Animal Ethics Committees and Animal Use in a Monitored Environment: Is the Ethics Real, Imagined Or Necessary?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Animal Ethics Committees and animal use in a monitored environment: is the ethics real, imagined or necessary? Proceedings of the ANZCCART Conference held in Wellington, New Zealand, 26–28 June 2005 ANZCCART 2005 © 2005 Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) C/- Royal Society of New Zealand, PO Box 598, Wellington, New Zealand ISBN 1-877264-18-0 The Proceedings were edited by Dr Pat Cragg, Professor Martin Kennedy, Associate Professor Don Love, Dr John Schofield, Professor Kevin Stafford, Dr Jim Webster and Mrs Gill Sutherland. Acknowledgments The Chairman and Board of ANZCCART New Zealand would like to express their appreciation to the following sponsors for financial assistance to this conference: AGCARM AGMARDT Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University Health Research Council Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Ministry of Research, Science and Technology New Zealand Veterinary Association Royal Society of New Zealand Contents Introduction ...........................................................v Session 5: Alternatives and cost Development of acceptable alternative methods: Session 1: Animal Ethics Committees: what do a review of methods, validation and ethical aspects they really do, what should they do, and why associated with alternative methods ...........51 should they do it? in vitro Dr Richard Clothier Animal Ethics Committees: a help Public accountability of animal use for scientific or a hindrance? ........................................................3 purposes in Australia: auditing of Animal Ethics Dr John Schofield Committees and national data ..............................57 Where did all the ethics go? .....................................9 Dr Robert Baker and Dr Kate Blaszak Professor Graham Nerlich Session 6: Out of the lab and into the wild Session 2: Animal Ethics Committees: their Vertebrate pest control research:managing function ethical issues .........................................................71 The Cam Reid Oration 2005: Are animals Mr Bruce Warburton and Dr David Morgan our equals? ............................................................15 Animal welfare at home: considerations Professor Donald Evans and perspectives ....................................................81 The Animal Ethics Committee: getting it all Mr Peter Mason to work ..................................................................23 Dr Deborah Middleton Conference recommendations 2003 ANZCCART Conference recommendations Session 3: Animal Ethics Committees: the social and follow-up ........................................................89 dimension 2005 ANZCCART Conference The necessary, the real, and the imagined recommendations .................................................90 aspects of Animal Ethics Committees ....................29 Dr Mark Fisher Animal Ethics Committees: ethics committees or compliance bodies? ...........................................35 Dr Tim Dare Session 4: Animals in research: the laboratory 39 Safeguarding the future of animal research in the United Kingdom .............................................41 Dr Simon Festing Neurodegenerative disease modelling: why is it necessary? .......................................................43 Dr Ailsa McGregor Introduction This highly successful conference was held from 26 to Session 2 “Ethics Committees: their function” 28 June 2005 at the Royal Society of New Zealand. The conference focused on what Animal Ethics Committees Professor Don Evans, University of Otago, delivered do in regulating and monitoring the use of animals in the Cam Reid Oration. This paper noted and evaluated research and teaching, and the public’s and scientists’ the varying degrees with which an affirmative answer expectations of the process. Questions considered has been given to the question “Are animals our during the conference included: Who is responsible equals?” It considered what guidance, if any, might be for striving for best practice? Are ethical standards contained in these affirmative responses for members necessary, should they be raised, and by whom? Are of AECs who have responsibility for providing ethical AECs just compliance gatekeepers or do they have a approval of research proposals. role in defining ethical standards? Is public opinion of Dr Deborah Middleton, Australian Animal Health animal ethics known or just imagined? What can AECs Laboratory, Melbourne, discussed, from an Australian learn from human ethics committees? perspective, how to get all the elements of an AEC The conference programme was structured into six working successfully together. She explained how sessions over the two days. AECs are set up, their composition, the stakeholders, and operating guidelines, and how engagement with Session 1: Animal Ethics Committees: what do they the highly committed animal welfare representatives really do, what should they do, and why should on the AECs is critical to preserving the validity of they do it. the AEC process. Dr John Schofield, University of Otago, discussed Session 3: Animal Ethics Committees: the social whether Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) are a dimension help or a hindrance to researchers. He presented a virtual Animal Ethics Committee meeting to discuss a scientific proposal from an institution, to illustrate Dr Mark Fisher, Kotare Bioethics Ltd, discussed the issues of accountability and responsibility. necessary, the real, and the imagined aspects of AECs. Professor Graham Nerlich, University of Adelaide, AECs have a unique perspective of animals, science tackled the issue of the “ethics” of Committees. He and people. They represent the social contract between considered that AECs do good ethical work but animals and humans, and between institutions involved asserted that AECs don’t (and shouldn’t) “do ethics” in research, testing and teaching and the public. Mark and explained why he thinks that. suggested that engaging in the manifestations of these After these two talks the delegates split up into 6 contracts will help society develop the science and groups to discuss one of three fictitious protocols and educational objectives it wants. Thus while AECs to report back to the whole conference whether or not reflect society, they inevitably help shape the future approval should be given for such an experiment. The of the relationship between people and animals. He feedback from the breakout session was that it was a said that is possible to imagine AECs playing a greater great icebreaker at the beginning of the conference to leadership role in this process but questioned whether initiate networking. they should. V information within the constraints of an animal. Dr Tim Dare, University of Auckland, considered Session 5: Alternatives and cost personal attitudes and public regulation with respect to animals and ethics. Our attitudes towards non-human Dr Richard Clothier, FRAME Alternatives Laboratory, animals contain deep inconsistencies. We distinguish UK, talked about the development of acceptable alternative without very clear grounds between companion animals methods. The process of validation is an important one and other species; we create systems of animal welfare when considering how alternative assays are going to be regulations but carefully design them so they only acceptable as replacements for the present animal-based minimally restrict our conduct. Dr Dare explored some methods. There is a formal process in the EU whereby in of these tensions to try to see what a genuine respect for vitro assays can be validated, and these criteria are being non-human animals might require of us. He felt that extended to new proposed animal tests. He reviewed the consideration of ethics by AECs, rather than just ensuring issues that underlie the FRAME Research programme compliance with regulations, was important. which funded the work on alternatives that he described in his talk. Session 4: Animals in research: the laboratory Dr Robert Baker, Department of Primary Industries and Resources, South Australia, talked about public Dr Simon Festing, Research Defence Society, UK, accountability in animal use for scientific purposes in explained that although the UK is a world leader in Australia and national data and auditing of AECs and medical research and produces more new medicines, more institutions. As there is no national animal welfare scientific papers and more Nobel Prize winners per head legislation regulating the use of animals for research and of population than almost any other country in the world, teaching in Australia, each of the eight States and Territories it paradoxically has the most vitriolic and influential anti- has its own legislative requirements and system of AECs. vivisection movement in the world, as well as the most This has made the collection, collation and interpretation aggressive animal rights extremists. Since there is limited of national data on animal use in research and teaching room for debate or dialogue to find common ground very difficult. This paper provided the Australian data with abolitionist organisations he said that in order to for five of the eight jurisdictions for 2003, together with safeguard the future of biomedical research in the UK, some interpretations and comments. Compliance with it is vitally important that those involved in the use of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of animals understand the tactics of these groups and deploy Animals for Scientific Purposes is