This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/sci/tech/6919505.stm

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Review ordered on lab test labels Review ordered on lab test labels
(40 minutes later)
The licences given to scientists that allow them to carry out experiments on animals are being mislabelled, according to a High Court ruling.The licences given to scientists that allow them to carry out experiments on animals are being mislabelled, according to a High Court ruling.
The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (Buav) claimed that the licences underplayed the severity of suffering that the animals experienced.The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (Buav) claimed that the licences underplayed the severity of suffering that the animals experienced.
The High Court found for Buav on this ground, but rejected three other claims brought by the campaign group.The High Court found for Buav on this ground, but rejected three other claims brought by the campaign group.
The Home Office has been granted leave to appeal against the decision.The Home Office has been granted leave to appeal against the decision.
The ruling followed a judicial review that took place earlier this week.
It was prompted by a 10-month investigation carried out by Buav at Cambridge University in 2000-2001.
The campaigning group said that experiments that had been taking place on marmosets were far causing more suffering than their licence implied.
The Home Office grants licences for all experiments carried out in the UK that involve animals.
Each licence is categorised as mild, moderate, substantial, or unclassified (meaning the animal is under anaesthetic). This is based on the likely experience of the "average" animal in the experiment.
The licence for the marmoset research was classified as "moderate", but Buav argued that the experiments should have been classed as "severe", leading the group to call for a judicial review, stating that the Home Office was failing to ensure animal suffering was kept to a minimum.
'Misleading the public'
The High Court ruled that Buav was correct in stating that the government was failing to correctly determine the severity limits for animal experiments.
However, it ruled against three other grounds the campaigning group put forward, on the fact that animal death should be labelled as an adverse effect, a technical notice on food and water that failed to follow the 1986 Act procedure and failings on post-operative care.
Buav chief executive Michelle Thew said: "We have proven that the Government misleads the public and Parliament about the severity of animal experiments licensed in the UK.
"The government can no longer pretend it has the strictest regulation of animal experiments in the world. This case demonstrates it has ridden roughshod over the public's trust in this matter.
"Now we hope taxpayers - the vast majority of whom are opposed to animal suffering in laboratories - will be given more accurate information about the animal experiments they fund."
A Home Office spokesman said: "The Home Office is obviously disappointed not to have successfully defended all of the Grounds of claim, and has been granted leave to appeal against the decisions in the instances where the judge had found in favour of the Buav.
"The Home Office believes it has been rigorous in applying the strict criteria of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 with a view to making proper provision for the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes."