A million-strong petition is challenging the use of animals in experiments in Europe. Some are vital for the future of medicine

IN MY lab we study the incredible ability of zebrafish to self-repair spinal cord injuries. It’s an enormously complex process. To regain function, connections from the brain to the spinal cord must regrow, different types of immune cells have to clear the injury site, and stem cells in the spinal cord need to generate new nerve cells, which then connect to the muscles. By studying all this, we hope to learn what signals are needed for repair in humans.

Even though potential advances are great, the decision to use animals is something that no researcher takes lightly. Animal experiments in Europe are highly regulated – by a directive passed in 2010 after wide consultation. Animals can only be used if there is no viable alternative and high standards of welfare are applied.

However, there are those who say this is not enough: the group Stop Vivisection wants the directive abolished and has submitted over a million signatures to the European Commission. Under the European Citizens’ Initiative, a million signatures triggers a meeting of the EC to consider the petition. It’s due on 11 May.

Biomedical researchers, supported by European and UK regulations, strive for reduction, replacement and refinement of animal use where possible, for example by using cell cultures and computer models instead. My university has a great track record in developing such strategies.


But animals are vital for many areas of research linked to human health. The study of regeneration in complex organs like the liver or spinal cord is one such area. It cannot currently be simulated.

Work on animals by European research institutions has led to advances, such as Jasper the sausage dog and Polish man Darek Fidyka walking again after experimental treatment for spinal injuries. Stopping all animal use, before alternatives are found, would block such progress here and push research abroad.

No one is saying allow all animal experiments, but some are needed for fundamental research in preclinical studies that will ultimately translate into medical practice. Tearing up the directive to halt all animal use would be a step backwards.

No one is saying allow all animal experiments, but some are still needed for fundamental research

This article appeared in print under the headline “Testing times”