Thanks for your comment and sorry for the late reply. We should have used the word ‘substantial’ rather than ‘significant’. According to the report, around 2% of projects had licenses to conduct substantial procedures. This article suggests that the figure is an average across projects and the final figure could actually be as high as 5%. We chose the higher figure (5%) rather than 2% so as not to play down the numbers.
In any case, the point we were trying to make is that behind the headline figures which see a rise in the total number of ‘procedures’ is a breakdown showing that most of these were ‘mild’ or ‘moderate’ rather than being the kind of distressing operation we might think of when animal research is mentioned. Indeed, genetic modification or taking blood samples are included in the overall figure.

There is no ‘significant’ category in Uk statistics. What do you mean by ‘significant’? You seem to be trying to conceal the true degree of suffering involved in animal experimentation.