FINNISH NATIONAL CONSENSUS PLATFORM FOR ALTERNATIVES

Fincopa Answer to Ecopa Questionnaire

National Programmes of Research into Alternative Tests

A Review of Activities in Member States of the European Union

This questionnaire has been draw up in consultation with Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, ecopa, scientists and representatives from industry.
It is expected that the information received from Member States will provide a comprehensive picture of EU research in this area and will be of great assistance in planning an EU coordinated research programme in the future and will be placed in the public domain.

Research into alternative methods should not only include the important research into in vitro and non- animal procedures but also research into refinement techniques and reducing the number of animals used.
Research into all three of these areas, Refinement, Reduction and Replacement will lead to improved animal welfare and reduced animal usage.

Questionnaire

Budget
1	Provide an estimation of the total budget per year that is made available from Public funds for alternatives research in your country. -40 000 € For what year(s) does this estimate relate to? - 2004 -2005
2	List the agencies, institutions and other sources that provide financial support for the development of alternative methods? If possible, provide a breakdown of the amounts of the different contributions -Replacement, Reduction and Refinement: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 34 000 €/ year -Replacement: Juliana von Wendt’s Foundation 6000 € (5000-8000 €)/ year In addition there can be not ear-marked research money for many projects which have used in vitro methods. For example in the Drug 2000 programme of TEKES (the Finnish Technology Agency) the “Drug in vitro” project (2001-2006) develops in vitro methods for the studies of drug development and safety.
3	To what extent are mechanisms in place to make funds available to match EU supported projects? There are no mechanisms to make funds available to match EU supported projects.
Strategy
4	Does a national strategy exist in your country for making finance available for research into alternative methods? No. In the Government Programme there is a statement that the use of animal experiments should be reduced. However, there is no national strategy for financing research of alternative methods. Recently there have been two working groups by ministries, which have made practical suggestions for the promotion of 3Rs in Finland: See part 10. Additional Comments.
	Is this information made explicit and is it readily available i.e., is it published on a website? If so, please provide links and/or published brochures. No.
5	In which area of Alternatives (Refinement, Reduction or Replacement) is the research focused? Does it involve all three R’s? Are there particular aims connected with that research? Is there a general focus or are specific topics getting attention? The main emphasis is on replacement alternatives, but refinement and reduction research are not omitted. The Cell Research Centre (CRC) at the University of Tampere has the particular aim to develop alternatives to animal experimentation and to increase the use of human cells and tissues in the alternative study models, which are developed for biomedical studies and for toxicology. The activities of a research tissue bank have been started in Tampere University Hospital. In addition, the aim is to add automation into the study methods, especially for the needs of chemical and pharmaceutical industry. The Ministry of Education supported the establishment of CRC (year 1999). The refinement and reduction research has been promoted especially in The National Laboratory Animal Center at the University of Kuopio, with a professorship for the laboratory animal science and welfare since the year 2002. This professorship is shared with the University of Helsinki and financed by the Ministry of Education.
6	How are priorities selected? Is there consultation with stakeholders such as industry, academia and animal welfare NGO’s? Consultations have been going on with pharmaceutical industry and academic research, e.g. in the development of in vitro study models for the development of pharmaceuticals.
7	-Is there preference for a few large projects or rather for many small projects? (Please specify what you define as “large” The national financing of the studies of 3R -alternatives has been minimal, and distributed to different research groups. -What is the percentage of funding that is normally given towards the estimated cost of a project? The percentage varies depending on the source of grant, but usually it is low. -Do some projects receive 100% funding and others a lesser percentage and are there strict limits on the maximum amount of money available for each project? Usually 100% funding is possible only in some not “ear marked” projects: e.g. in TEKES-projects (these projects have not been specified for the development of alternative methods, but e.g. for development of new effective methods for drug development in the pharmaceutical industry).
8	If a project is running in your country, to what extent is there cooperation and coordination between the different stakeholders? Specify the partners. In the advisory board of TEKES research projects there are representatives from the pharmaceutical industry.
Separation of responsibility
9	Within your country, which competent authority or government department is responsible for supporting research into alternatives? Presently only the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in the form of quite modest grants (34 000 €/year). Does the same department control chemical management and animal testing procedures? Please explain the structures. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for animal welfare. The responsibility of chemical testing is dispersed to different ministries: depending on the group of chemicals in concern: Ministry of Social and Health Affairs (pharmaceuticals), Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Social and Health Affairs (biocides and industrial chemicals), Ministry of Trade and Industry (cosmetics). If separated, are the different authorities cooperating together? The authorities cooperate together.
10	Additional Comments: Recently there have been two working groups of ministries which have made practical suggestions for the promotion of 3R:s in Finland: 1. The Report of the Ministry of Education on “The ethics of animal experiments” 2000. 2. The Report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on “The coordination and cooperation in the development of alternatives for animal experiments in Finland” 2006. Both reports suggest that the financing of the research of alternatives should be considerably improved and that the coordination of replacement research should be organized. The Report 2 suggests further the establishment of a National Centre for the Studies of Alternatives to Animal Experimentation.

If further information is needed to help you answer the questions please do not hesitate to contact one of the persons listed below:

Prof. Vera Rogiers (ecopa) : vrogiers@vub.ac.be
Mme Sonja van Tichelen (Eurogroup): S.vantichelen@eurogroupanimalwelfare.org

We thank you for completing this questionnaire and would be grateful if you would return it to Tonia Devolder, general secretariat of ecopa at ecopa@vub.ac.be .

The deadline for receiving the completed questionnaire is: 31 MARCH 2006