,

The European perspective on the

crisis in the transportation of
laboratory animals
Kirk Leech
Executive Director
Europeans Animal Research Association (EARA)
www.eara.eu


Background to the foundation of EARA
European activists have developed increasingly effective tactics and smart
strategies communications (social media) and lobbying

European wide reduction in pro-active communication on the benefits of
animal research for animals and humans.

Animal breeders and the supply chain have become the preferred targets
for the activists

European Life Sciences Sector is hampered by the absence of a consistent
unified voice (public and private) for research

Few national animal research advocacy defence groups in the EU

Purpose of EARA

Facilitate: the establishment of local animal research advocacy groups
and networks in countries where they dont exist

Maintain and improve: a high level of public acceptance of medical
research using animals, through a variety of communications means

Create: a favourable climate for research using laboratory animals in
Europe, through influencing national and EU decision makers

Lead: pan-European Transport initiatives, to counter pressure on the lab
animals supply chain and the license to use laboratory animals in research

EARA pro-active communications


Letter from the UK government
to the Guardian Newspaper

Supported the continued
need to to use animals in
research

Supported the use of NHPs
in research

Backed Air Frances current
stance on shipping NHPs







Collaboration with the UK
Government to defend Air France



Current European situation:
Gloomy

Animal rights activists

Ongoing and effective campaigns to halt the
transport of laboratory animals. The vast majority
of which are not criminal

- Social media campaigning:
emails/petitions/celebrity endorsement

- Phone campaigns to companies/government
departments/transport providers

- Airport Leafleting/protests/threats of
protests/ boycott attempt/threats to boycott

- Claimed and real capitulations

None activist reasons

Even before the boycott campaigns there were
and are pre-existing policies not to transport

- Financial incentive is minimal, small margins
v high potential (non-financial) costs)

- Impact on brand reputation seen only in a
negative light

- No benefit to over come technical difficulties
in transporting animals

- No need for imaginative thinking

The UK transportation situation
Early 2012 campaigns by animal rights activists led to the
closure of all surface routes to transport animals for
biomedical purposes into the UK

Imported animals are both research and business critical

Effective blockade also prevents important international
collaborations

Unprecedented assault on
continuity of supply, placing future
of UK life sciences R&D in jeopardy

The impact on the EU Life Sciences of the transport
boycott
Reduction in the choice of transport routes impacts the long term feasibility
of the EU as a base for key medical research studies

Essential time-critical work likely to relocated outside the EU

Routinely moved studies abroad will impact R&D investment decisions by
companies/academic institutions of EU facilities

Researchers are openly voicing concerns over relocating to countries such
as the UK

Reliance on charter air freight leads to significantly higher costs, EU will
become significantly less competitive

Success will embolden activists to move on to other soft opportunities
How did we respond in the UK?
We set up a cross sector transport task force
involving commercial and non-commercial
organisations


Worked with the UK Government on presenting our
case to the transport companies and exploring
alternative solutions. Include a meeting a 10
Downing Street.


Developed a legal, welfare, and ethical framework
that we would follow for the transport of research
animals to share with the transport providers



Dealt successfully with the media who had wind of
the boycott.

Held two top level summit meetings with the UK
transport sector




Meetings involved Government Departments,
police, medical research charities, academia,
publically funded research, commercial organisations
and the UK transport sector





The result was and still is impasse

UK public support for animal research
Does the public feel informed:
well no!
What forms of protest are
supported?

The changing face of animal
rights activism
From To
Animal activists targeting
trends
Citizens Initiative
Breakdown of countries signatures
(before verification announced)
700980
183028
91058
63515
44953
33569 30636
15422
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
Italy Germany France Spain Poland Belgium Hungary Bulgaria
16
AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING
PAN EUROPEAN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
(1) Concordat on Openness and Animal
Research
October 2012, 40 organizations involved
with bioscience in the UK signed a
Declaration on Openness on Animal
Research.

They commit to developing a Concordat
setting out how they would be more
open about the ways in which animals
are used in scientific, medical and
veterinary research in the UK.

In May, 2014 the Concordat on Openness
in Animal Research in the UK was
launched with over 80 organisations.

The Concordat commits its signatories to
enhance their communication about
their use of animals.




Principles of the Concordat on Openness and
Animal Research
Commitment 1: We will be
clear about when, how and
why we use animals in
research


Commitment 2: We will
enhance our communications
with the media and the public
about our research using
animals





Commitment 3: We will be
proactive in providing
opportunities for the public to
find out about research using
animals

Commitment 4: We will report
on progress annually and share
our experiences

(2) Pet Passport scheme
(3) Customer ethical attitudes survey
Thank you for the opportunity to
present to you

Kirk Leech
kleech@eara.eu