Two sword-lengths apart: a red line on the floor separates the political camps in the British House of Commons. It is intended to prevent opponents from going for each other's throats in the heat of the battle of words. Although the red line was missing, there were no scuffles during the “House of Commons debate” on November 5 on the Charité campus in Berlin-Mitte – even though the choice of topics was highly controversial. The moderation duo Dr. Susann Schädlich and Dr. Michael Stang discussed the pros and cons of animal experiments with a very diverse audience that evening. Various expert opinions and views on experiments with animals were widely represented. The aim was to exchange arguments and opinions – and to correct one or two misperceptions.
 

Prof. Dr. Stefan Hippenstiel made the first impact. The sight of big rabbit eyes and wagging beagles touches everyone, said the speaker from Einstein Center 3R and Charité 3R in his keynote speech. Researchers who carry out animal experiments therefore appear to many people to be very cool contemporaries: “They're the ones with the syringes”. In reality, however, experiments on animals do not leave those who carry them out cold and thus have to live directly with the contradiction. According to Hippenstiel, the public often does not understand that some experiments cannot do without animals. “I hope that we accept these complexities and difficulties and discuss them respectfully with each other.” 

Around 75 % of those taking part in the discussion believed that science is not sufficiently driving forward the development of alternatives to animal testing. "If we invest resources in improving animal models, but actually want to abolish these models, then this is a contradiction," said Prof. Dr. Holger Gerhardt from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine. It is important to bring together people with different qualifications in order to advance alternative methods. "There are many reasons why not enough progress is being made," commented Prof. Dr. Gilbert Schönfelder. "Even in my work – I head the German Center for the Protection of Laboratory Animals – I notice that some people are still clinging to old models. There is clearly room for improvement." 

In principle, you can always do more about everything, replied one participant who had voted "yes". "But compared to other areas, a lot is already being done here. I think it's an insinuation to say that we're not prepared to try out new things." Dr. Ute Hobbiesiefken from the Berlin State Office for Health and Social Affairs was also rather satisfied with the current efforts to establish new research models in order to do away with animal testing. "I work at the authority where applications for animal testing are submitted, and the number of new applications is falling slightly. Last year, in 2023, only 207 projects were submitted in the state of Berlin."

Around a third of visitors were of the opinion that animal welfare slows down research. However, this is morally correct from an ethical perspective and also contributes to a higher quality of research. "It is a fact that it can take months or even a year for an application for an animal experiment to be approved," said one participant. "But that's a good thing." Another panelist agreed with her: "Animal welfare draws funding away from research - for larger cages, for example. And that's the right thing to do." According to a man from the "yes" camp, the authorities are not solely responsible for lengthy approval procedures. Conducting animal experiments means administrative work. "But this is also due to the quality of the applications submitted."

The question of whether pharmaceutical research needs less freedom with regard to animal testing than basic research was discussed quite controversially. "I think that we already enjoy enormous freedom in basic research," one participant interjected. "Just because I'm working within a framework doesn't mean I'm restricted." From an ethical perspective, said one participant, basic research should not be given any more freedom. In addition, the medical benefit must always be assessed. This was precisely the point that bothered another participant: "Without freedom of research, basic research makes no sense at all. Its aim is precisely to elucidate fundamental processes. The medical benefit is not the primary focus here.