Ombudsman to investigate Commission study on use of non-human primates

The Berlaymont, Brussels: home of the European Commission. Picture courtesy berlaymont2000.com

This follows a complaint from the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE), alleging that the relevant Commission working group lacked expertise in the area, and that it failed to take evidence from pressure groups into account. The Ombudsman is now investigating and has asked the Commission to respond to the claims by 30 April 2010.

Diamandouros said his role in promoting effective and transparent policy-making in the EU institutions will become “even more important” in light of the Lisbon Treaty, given that it “strengthens the right of citizens and associations to participate in the democratic life of the EU [...] and requires the union institutions to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative organisations and civil society.”

In 2007, the European Parliament asked the Commission to set up a timetable for providing alternatives to the use of non-human primates in scientific experiments. Following this, in May 2008, the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks investigated the matter and in October 2008, the Commission organised a public hearing on this issue.

In November 2008 the Commission proposed a directive under which the use of non-human primates would be subject to restrictions. The proposal also introduced a ban on the use of great apes - chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans - in scientific procedures, except under exceptional cicumstances.  At the same time the Commission said it was not possible to ban outright the use of animals for safety testing or biomedical research.

A number of animal protection, medical and patient safety organisations, including the ECEAE, subsequently complained to the Commission, alleging that the investigation process had been unfair, and in May 2009 ECEAE lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman, alleging that the working group did not have sufficient expertise and saying the Commission did not sufficiently take into account evidence supplied by pressure groups.

Now the Ombudsman has asked the Commission to how the experts were selected and the basis on which the Commission concluded all relevant contributions from third parties were considered.