In correspondence published by the Home Office on 18 May 2026, ministers confirmed a procedural change in how the Animals in Science Committee will review project licence applications involving animals in scientific procedures. Lord Hanson of Flint accepted the committee’s proposal that thematic review should become the default model, rather than relying mainly on one application at a time. (gov.uk) The safeguard was kept in place. Lord Hanson said the committee should still be able to review individual applications where novel or contentious issues arise, preserving a route for targeted scrutiny in the most sensitive cases. The proposal itself had been sent by ASC chair Dr Sally Robinson on 9 December 2025, with the ministerial reply dated 7 May 2026. (gov.uk)
The change matters because the ASC sits within the wider licensing framework under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Government guidance states that the Secretary of State may seek specific or general advice from the committee on project licence applications, including those involving severe procedures for certain protected species, endangered species, major welfare or ethical questions, and any project raising novel or contentious issues or serious societal concerns. (gov.uk) In other words, this is not a new power and it is not a rewrite of the statutory licensing test. It is a change in working method: how the committee organises its review activity and how it aims to turn that work into advice that can be used more consistently across the licensing system. (gov.uk)
The thematic model is designed to group licences by shared features such as severity, species or disease area, then review those clusters together. In plain terms, the committee wants to examine patterns across similar applications rather than treating each referral as an isolated case. (gov.uk) Dr Robinson’s letter said that approach should help the ASC identify trends, spread good practice and draw in targeted expertise through co-option where a review needs specialist knowledge. The Home Office agreed that grouping similar licences should produce more strategic advice with a wider effect across the licensing system. (gov.uk)
The committee’s case for change was largely about consistency and reach. Dr Robinson said the current case-by-case process allows detailed scrutiny before a licence is granted, but it can limit the effect of the committee’s advice to the single licence under review. She also said it places a disproportionate demand on committee time and resources and creates an uneven workload as membership changes. (gov.uk) For a policy audience, that is the clearest rationale. A thematic system is meant to convert advice from a one-off intervention into something closer to repeatable regulatory learning, so that comparable applications are assessed against a more settled body of committee advice. That is an inference from the published letters, but it follows directly from the committee’s stated aim of making its findings more widely applicable. (gov.uk)
The ASC pointed to earlier themed work as evidence that this method can shape policy beyond a single application. In her letter, Dr Robinson cited the committee’s review of licences involving the forced swim test, saying that it led to targeted recommendations to the regulator and a formal government response. (gov.uk) That response, published by the Home Office in March 2024, accepted the committee’s advice to further restrict the use of the forced swim test, apply more scrutiny to future proposals and set out plans to move towards a ban. Used as a case study, it shows why the ASC believes themed reviews can produce system-wide change rather than narrow licence-specific adjustments. (gov.uk)
What stays the same is just as important as what changes. Lord Hanson’s reply was explicit that the thematic model will be the default, not the only route. Individual licence reviews remain available where the issue is novel or contentious, and the minister said this would keep the system responsive and flexible. (gov.uk) That reservation is likely to matter most where an application raises a new scientific technique, an unusual species question, a high-severity protocol or a point likely to trigger significant public concern. The published ASPA guidance already identifies those types of cases as ones where government may seek ASC advice, and the new model does not remove that discretion. (gov.uk)
The Home Office also made clear that the change does not displace the rest of the licence process. Government guidance states that all new project licence applications must still be evaluated by the local Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body at the establishment concerned, and that Home Office inspectors carry out the harm-benefit analysis as part of project evaluation. (gov.uk) For applicants and establishments, the practical implication is that the new model affects one advisory layer rather than the whole approval structure. Researchers will still need to justify animal use, expected harms, likely benefits and the application of the 3Rs, while local AWERB scrutiny and inspectorate assessment remain in place. (gov.uk)
Next comes implementation. Lord Hanson said officials in the Animals in Science Regulation Unit and the Animals in Science Regulation Policy Unit will work with the committee on the transition to the new model. He also linked the move to the government’s Alternatives Strategy, arguing that a more structured thematic method should improve protections for animals and strengthen the evidence base for advancing alternatives. (gov.uk) The policy test will be whether thematic reviews produce clearer expectations for future applications in recurring areas of animal research, while still allowing ministers and the ASC to intervene directly in genuinely exceptional cases. On the published record, that is the balance the Home Office is now trying to strike. (gov.uk)