Annual statistics for regulated scientific procedures performed on protected animals 2017

In the UK all experimental work with protected (sentient) animals which has the potential to cause suffering is regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amended Regulations 2012), usually referred to as ASPA. This regulation requires researchers to minimise animal use and harm, and report the numbers of individuals used and severity of the harm they experienced to the Home Office. As a signatory of the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research, Cefas is publishing its statistics on experimental use of animals in 2017.

Cefas 2017: Use of protected animals within scientific procedures

Cefas conducts applied research using fish which aims to: protect wild populations, biodiversity and the environment; and reduce disease and improve welfare in cultured stocks. In support of these aims, in 2017 Cefas used 7,847 fish across sixteen species in scientific procedures that had the potential to cause suffering to the fish. The species used reflect their importance as Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species, and to fisheries, aquaculture and recreational fishing.

Cefas has a strong culture of care, supported by Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies which ensure all animal use is justified. Researchers minimise numbers used via robust experimental designs, and minimise suffering by implementing humane end-points and frequent monitoring. This is reflected in the actual severity levels which fish experience – the vast majority of fish used in 2017 (83.7%) were a mild severity level, reflecting short-term exposure to mild pain, suffering or distress; a further 3.4% were classified as sub-threshold.

Glossary (terms as defined in the Guidance on the Operation of ASPA):

Non-recovery: “Procedures which are performed entirely under general anaesthesia from which the

animal shall not recover consciousness shall be classified as ‘non-recovery’.”

Sub-threshold: “below the level of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm equivalent to that caused by inserting a hypodermic needle according to good veterinary practice”