Response to interpellation 2023/24:637 on the future of 3R-centers
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the future of 3R centers and the funding of animal testing issues. KD argues that Sweden stands behind replacing animal testing as soon as it is scientifically possible 1 2 3. KD emphasizes that 3R centers are important for knowledge coordination and that the government has earmarked money for the activities 1 2 3 4. KD considers it unwise for temporary investments to become permanent and that they should be included in regular appropriations 3. KD argues that 3 million have been prioritized in the regulatory letter 4. V argues that the government is deprioritizing the issue of laboratory animals by letting the expertise disappear 5 6. V argues that the government is not eager to reach the goals 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Lorena Delgado Varas has asked me if I intend to work for continued funding of Sweden's 3R-center so that it can conduct its activities to the same extent as it has done in recent years and, if not, how I and the government will ensure that we reach the goal of replacing animal testing. The member has further asked me if I and the government intend to proceed, and if so how, with the measures that appear in the Swedish Board of Agriculture's report Additional reporting of further measures to limit the use of laboratory animals (dnr 5.2.17-22051/2021).
The EU's directive on laboratory animals is incorporated into Swedish legislation. This means, just as the member mentions, that the so-called 3R principles shall permeate all laboratory animal activities and that everyone who works with laboratory animals shall have the objective that animal experiments shall, to the extent possible, be refined, reduced, and if possible, replaced.
Sweden supports the final goal of the Directive on the use of animals for scientific or educational purposes to replace all testing on living animals for scientific and educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so. To achieve that goal, it is a prerequisite that new animal-free alternatives exist and are developed, and that the use of these methods is promoted and facilitated.
In Sweden, this work takes place, among other places, at the Swedish Board of Agriculture, which, in accordance with its instructions, has a competence center for 3R issues with the aim of promoting and coordinating the work to replace, reduce, and refine animal testing. The 3R center's work is important, not least for the overall knowledge coordination and information dissemination.
Sweden's 3R work also takes place in a number of other activities, for example through animal welfare bodies, locally at our educational institutions, and through Sweden's national committee for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The Central Animal Experiments Ethics Board conducts retrospective evaluations of certain animal experiments. The researchers' own work in the planning and implementation of their animal experiments shall also be part of the work.
Sweden also has a long tradition of supporting research for the development of animal-free alternatives. Through the Swedish Research Council, research into and development of alternative methods to animal testing is funded. In addition, earmarked funds are allocated for Swedish laboratories' participation in projects on the validation of alternative methods at the EU level. There are more examples, and all parts of Sweden's work for 3R are important and contribute to achieving the EU directive's ultimate goal.
Now we are entering the budget process for next year. I obviously cannot precede that process or comment on individual budget proposals. The same applies to the handling of the Swedish Board of Agriculture's report and what measures the government intends to proceed with.
However, I can say that both animal protection and animal welfare are important issues for me and the government, and this applies to all animals.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I note that Member Lorena Delgado Varas, despite repeated reminders, still does not respect the rules of procedure that the Speaker and all group leaders have agreed upon. Clothing with political messages shall not be worn in the chamber. This is something that applies equally to all members. I appeal to the member to respect the rules of procedure.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I can state that there is currently no answer as to whether the 3R centers will receive continued funding. They will also not get back the funding they once had, which in itself means that the Swedish government prioritizes the issue of laboratory animals so little that one is willing to let the expertise in the 3R center disappear.
The government is also willing to make an interruption in a work that is already delayed, with consequences that will make it difficult to be able to resume the work. It will lead to Sweden as a country moving even further away from taking responsibility for reducing animal testing.
I believe the government has forgotten, or thinks we have forgotten, why we are doing this. Today we are not in a position where we can remove animal testing in an instant, but it really must be our goal. It is hard to imagine, but even from the start, this was a flawed way of thinking. If one chooses to fantasize a little, one can sometimes wonder how advanced our analysis methods actually would have been if we had seen other animals as living beings with a right to a dignified life from the very beginning.
I believe the government is making a mistake when it deprioritizes this. We, who would rather see a more extensive effort, have quite a large support among the people on this issue.
I do not usually bring up personal examples, but in this case, I intend to do so. I had a dog, a beagle. Her name was Lisa – a proud, determined, and slightly shy lady. When she was born, she was given the name Icca by the breeding company where she grew up. Her task became to breed puppies for animal testing, until the company decided to move the operations outside of Sweden.
I got the opportunity to adopt Lisa because I worked in a company that used this company's services. When I picked her up, I was not a committed animal lover. I felt sorry for the animals, but not much more than that. That was the case until I came to the company where Lisa lived. Lisa, or Icca as she was called, had never been allowed to be called by her name, because the company was keen that the staff should not build a relationship with her or with the other breeding dogs. She was called by a number instead. No one had ever played with her – again, so that the staff would not build a relationship with her. She lived in a small space of concrete and bars, and once a day they let her and the rest of the breeding dogs out into a space that existed between two walls with barbed wire that surrounded the facility.
A final farewell from the company to Lisa before she was handed over to me was that they castrated her. I do not know how many puppies she gave birth to for the animal testing industry, but I know that she never got to keep them and that they do not live today. This is not worthy of a modern society, and we need to change this as soon as possible.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Madam Speaker! I would like to speak a little about how Sweden's 3R-center functions as an umbrella and a unifying arena to reduce the number of animal experiments. This is a knowledge-disseminating organization; it does not, therefore, fund research. The Minister surely knows this, but those who are listening may not quite have a grasp of it.
The EU's goal, which Sweden is working towards, is that all animal testing shall be replaced when it is scientifically possible. Today, animal testing is performed on approximately 250,000 animals per year. I have then subtracted test fishing, which is included in the Swedish method of measurement.
The question of the continued funding of 3R-centers is important. The result of the government removing the earmarked 15 million in the latest budget is now becoming apparent.
There were twelve competent employees at Sweden's 3R Center, but only three will remain with the current lack of funding. This means a major loss of competence which manifests as a significantly reduced capacity to collect, process, and disseminate knowledge and new experiences. It will mean reduced capacity to provide support to, among others, authorities and animal welfare organizations. It will also mean reduced capacity to participate in European collaborations. It is now, when the EU is scaling up its work within 3R, that increased national coordination is required, not a reduced one.
Sweden's 3R-center really needs to be fully funded. The center's activities are very important both for animal welfare and for maintaining a high quality of the research being conducted.
What does Sweden's 3R-center do then? Well, in addition to being a gathering arena for knowledge and cooperation on 3R issues, they also design advice and recommendations. They provide support to authorities on 3R issues, including to Livsmedelsverket and Läkemedelsverket, which are mandated by the government to have 3R strategies. They cooperate with research funders, for example Vetenskapsrådet, Formas and several of the large fundraising organizations. They also cooperate with other centers in Europe.
Madam Speaker! In the Minister's response to the interpellation, I do not quite think it appears how central 3R-centers' role is. The Minister refers to the fact that a number of other activities are ongoing, which is true, but the Minister does not seem to perceive that 3R-center has an important role to play as a unifying arena. The Minister mentions, for example, Sweden's national committee, but Sweden's national committee has 3R-center as its executive body. Or is it that the Minister wants to downplay 3R-center's importance because the funding has disappeared this year?
The important question here, I think, is whether the minister will work for continued funding of Sweden's 3R centers so that they can continue their activities as they have done in recent years.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank both members for their input on this important issue. I believe that everyone who has a connection to or a feeling for animals, which is the vast majority of people, feels great sympathy for what Lorena Delgado Varas describes. Thank you for taking care of Lisa during the last time, in any case!
But back to the more concrete issues. High animal welfare is an important issue for the government. Sweden also has strong animal welfare legislation aimed at ensuring good animal welfare and promoting good animal welfare with great respect for the animals. This is important, not least when it concerns laboratory animals, which sometimes need to be subjected to intentional suffering.
Sweden, as stated, stands behind the final goal of the Directive on the Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes to replace all experiments on live animals for scientific purposes and for educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so. In order to replace animal testing, it is a prerequisite that new alternatives exist and are developed and that the use of those methods is truly promoted and facilitated. Therefore, as stated, the Swedish Research Council annually funds research on and development of such alternative methods. Earmarked funds are also allocated for Swedish laboratories' participation in projects and so on.
I still want to remind that the funding for 3R centers has been time-limited special investments.
We are obligated to promote alternative methods and ensure that information about these is disseminated according to the EU directive. Even though no specific investment has been made in 3R centers in the budget bill for 2024, it does not mean that the activity shall cease. It is written in the Swedish Board of Agriculture's instructions that there shall be a competence center for 3R issues within the agency with the aim of promoting and coordinating the work to replace, reduce, and refine animal experiments.
I can add that the government in this year's regulatory letter decided on earmarked funds for precisely this activity. But that being said, I cannot, as I said in my introduction, anticipate the ongoing budget process.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! If this government had been keen on reaching the goals of replacing animal testing, it would have tried to retain the expertise in the 3R centers. Now it is practically a shutdown. One might also have reviewed the education to reduce the use within the universities and encouraged basic research to find replacement methods. Perhaps one would have simply also invested more in research. Unfortunately, we see that it is going in the other direction in all areas. Certain point scores are mentioned, but if we look generally at the available resources for all areas where animal testing occurs and where one tries to find other methods, we see that it has gone backwards. I believe, however, that this should be a central part of developing modern research.
I would have been much calmer if I had seen an intention from the government to work much more to develop research towards a better quality and in that way replace animal testing. Unfortunately, however, I do not see that any investment is being made in any of the areas, as mentioned, and then it becomes quite difficult to achieve that result.
I also wonder how the government actually ensures that it responds to the goals of the EU directives. As the minister points out, this is not an issue taken out of thin air, but we have a responsibility to follow these goals. We have committed ourselves to phasing out animal testing as soon as possible. When one looks at the whole picture and the lack of urgency for 3R centers, one could believe that the government handpicks which directives it should prioritize and which it should ignore. I do not think that is very responsible.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Minister!
If I have understood correctly, the activity should not cease even if it is not directly funded, and in this year's regulation letter there are earmarked funds - I may have misunderstood something, but in that case, the minister is welcome to explain it. That sounds good in that case. Does it then mean that one can avoid laying off the employees, i.e., going from twelve to three employees, as one now needs to do at 3R-center? Can it be stopped?
Then I understand that the Minister does not want to anticipate a forthcoming budget process. But the Minister could perhaps comment on whether there is an ambition to include the request for continued but also long-term funding.
We in Vänsterpartiet budgeted in our autumn budget to continue earmarking 20 million kronor to Sweden's 3R-center.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! As has been stated in the Swedish Board of Agriculture's instructions, one shall work with the 3R issues.
I actually believe that you in Vänsterpartiet are the only ones in the Riksdag who, after this temporary project funding, have included extra funds in your budget alternative. I swear, neither the Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, nor Centerpartiet have that. I believe it is only you who have pointed it out.
This is in no way an attempt to avoid the question, but it was, as mentioned, a temporary funding to build up the operations. It is in the instructions to a large agency, which has a large budget, that the agency is responsible for driving these issues. It is true, however, that in the regulatory letter and with a certain steering of funds, for the sake of clarity, we clarified that this work should be prioritized.
But generally speaking, we cannot have a system – and I am not just talking about this – where temporary initiatives to build up operations to take a step by definition become permanent operations. In that case, it should be included in the regular appropriation for an operation. It is therefore not a practice that I believe is sensible.
As has been said, there is something to the fact that Vänsterpartiet is passionate about these issues and has pointed out exactly 3R-center as an important part. In that case, it is also pleasing that you have de facto put money in the budget for it. It honors you.
But the fact that temporary funding no longer exists does not mean that one is not working on the issues. It is the responsibility of the Swedish Board of Agriculture to follow up on the directives that Sweden has committed to continuing with.
Sweden also stands behind the fact that it should be phased out as quickly as is scientifically possible. We shall not have animal testing where there are safe alternatives.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! It did not appear from the Minister's answer how much had been earmarked in the directive to the Swedish Board of Agriculture. I would very much like to hear that figure.
Of course, temporary activities should either transition into becoming permanent or be integrated in some way into the permanent work. But I swear, that has not been done; instead, the 3R centers have simply been cut off. I think that causes a rather serious disruption, and we are losing incredibly important expertise.
We need to discuss why we need to get rid of animal testing. It is not solely about the ethical and moral, about removing the suffering and killing or the dehumanizing process that staff who work with animal testing or the animals in it actually have to undergo. One also needs to see other parts.
Since we have somewhat different ideological positions here, I think other issues might be more interesting for the government to get them to raise the issue. There are also partly economic interests in this. The research world and the companies want to move away from animal testing because it is expensive, uncertain and impractical and does not belong in a modern time. I think that the government must be more attentive at least from that perspective when it comes to what we need in the future.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I want to appeal to the member to continue to follow the House's rules of procedure regarding not wearing clothes with political messages.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! For the sake of clarity, I want to say that the EU's directive on laboratory animals is incorporated into Swedish legislation. This means that the so-called 3R principles shall permeate all activities involving laboratory animals.
In the Swedish Board of Agriculture's instruction, it is clear that one should work with these issues. The Government has no other opinion than the one I have mentioned here today. We stand behind the fact that this shall be phased out when the alternatives are in place, so that as soon as it is scientifically possible, we shall be able to reach the ultimate goal, to have phased out animal testing.
In the regulatory letter, we have pointed out 3 million that the Swedish Board of Agriculture shall prioritize for this. It is completely open. Everyone can access the regulatory letter. But as said, that is not the central point, but it is an activity where one shall also work with these issues. It is written into the instruction to the Swedish Board of Agriculture.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.