics

Yes

Link

View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk