There are two approved factory farms in the UK that supply beagle puppies to the various institutions for testing. These are owned by global company Marshall BioResources who breed a wide range of animals for experiments, including beagles since 1962 and mixed breed hounds since 1988 [Marshall Bio]. The two sites are located in Grimston, Hull and Huntingdon, Cambridge. The beagles may be born in captivity but they are no different to the loving, playful puppies you would be thrilled to welcome into your family.

Beagles are the preferred breed for experiments because of their size, which means they are easy and inexpensive to house. But mostly because beagles are docile, submissive and gentle therefore easier to handle and experiment on. The loving characteristics that make beagles beloved members of our family, also make them vulnerable victims for a life in a laboratory [Beagle Freedom Project].

In 2020, 4340 experiments were carried out on dogs, and 4270 (98%) were beagles [Home Office].

The number of experiments range from around 3500 to 5000 per year. 2014 there were 4600 experiments on dogs, 4643 in 2015, 4932 in 2016, 3847 in 2017, 4481 in 2018, 4314 in 2019 and 4340 in 2020.

Does this look like testing on dogs is being reduced to you?

Dogs in laboratories are kept in barren steel cages, often alone. In the UK, 99% of all experiments on dogs are falsely claimed able to predict the responses of human patients, in safety testing and disease research. The latest Home Office statistics show that in 2020, 67% of experiments on dogs were for the gavage, or force-feeding procedure, where dogs are force-fed chemicals every day, for up to 90 days, with no pain relief or anaesthetic. The dogs are killed at the end of these experiments. Shockingly, this gavage procedure is only classified as 'mild suffering' by the Home Office. These force-feeding procedures are claimed able test the toxicity of new human medicines, but scientific studies consistently show that these toxicity testing experiments fail to predict human responses 70% of the time. [1] Any remaining correlation is sheer random chance, not a scientific method: a 30% success rate is worse than guessing, or tossing a coin, to decide the path for a life-saving human medical outcome. The remaining percentage of experiments on dogs are categorised as basic research, or curiosity driven research, where researchers claim the experiments may be able to shed light on finding cures for human diseases. Today, this claim is widely opposed by experts publishing in the peer reviewed scientific literature, including by the British Medical Journal, [2] the Food and Drug Administration, [3] the US-based National Cancer Institute [4]and by experts publishing in the pharmaceutical industry. [4]

The public is denied access to official information, due to section 24 of the ASPA, described below, which makes it illegal to disclose what goes on behind closed doors. However, there are many undercover films showing what happens to dogs in laboratories, the most recent of which was published in the Daily Mirror in June and September 2021. These Mirror articles exposed harrowing footage showing the shocking fact that dogs are factory farmed, right here in the UK, specifically for the purpose of experiments which are now widely reported to be also failing the search for human treatments and cures. The latest Home Office statistics show that in 2020, 67% of experiments on dogs were for the gavage, or force-feeding procedure, where dogs are force-fed chemicals every day, for up to 90 days, with no pain relief or anaesthetic. The dogs are killed at the end of the experiments. Shockingly, this gavage procedure is classified as 'mild suffering' by the Home Office. There is no question that the dogs suffer during the intensive conditions in which they are bred, and during the experiments to which they are subjected.

In the UK, 99% of all experiments on dogs are claimed able to predict the responses of human patients, in safety testing and disease research. The latest Home Office statistics show that in 2020, 67% of experiments on dogs were for the gavage, or force-feeding procedure, where dogs are force-fed chemicals every day, for up to 90 days, with no pain relief or anaesthetic. The dogs are killed at the end of the experiments. Shockingly, this gavage procedure is classified as 'mild suffering' by the Home Office. These force-feeding procedures are claimed able test the toxicity of new human medicines, but studies consistently show that such toxicity testing experiments fail to predict human responses 70% of the time. [1] Any remaining correlation is sheer random chance: a 30% success rate is worse than guessing, or tossing a coin, to decide a the path of a life-saving human medical outcome. The remaining percentage of experiments on dogs are categorised as basic research, or curiosity driven research, where researchers claim the experiments may be able to shed light on finding cures for human diseases. Such experiments include cardiac, neurological, respiratory and dental procedures. Dogs may be specially bred to have a fatal disease, such as the canine version of muscular dystrophy. In other cases, healthy dogs will be operated on to give them symptoms of serious conditions like heart disease or to remove or damage some of their organs and then further experimented upon. Today, claims that such experiments can predict the responses of human patients is widely refuted by experts publishing in the scientific literature, including by the British Medical Journal, [2] the Food and Drug Administration, [3] the US-based National Cancer Institute [4] and by experts publishing in the pharmaceutical industry. [5]

Chemical, pesticide and drug companies use dogs in testing, as well as public and private universities, medical schools, public health laboratories and commercial organisations [Home Office].

Animals are nearly always killed after the tests. It depends on the extent of the damage done to the dogs. If the experiments are minimally invasive, they are used over and over for more testing. Where surgical procedures are involved, the dogs are euthanised after. It is considered to be more humane to euthanise the dogs than it would be to re-home due to their injuries and mental state [About Animal Testing].

According to [About Animal Research] there are a wide variety of ways including the dog being put in a gas chamber to inhale a gas, physical force such as decapitation or breaking the spine, gunshots, electrocution, brain irradiation (if the brain tissue needs to be preserved) or a sedative or anaesthetic… feeling as devastated as we are?

Section 24 of the ASPA (Animals Specific Procedures Act) 1986 blocks access to information about animal experiments held by public authorities, such as inspection reports or details about animal housing and treatment, making it a criminal offence to disclose this information – even if the institutions conducting the research have no objection to its disclosure. It is in direct conflict of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and in 2014 it was set to be reviewed however nothing has been done.

Experiments on dogs need to be abandoned immediately, on ethical and scientific grounds, as they are not only shockingly cruel but today widely reported to be entirely failing their claimed purpose: to find human treatments and cures. [BMJ, FDA, NCI]. Non-animal testing methods are being developed at record speed, all of which would be better for both animals and humans. The majority of dogs are used in failed toxicity testing experiments, for new human medicines: today we have a sophisticated tiered testing human-based strategy for such toxicity tests, beginning with human cell cultures, progressing to 2D and 3D human cell cultures, then on to human organ slices, computer modelling, organ on a chip and body on a chip - all of which produces data that is directly relevant to the species in question: humans. Today we have entered the age of personalised medicine, where the individual DNA of each human patient is being mapped, along with the individual DNA for that patient's cancer (by way of example), and treatments are then targeted to match the precise conditions for that unique person and their illness. In light of this extraordinary medical advancement, it makes no sense to continue funding experiments on dogs, in experiments that were first institutionalised in 1847 by a French doctor, Claude Bernard, who went on to reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

YES. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT YES. Join us.

HOW CAN I HELP CHANGE THE LAW, AND PROTECT DOGS?

Get Involved…

Animal experiments are not the ‘necessary evil’ we have always been led to believe. In fact, using animals as ‘models’ of human disease has misled science and delayed medical progress for many decades. Today, the failure of using animals in human safety testing and disease research is widely reported by leading scientists in the medical community, including by Dr. Fiona Godlee, the the Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal; [2] by scientists working at the Food and Drug Administration - which says nine out of ten new medicines fail to pass human trials because animals cannot predict human outcomes [3] - by the US-based National Cancer Institute - which says we have lost cures for cancer because studies in rodents have been believed [4] - and by experts working in the pharmaceutical industry, who openly acknowledge the failure of animal testing in their drug development process. [5]

EU legislation and now UK Law states that experiments on dogs can only take place if there isn’t a non-animal method available [European Animal Research Association]. This ignores the widely reported medical failure of experiments on dogs, for human patients, and whilst we are still allowing experiments on dogs to take place, there is absolutely NO motivation for these large medical research facilities or pharmaceutical companies to invest in state-of-the-art human based methods, which come with a proven track record of success.

The government’s policy is to limit the number of animals used in science through replacement, reduction, and refinement of research design – the ‘3Rs’, established in 1959, for 'humane experimental technique on animals'. Investment in the National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs) is said to focus on new approaches for the safety assessment of pharmaceuticals and chemicals that reduce the use of animals. We do NOT accept this is good enough and demand for the use of dogs to be banned immediately.

One of the main defences for the use of dogs in animal experiments is that they only make up less than 1% of the total number of animals that are tested on in the UK each year. This still equates to thousands of dogs. It is a cruel argument, no dog dying in this way is acceptable. Just because the % of overall experiments is low, makes no difference to our cause.

It is repeatedly stated that there are strict requirements for care and ‘use’ of laboratory animals, and special care for larger animals such as dogs, in which case why would it be illegal to disclose any of the goings on inside the laboratories.