The most common reason for non-compliance in 2024 was ‘failure to comply with project licence (PPL) authorities’, with 68 (47%) of the 146 total cases falling under this category.

Reasons for these breaches include a failure to understand what is permitted by the licence, inadequate monitoring of animals, carrying out different or higher numbers of procedures than was permitted in the licence, and licence holders failing to have adequate systems in place to prevent unauthorised experiments from being undertaken.

Many incidences were due to miscommunication, keeping animals alive past the humane endpoint (a pre-defined point where the animal must be humanely euthanised to prevent or end pain, distress, or suffering), additional procedures, blood draws or injections carried out that were not approved in the licence, or poor skill to carry out procedures, such as inadequate aseptic surgical technique.

Some significant examples of failure to comply with project licence authorities include:

• 2 mice were not killed at the humane endpoint when their tumours grew larger than the size allowed.
• 36 mice were given more drug doses than was permitted by the licence.
• The minimum interval between taking blood or immunisations was not upheld for 32 sheep.
• 3,817 mice over the number authorised by the licence were used in experiments.
• 1 dog was kept alive after developing an adverse effect without authorisation.
• 8 mice were killed using an incorrect method.
• 23 mice were not given pain relief as specified by the licence.
• 22 mice were not killed at the humane endpoint “due to a misunderstanding about how to calculate weight loss”.
• 30 rats underwent “unnecessary procedures performed due to administration errors”.
• Regulated procedures were mistakenly performed on 7 pregnant mice due to “misidentification of sex”.
• Several instances of procedures, injections, blood draws and surgeries being undertaken that were not authorised by the licence.

The second most common reason for non-compliance in 2024 was ‘failure to provide adequate care’, which was found in 54 (37%) of the 146 total non-compliance cases. This category covers a wide range of shocking and upsetting scenarios, each of which resulted in unnecessary harm, distress, suffering or death to the animals involved.

Some significant examples of failure to provide adequate care include:

• 26 mice were found dead after their cage flooded overnight due to a leaking water valve.
• 1 fish was killed by being drawn through a siphoning tube.
• 1 mouse and 1 hamster were put into waste bags in separate incidences, with the mouse being killed afterwards.
• Several instances of mice being found trapped in parts of their cage for up to 20 hours, without access to food and water and sometimes found dead.
• 392 fish died when a system fault led to exposure to chlorine, while a further 15 fish died after the incorrect water was added to their tank.
• Several instances of mouse pups being left without the mother sometimes resulting in death, in some cases with no access to food, water or warmth – in one case for 22 hours.
• A transport box fell to the ground resulting in death of up to 6 mice.
• 26 froglets escaped from their tank after it was overfilled and overflowed.
• 1 rabbit had malnutrition and emaciation after its lack of appetite was not noted early enough.
• 1 mouse was left in a transfer box for 7 days.
• 1 rat sustained a thermal injury while on a faulty heat mat.
• 1 monkey sustained an injury from a cage water hopper.

These examples highlight just some of the incompetence and lack of due care and attention provided to the animals in the care of some licence holders. In most cases, an inspector advice letter or letter of reprimand was the only action taken by ASRU, with no further consequences, with one compliance notice being issued where “Significant issues of concern regarding farm and large animal facilities” were found, but no further detail is provided.

11 cases were defined as ‘Incorrect personal licence (PIL) authority’, where experiments were carried out outside of what was approved by an individual’s personal licence.

Several cases involved procedures being carried out without the relevant licence authority, including on 739 mice in one incident, and on 63 cows in another. Procedures were also carried out using 13 guinea pigs, 3 fish and 14 rats without the licence authority to use these species. 3 mice were given an additional dose of hormone, while a procedure on 1 mouse was carried out by a non-licencee.

The only remedy given in all instances was ‘Inspector advice’.

Shockingly, at least 9 non-compliance cases were related to ‘failure to provide food and water’ – a basic right and need for any human or animal. 13 mice, 7 rats, 5 bats and 2 monkeys were involved in these cases, in which the animals were left without food and/or water for several days, and in one case for up to 5 days.

Some examples from the report include:

• 2 mice were left without water for up to 5 days.
• 5 mice were without food for 42 hours, which daily checks failed to detect.
• 2 monkeys were left without food overnight.
• 5 bats were left without food, or food and water in 2 separate instances.

There are also 3 instances of unweaned mouse pups being removed from the mother, with 21 pups starving to death as a result.

2 cases were classified as ‘Unauthorised location’, where animals were kept, or experiments were carried out, in an area not specified in the establishment licence. Cases included 1 mouse being left in room not authorised
for overnight holding and without water, and 56 mice undergoing minor surgical procedures in room not approved for aseptic surgery.