andMr. Healyasked the Minister for Health the reason for the very large increase, amounting to 25 per cent, in the number of experiments performed during 1975 under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

The increase in the number of experiments performed during 1975 under licences granted in accordance with the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 over the number carried out during 1974 was mainly due to—

(1) increased work on cancer research performed by the Medical Research Council, which involved an additional 7,193 inoculations of mice, (2) increased research carried out by the Agricultural Institute for the purpose of control and eradication of brucellosis in cattle, which involved an additional 3,346 inoculations of cattle, and

(3) increased work in connection with pyrogen testing and toxicity testing of drugs which was carried out by the Wellcome Research Laboratories at Trinity College, Dublin and which involved an additional 5,563 inoculations of rodents.

When the Government are giving money for medical research involving live animals, do they write in the condition that such animals must be given an anaesthetic before they are actually experimented on, particularly small animals?

In the case of most of the operations the Deputy will appreciate and agree that very little pain is caused anyway in the inoculation of mice and cattle.

I do not mean cattle so much. I mean smaller animals and experiments carried out on them. In the experimentation on small animals could they not be given an anaesthetic so that they might be saved any pain?

I am quite sure that the medical inspectors would ensure that as little pain as possible was caused in all cases.

Is there any alternative source to the experimentation on mice, cattle and rodents? For instance, what is the end result in the case of mice? Do they die as a result of the inoculation? Is there any alternative to the use of mice in experiments for cancer research?

There is no alternative to the work being done and the usage of living animals at present. One must bear in mind the invaluable results of this research for both humans and animals.

I appreciate that. I am not getting away from the point that I am totally opposed to the idea of using animals in this form of research. What I am asking is if, in the meantime, there are any alternatives to the experimentation on animals? For instance, are dogs used in this form of experimentation? What other types of animals are used in addition to the three categories mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary?

According to my information, those are the only ones used.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us an idea of the hardship, if any, involved on the animals? I understand that the people conducting these experiments would be highly qualified—I am not making any criticism of them. It is the principle involved in using animals.

I want to assure the Deputy and the House that it should be borne in mind that the provision and use of animals for experimentation is a costly and burdensome affair and would not be undertaken if an alternative method or technique was available.

19.