Our roster of speakers is now almost complete:

• David Thomas (Solicitor/legal consultant for the BUAV and other animal protection/human rights groups; Consultant to Bindmans LLP)
• Professor David Morton (Emeritus Professor of Biomedical Science and Ethics, and a laboratory animal veterinarian. Member of the European Food Safety Authority’s Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, and the Companion Animal Welfare Council)
• Dr Norbert Alzmann (Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal Studies, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna)
• Dr Meg Lewis (Kirkstall Ltd, developers of in vitro cell tests)
• Dr Jane Smith (animal research bioethics consultant; co-author of ‘Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research’)
• Dr Dan Lyons (CASJ; University of Sheffield)
• Nick Jukes (International Network for Humane Education (‘Interniche‘))

We are also in discussion with the Home Office about a speaker from their Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

The topics that we have lined up to be discussed in the presentations include:

• Comparison of harm-benefit assessment models and the Directive’s approach to harm-benefit
• The assessment, monitoring and control of animal pain severity
• Public engagement with science
• Towards an animal-free future of drug discovery
• Best practice and alternatives in education and training
• Change and continuity in the animal research policy network

Our previous seminar in this series, on farm animal welfare policy, was highly rated at 4.8 out of 5 by attendees. This next seminar, which will be held at the University of Leicester on Thursday 4th July 2013 between 9.30am and 5.00pm, represents an excellent opportunity to network and exchange knowledge with academics, PhD students, animal protection NGOs, biomedical scientists, other stakeholders and policy-makers with an interest in animal research policy.

The standard seminar registration fee is £50 (free for speakers and under/postgraduate students). Capacity is limited so attendance is by invitation-only – to enquire please contact us.

Against this alarming background, the Centre for Animals and Social Justice and the Department of Politics at the University of Leicester hosted a seminar on ‘Farm Animals, Ethics and Public Policy’ on Wednesday 10th April 2013. Participants were treated to a comprehensive array of expert speakers, including senior representatives from the RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming and the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

The CASJ’s Chief Executive Dr Dan Lyons introduced the day with a brief address that emphasised the need to understand how wider power structures in British society and politics are biased against animal welfare protection. He explained how it was essential to entrench animal welfare as a core political priority if we are to have any real hope of achieving significant advances. Understanding how to achieve this represents the mission of the CASJ.

The relationship between animal ethics and real-life politics was the topic of Professor Rob Garner’s presentation. Political strategies need to take account of both ethical ideals and existing social conditions in order to be truly effective – and ethical. Prof Garner’s concluded that while a version of ‘animal rights’ that focusses on their right not to be used seems to lack any significant social impact, an ethic based on the right not to suffer could represent a more politically-effective paradigm.

Dr Julia Wrathall, who leads the RSPCA’s Farm Animals Department, gave us a fascinating insight into the Society’s work with the aid of three major farm animal welfare policy problems: farrowing crates for sows, lack of full-body water access for farmed ducks and the selective breeding of broiler chickens for maximum growth. Dr Wrathall explained how a combination of activities, such as gathering robust scientific evidence, engaging with the farming industry and careful political lobbying had achieved progress on all three fronts, to the benefit of millions of animals.

The EU is a huge influence on farm animal welfare, so we were very pleased to welcome Dr Andrea Gavinelli from the Commission’s Animal Welfare Unit. While noting the difficulties with incorporating animal welfare into the free trade agreements that dominate public policy, Dr Gavinelli also highlighted some promising opportunities for firmly embedding animal welfare as an EU priority, which the CASJ intends to participate in.

After the lunch break Professor Richard Bennett, an agricultural economist from Reading and a member of DEFRA’s Farm Animal Welfare Committee, talked about the need for Government intervention so that the benefits of higher animal welfare can be accounted for in policy-making. While Government can easily measure the financial costs to business of less harmful farming methods, it is harder to quantify the resulting benefits to animal welfare and public satisfaction in order to show that more humane regulations make economic sense.

Food businesses inevitably have a very powerful influence over farm animal welfare. So we invited Katy Cheney and Chris Gee, from CIWF and WSPA respectively, to explain their exciting new Business Benchmark for Farm Animal Welfare scheme, which aims to establish animal welfare as a core priority of food businesses’ strategies across the world.

Dr Emma Roe, who is a human geographer at Southampton, provided a holistic analysis of the interactions between participants in the production and distribution of animal meat and other products. In particular, Dr Roe emphasised the importance of understanding how cultures of care are promoted or hindered through these economic interactions, to promote the development of policies that benefit animals and their welfare.

The final presentation was given by Peter Melchett, now Policy Director for the Soil Association, who set out a powerful case for the animal welfare benefits of organic farming. Moreover, he explained how organic, extensive animal husbandry methods simultaneously benefit farmland wildlife, the wider environment and public health, compared with intensive factory-farming. The seminar ended with a panel discussion where the speakers fielded questions from a high calibre audience that including DEFRA civil servants, other leading animal protection NGOs, students and academics.

We’d like to thank Dr Alasdair Cochrane from the University of Sheffield for doing another great job of chairing the seminar, all the speakers and attendees for their valuable contributions, and Sally Mallett from the Leicester’s Department of Politics for all her vital help with organising and running the day.

The CASJ will publish an in-depth policy briefing based on the seminar in the near future, and videos/slideshows of the seminar presentations are available here.

View presentations from seminar held on 10 April 2013, University of Leicester.

Dr Dan Lyons (CASJ; University of Sheffield): ‘Introductory address’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf_yXLQJhf0

Professor Robert Garner (University of Leicester): ‘Mapping ethics onto public policy – the case of farm animals’. View slideshow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WIKziMUM9Y

Dr Julia Wrathall (RSPCA): ‘The RSPCA’s approach to development and implementation of farm animal welfare policy’. View slideshow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri5alw9C-o8

Dr Andrea Gavinelli (EC Animal Welfare Unit): ‘The EU public policy framework for farm animal welfare’. View slideshow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga5SelW8FcA

Professor Richard Bennett (University of Reading; FAWC): ‘Economic valuation of consumer support for animal welfare’. View slideshow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh6Fq1Muu9U

Katy Cheney (CIWF) & Chris Gee (WSPA): ‘The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare’.  View slideshow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C398U-lD9E8

Dr Emma Roe (University of Southampton): ‘Farm animal welfare as a cultural economic product: achievements and shortcomings’. View slideshow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v33G4Fczsn8

Peter Melchett (Soil Association): ‘Organic farming: how high welfare benefits the environment and human health, and implications for government policy’. View slideshow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe76hV2mxfk

The CASJ offers support in the form of supervision, access to data and access to key stakeholders, depending on the research question and methods. The student will be expected to devote a proportion of their time (40 hours per quarter) to the CASJ’s research and policy engagement work. This will involve activities such as helping to organise and participate in a number of high profile seminars arranged by the CASJ, providing the student with the opportunity to present papers/posters, lead debates, chair workshops, and enabling the student to access support and ideas from a wide range of students, researchers and leading NGOs.

Click here for more information and application details (deadline 31 May 2013).

The new EU Directive (2010/63/EU) for the regulation of animal experimentation is a critical juncture in the development of animal research policy not only in the UK but across the EU. The Directive includes the following statements on the ethical and political status of animals:

• ‘It is necessary to improve the welfare of animals used in scientific procedures…’ (Recital 6)
• ‘…it is desirable to replace the use of live animals in procedures by other methods not entailing the use of live animals…’ (Recital 10)
• ‘Animals have an intrinsic value that must be respected.’ (Recital 12)
• ‘The likely harm to the animal should be balanced against the expected benefits of the project…’ (Recital 39)

This seminar, focussed on the UK but incorporating insights from the EU and further afield, will examine these principles and how they are being translated into practice as each member state implements the Directive. We are developing a programme that will discuss the factors that affect the impact of Directive 2010/63/EU, including:

• the normative character of current animal research practice and policy
• the ethical relevance of protecting animal welfare/avoiding animal harm in research and any appropriate policy implications e.g. for the operation of the harm/benefit assessment
• the opportunities and obstacles (they may be scientific, cultural, economic or political) for reducing and eliminating animal harm that occurs in the course of research and testing
• how do animal research and testing establishments implement the 3Rs both at micro-level (i.e. individual research projects) and also strategic level (e.g. corporate targets for the reduction and/or refinement of animal research)?
• public policy lessons to be drawn from the above

The final programme will be announced later in April. The standard seminar registration fee is £50 (free for speakers and under/postgraduate students). Capacity is limited so attendance is by invitation-only – to enquire please contact us.

The seminar will bring together academic experts, animal protection groups, policy-makers, farmers and other stakeholders to explore the current state of farm animal welfare and consider how public policy can be developed in a way that addresses the ethical imperatives to reduce animal harm and reflect public concern for animal welfare.

We are very pleased to have gathered a high-quality range of speakers with crucial expertise to share:

• Professor Rob Garner (University of Leicester; CASJ Research Committee) ‘Mapping Ethics onto Public Policy – The Case of Farm Animals’
• Dr Julia Wrathall (RSPCA) ‘The RSPCA’s approach to development and implementation of farm animal welfare policy’
• Dr Andrea Gavinelli (European Commission Animal Welfare Unit) on the EU public policy framework for farm animal welfare
• Professor Richard Bennett (University of Reading; DEFRA’s Farm Animal Welfare Committee) whose research interests include the economic valuation of consumer support for animal welfare
• Dr Emma Roe (University of Southampton) who studies farm animal welfare assessments and their role in public policy
• Lord Peter Melchett (Soil Association) on organic farming, public policy and animal welfare
• Chris Gee (WSPA) and Katy Cheney (CIWF) will talk about their exciting new ‘Business Benchmark for Farm Animal Welfare’ scheme.

Click here to download the abstracts of these presentations. There are only a few places left, so if you are interested in attending, please get in touch with us via our contact page. The standard attendance fee is £50.

Despite extensive legislation and public concern, farm animal welfare has not been as closely monitored by the food industry as the social and environmental issues that have tended to dominate businesses’ ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ agendas. Indeed, the current horsemeat contamination fiasco illustrates the serious gaps in food businesses’ management of their production processes. The Benchmark aims to rectify this neglect.

Investors are the primary audience of the Benchmark because cruelty to animals can have adverse financial implications for companies – and hence those who invest in them – because of a loss of reputation and lower sales. In addition, as Abigail Herron of The Cooperative Asset Management noted at the launch, the growing ethical investment sector needs reliable, user-friendly information on farm animal welfare to be able to make effective investment decisions.

Of vital importance is that the Benchmark is conceived as a long-term project. The launch report makes clear that most food companies are only just beginning to consider monitoring and reporting on their farm animal welfare performance. Therefore, at this early stage, the Benchmark is forced to rely on what (if anything) companies say about their farm animal welfare policies and, critically, their stated implementation commitments. In other words, what is currently missing is direct information about what levels of harm and welfare are actually being experienced by the animals themselves. As the scheme develops and food companies increasingly embrace it, the aim is to develop methods of directly auditing animal harm and welfare.

At the present time, the Benchmark criteria assess companies’ positions on close confinement and other intensive farming practices, such as sow stalls and battery cages. Businesses are also quizzed about their policies on the use of GM and cloned animals, the administration of growth-promoting substances, mutilations such as beak trimming and tail docking, pre-slaughter stunning and long distance live transportation.

It’s one thing for companies to make grand statements – as we have found in relation to product testing on animals, many companies set out to deceive consumers. Therefore the Benchmark also places considerable weight on how the company governs and manages its stated policies: is a senior figure or committee formally responsible for the policy; does it have welfare targets and objectives; does it provide detailed reports on its animal welfare performance?

The average company score is disappointingly low, with most in the bottom two of six ‘tiers’ (click here and go to page 4 to see the companies’ performances). Low scorers – the companies who don’t seem to have any interest in the harm they cause to animals -  include Burger King, Mars and Walmart (Asda). At the other end of the table, the companies for whom farm animal welfare is ‘intrinsic to their business strategy’ include the Co-op Group in the UK, UK producer company Noble Foods and, intriguingly given their on-going use of animals to test cosmetics, Unilever.

For us, the Benchmark also stimulates fascinating ideas about how companies’ and charities’ animal testing practices could be similarly assessed. While many make vague claims about their commitment to animal welfare and the ‘Three Rs’, these are rarely backed up with any of the critical detail sought by the Benchmark on issues such as targets and reporting. Similar observations could be made of the UK Government (and others, no doubt), where active opposition to welfare protection targets in some sectors indicates that animal welfare, far from being intrinsic to Government activity, is actually perceived negatively (for example, see Home Office position on targets at pages 44-45 of the Animal Procedures Committee Report for 2005).

There is a close, interactive relationship between business farm animal welfare practices and Government farm animal welfare policy. While public policy sets minimum legal standards that businesses are supposed to comply with, policy recommendations from business have enormous influence over the character of those legal standards. At the launch, I suggested that public policy initiatives – such as better welfare labelling laws or mandatory inspection and reporting of farm animal welfare – could help promote the aims of the Benchmark and, most importantly, institutionalise its goal across society. The interaction between business practice and Government is essential to achieving a ‘virtuous circle’ for animal protection, and this is an area where the CASJ hopes to make a unique contribution to the success of this inspirational initiative.

by Dan Lyons, CEO of the CASJ

My experience at Slow Food, an association that works on food education and sustainability, really helped me to understand the bigger picture concerning food production by interacting with small-scale farmers, cheese makers & fishermen from all around the world. I understood that there is a story behind the food we eat and it is important that we learn and think about it when making our daily consumption choices. I also learnt that food from industrial and intensive production does not have a story, quite to the contrary in fact: animals are alienated and treated as mere commodities or machines, with little or no consideration for their emotional or physical needs and desires.

Since I first came to learn about the different forms of animal suffering taking place, I knew from the start that I wanted to take an active part in making a difference. The real question was understanding how I wanted to make that difference. In recent years, big steps have been made in animal protection thanks to the work of passionate activists, academics, pressure groups and NGO’s. However, if we consider how rapidly industrial agriculture is growing or even recent debates concerning animal experimentation regulations, it is clear that much still remains to be done.

The research that I am engaging in at the University of Leicester with Prof. Rob Garner and with the support of the CASJ aims to investigate the ways animals are represented in politics today (through animal welfare laws or in constitutions, for instance) and understand how we can change things to ensure that animals are effectively protected and represented. It is a new and very exciting area of research and up till now only a handful of academics have looked at this possibility. Some, for instance, have suggested that we reserve specific seats in Parliaments to be representatives of animals, in order to ensure that the interests of animals are taken into account within decision making. Others argue that including animal welfare as a Constitutional principle is sufficient to ensure that this occurs.

My research is also informed by the developments that have taken place in the debate concerning the representation of future generations. This is because future generations share some characteristics with animals: they cannot enter into dialogue in the same way as humans would, yet they are, or will be, deeply affected by the decisions we make today. It is now increasingly accepted that concern should be given to the interests of future generations, some countries have even created designated institutions, such as Future Generation Ombudsmen, to make sure that their ‘voice’ is heard. Might this also be a possibility in the case of animals? This is what my next three years will be devoted to discovering.

My hope is that this research will truly make an impact that will go beyond the boundaries of academia and will positively influence institutions and governments and their animal protection policies. This is precisely the aim of the Centre for Animals and Social Justice’s work and I believe that it can be a powerful instrument in the advancement of animal protection within the UK and beyond.

I would personally like to thank the CASJ and all its supporters for allowing me to have this incredible opportunity to make a difference, without their support this would not be possible. I hope that in the future many other young, bright and passionate individuals will also have the opportunity to make an impact in the lives of animals through their research, and through the CASJ I know that this can happen.

During the passage of the Directive, the Coalition Government declared that it was prepared to voluntarily lower existing stricter UK animal welfare measures to those in the Directive (Home Office, 2011). This announcement contributed to serious worries that the Government perceived the Directive as an opportunity to weaken regulation:

Taken together, the RSPCA believes these factors mount a serious attack on the standards of regulation of animal experiments in the UK. Indeed, we could see the longstanding, tried and tested system being systematically dismantled. (RSPCA, 2011: 2)

Such warnings might appear alarmist but, in reality, deregulation has been the primary goal for the Government and animal research interests who have dominated this policy area since the 1880s (Lyons, 2011: 359-60).

At first glance, the scope for policy change appears limited because the new Directive incorporates two of the cornerstones of the 1986 UK legislation:  a ‘harm-benefit’ assessment (Article 38(2)(d)) and a national advisory committee (Article 49). The new regulations maintain requirements that applications to carry out projects of animal experimentation must include severity classifications of intended experiments, categorised as ‘unclassified’, ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ or ‘substantial/severe’. The anticipated level of animal suffering is then supposed to form the ‘harm’ part of the ‘harm-benefit’ analysis of animal research applications.

Abolishing limits on pain and suffering

However, the text of the Directive is rather vague on the subsequent enforcement of severity classifications as severity limits, although Article 36(1) requires that projects are carried out ‘in accordance with the authorisation’. Indeed, it would seem perverse for the Directive to require severity classifications if it did not intend them to be enforced in practice. For it would mean that the initial harm-benefit analysis that approved animal experiments would be based on unreliable, unenforceable criteria, as researchers would be free to exceed the level of suffering that they had originally submitted in their application. Downplaying animal suffering would also lead to lower, inadequate levels of inspection of experiments (not that the Inspectorate is particularly challenging). Yet, disturbingly, the new UK regulations appear to abolish the legal obligation upon the Government to ensure that severity classifications submitted in licence applications will continue to be enforced as limits in practice.

Interestingly, in response to concerns repeatedly raised by the CASJ, the Home Office has claimed that severity limits will be applicable.¹ However, our awareness of the Home Office’s Machiavellian culture – and our understanding of how British politics really works – means we know we have to scrutinise Home Office claims very carefully. Sadly, close examination of the regulations shows that severity limits appear under the ‘Transitional Provisions’ section of the new law and that they are only applicable to pre-existing licenses issued before the new regulations came into force on Jan 1st 2013.

We believe it is highly significant that, despite numerous detailed requests for clarification, at the time of writing the Home Office has still not managed to point to a clause in the new regulations that obliges the Secretary of State to enforce severity limits on animal experiments approved after January 1st. The relevant clauses that were in the old legislation have now been abolished.²

Sabotaging animal welfare protection

Draft Guidance on the operation of the 2012 regulations, issued by the Home Office in December 2012, does include standard licence conditions concerning severity limits. However, the text indicates that a breach of the licence may only happen if the researcher simply fails to subsequently notify the Secretary of State of suffering that breached the severity limit:

The conditions of your licence will be breached if you do not notify us promptly when an animal suffers, or is likely to suffer, more than is authorised. (Home Office, 2012: 47).

In other words, a breach of the severity limit/classification does not, in itself, appear to be unlawful or a breach of licence.  There is also provision for the ‘temporary authorisation’ of a higher severity limit (Home Office, 2012: 47). Will animal researchers, in practice, be able to move the severity ‘goalposts’ at will, regardless of the initial classification and harm-benefit assessment?

It’s revealing that the Home Office states that enforcement of severity classifications is not legally required by the Directive. Not only does this interpretation of the Directive seem implausible but, taken alongside the decision to omit such an explicit requirement from the new regulations and the Draft Guidance, it would seem to indicate that the Home Office is quietly sabotaging its ability to enforce severity limits on animal researchers.

Once again, while this interpretation of the Home Office’s intentions may seem overly cynical to some readers, in fact it would be consistent with the entrenched Home Office policy as exemplified by the Imutran xenotransplantation scandal, where monkeys were illegally subjected to severe and lethal pain on ‘moderate’ severity experiments, with the connivance of the Home Office. It would also be consistent with an adequate understanding of how the UK Government³ and, in particular, this policy area, traditionally operates.

Symbolic reassurance

The Home Office’s manoeuvrings seem to be a classic case of ‘policy learning’ (Jordan, A. and Greenaway, J., 1998) by a closed network of Government officials and animal experimentation interests, who perceive animal protection as a threat to their interests. Specifically, the lesson the Home Office seems to have learnt from controversies such as the Imutran case is that it needs to weaken the impact of severity limits in order to advance the freedom of researchers and avoid accusations of maladministration in future. Yet, sensitive to public perceptions of weakening animal welfare standards, it has tried to conceal such actions: a classic example of ‘the politics of symbolic reassurance’ (Edelman, 2001).

At the same time, the Home Office’s decision to amend the 1986 Act through secondary rather than primary legislation has undermined the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the critical details of the new regulations. The CASJ briefed the Committees who debated the regulations, and were thanked in the House of Commons for our contribution; but in reality there is little Parliamentary appetite to examine Home Office statements, rendering the process a mere rubber-stamping exercise.

The validity of our interpretation can only be confirmed through the passage of time and with the assistance of reliable data about policy outcomes – i.e. what happened to the animals and the impact of the data generated. Though it should be noted that the Home Office has retained Section 24 of the 1986 legislation – the ‘secrecy clause’ – which prohibits officials from releasing any information without the consent of researchers, despite this being in conflict with the Directive’s requirements for the publication of project licence summaries. Our prediction is that the apparent weakening of severity limits will become clear in future political and legal battles surrounding evidence of severity limit breaches.

Countering Misinformation

Although the erosion of controls on pain and suffering fundamentally weakens the regulatory system, there are some hopeful signs. Broadly, there are strong scientific and economic incentives to develop non-animal replacement tests (Bottini A. & Hartung T., 2009),  and the text of the Directive also tries to encourage these trends, which may save more animals and improve safety assessments in the longer term. However, whether this will actually happen will depend greatly on the degree of political will within the British Government. Sadly there is little sign of any serious Government commitment, as their broken promises on reducing animal experimentation demonstrate.

There are some other new measures that could help improve public accountability and reduce animal harm, such as requirements to publish ‘non-technical’ summaries and retrospective reviews of research projects. Once again though, much will depend on how the Government implements these measures and the signs are that they are trying to weaken their effectiveness. The Directive also requires the European Commission (EC) to coordinate ‘Thematic Reviews’ of areas of animal research to explore the options for replacement.⁴ While this is a positive idea, the impact is impossible to predict because the wording is so vague – it simply says these reviews shall be performed ‘where appropriate’ on a ‘periodic’ basis.

In summary, animal pain and distress in UK experimentation will probably get worse rather than better for the foreseeable future under the new regulations. However, the gaping chasm between the spin of tightly-regulated animal research and the laissez-faire reality generates potential instability in this regime. Therefore, animal protection could be improved if the major national animal advocacy groups coordinated to execute a sustained, strategic effort to highlight this scandalous gap. Indeed, barring some external shock to the system, this type of strategy is the only one that offers tangible hope of significant advances for animal protection in this field.

Notes

1. Personal correspondence with Chief Inspector. And see Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Hansard, 13 December 2012, Column GC380.

2. In particular, there are no provisions in Schedule 2C of the 2012 Regulations - which legislates for the standard licence conditions that the Government must always apply by law – that are equivalent to Standard Project Licence Conditions 6 and 8, and Personal Licence Condition 13 in the repealed 1986 legislation (see Appendices D & E).

3. Using methods and models such as policy network analysis (Marsh, 1998) and the asymmetric power model of British politics (Marsh, 2008).

4. Article 58.

Bibliography

Bottini A. & Hartung T. (2009) ‘Food for Thought … on the Economic of Animal Testing’. ALTEX 26(1): 3-16.

Edelman, M. (2001) The Politics of Misinformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Home Office (2011), Animals Scientific Procedures Division and Inspectorate – Annual Report 2010. London: Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/769901/annual-reports/animals-annual-report-2010?view=Binary (accessed 24 November 2011)

Home Office (2012) ASPA Draft Guidance. Published at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/animals/transposition_of_eudirective/quick_start_guide?view=Binary (accessed 5 January 2013)

Jordan, A. and Greenaway, J. (1998) ‘Shifting Agendas, Changing Regulatory Structures and the “New” Politics of Environmental Pollution: British Coastal Water Policy, 1955-1995’. Public Administration, 76: 669-94.

Lyons, D. (2011) ‘Protecting Animals versus the Pursuit of Knowledge: The Evolution of the Britsh Animal Research Policy Process’. Society & Animals, 19: 356-367.

Marsh, D. (ed.) (1998), Comparing Policy Networks. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Marsh, D. (2008) ‘Understanding British Government: Analysing Competing Models’. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10: 251-268.

RSPCA (2011) Amending the UK Animal Experimentation law – a threat to UK standards. Horsham: RSPCA. http://content.www.rspca.org.uk/cmsprd/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobnocache=false&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1232999239968&ssbinary=true (accessed 16 January 2012)