Target: Shabana Mahmood, Home Secretary, London, United Kingdom
Goal: End approvals for sepsis experiments on animals that involve invasive, high-pain procedures and redirect funding and guidance toward modern, human-relevant methods with full transparency.
Decades of animal-based sepsis research have relied on procedures that cause intense suffering yet fail patients. Commonly cited models puncture intestines so bacteria and fecal matter leak into the abdomen or inject large toxin doses to force a reaction. Accounts describe fever, breathing distress, organ failure, and prolonged decline before the animal’s death. Despite this heavy toll, advocates and scientists alike have repeatedly warned that these models do not mirror human disease and that promising animal-based leads too often collapse in clinical trials.
Critics further note that rodents’ immune responses differ markedly from those of people, that lab conditions vary widely, and that induced, acute inflammation in animals does not match the slower, complex course seen in human sepsis. The result is years of pain for animals and repeated disappointment for families waiting on effective therapies. Humane, human-relevant approaches—organs-on-chips, patient-derived cell systems, advanced imaging, computational modeling, and clinically anchored biobanks—offer a path that aligns ethics with efficacy.
The Home Office oversees licensing and enforcement for animal use in science. This moment demands leadership. Clear direction can curtail authorizations for animal sepsis projects, fast-track acceptance of non-animal approaches, and publish open data on decisions and outcomes. To protect animals and deliver better care for patients, policy should pivot now toward modern science and away from painful, low-yield animal models.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Secretary Mahmood,
We urge the Home Office to take decisive action in light of mounting evidence that animal-based sepsis models inflict severe suffering while failing to deliver reliable, human-relevant insights. Procedures described by researchers and advocates—such as intestinal puncture to induce infection or massive endotoxin dosing—cause extreme pain, shock, and organ failure in animals without faithfully replicating human disease.
The licensing framework you oversee can set a higher bar. Where protected species are concerned and harm is significant, approvals for sepsis projects should be curtailed unless applicants can demonstrate that no viable non-animal method exists and that expected knowledge gains cannot reasonably be achieved through human-based science. At the same time, your office can accelerate adoption of advanced alternatives by issuing clear guidance, recognizing defined non-animal approaches, and aligning inspectors and license holders around transparent reporting.
We therefore respectfully request that you direct your department to end approvals for animal sepsis experiments that reportedly rely on highly invasive, high-pain procedures, prioritize modern human-relevant methods, and publish a time-bound plan with milestones, responsibilities, and annual progress updates. This shift will reduce suffering, improve translatability, and better serve patients who urgently need effective treatments.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo Credit: Gustavo Fring
