National workshop for animal ethics committees
John Martin
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) recently ran a workshop in November 2006 for animal ethics committees (AECs). These are the statutory bodies that regulate the use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand. The following is taken from a report by John Martin, the Chair of NAEAC, given in the December edition of NAEAC News.
"We were delighted at the response to the workshop – 77 attendees, including more than 60 AEC members from 28 out of 35 committees. The workshop provided a venue where AEC members could share their own experience and widen and deepen their knowledge. The workshop has also enabled us to identify issues to which NAEAC, MAF and AECs should devote attention in future.
In opening the workshop, the Minister of Agriculture, Jim Anderton, emphasised the Government's strong commitment to science and recognised the important place of appropriate concern for, and management of, animal welfare issues. The Minister thanked AEC members for their contribution, noting its vital strategic value to New Zealand.
Mr Anderton also commented on the attitudinal research recently commissioned by MAF and the key factor of educating people about the nature of the regulatory system, saying: "This tells us that there is merit in openness and transparency where it is possible." He added that he was sure public support for animal testing rests not only on it being humane, but also on the recognition that animal-based research is necessary but kept to a minimum.
NAEAC is again grateful to the people who shared their expertise and experience with the workshop. Virginia Williams's presentation had important things to say about humane endpoints for animals in research, testing and teaching. I noted her emphasis on the problem of 'subjectivity' in the interpretation of clinical signs and the importance of using as objective a system as possible, i.e. the use of comprehensive score sheets that are species- and procedure-specific. The global dimension of research, testing and teaching was again underlined by the statement of an ideal: that of international harmonisation of humane endpoints being undertaken by the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science.
David Mellor reported on the work on severity grading commissioned by MAF and undertaken with Virginia Williams and John Marbrook. They had recommended that the existing system (based on Mellor and Reid (1994)) remains appropriate, that the grading system should be renamed the 'impact scale' and that a sixth grade should be added to include procedures that must not be undertaken under any circumstances. NAEAC has in preparation a response to the commissioned work; this will take into account comments on severity reporting made in the workshop.
An important milestone was reached with Linda Carsons's presentation of a flow chart working through the process of determining 'when is a manipulation not a manipulation?'. This very useful document is now being distributed to AECs.
We were very pleased that representatives of The Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) were able to attend the workshop. ANZCCART chair, James Battye, in a crisp contribution reflected on the ethical considerations impinging on the transparency of AECs, and Don Love outlined developments since the 2003 ANZCCART conference, ‘Lifting the Veil'. Another aspect of the accountability of AECs, is the collection and presentation of animal use statistics. Ian LeGrice focused on the reasons why these statistics are collected and whether there is scope for improvement. An important suggestion was that rolling three-year averages for the present series should be published. NAEAC has agreed to this proposal, subject to MAF reporting on any implications. (This would not affect the activity of AECs in collecting and reporting statistics.)
As NAEAC Chair, I had a special interest in the contributions by Nita Harding (Monitoring of Compliance by Researchers) and John Schofield (Awareness of Alternatives and the Three Rs). When called upon by the media to comment on the state of research, testing and teaching in New Zealand, for example, when animal use statistics are released, I am very conscious that the comprehensiveness of the regulatory system and the rigour of its application by AECs are under scrutiny. Both these contributions drew on rich experience to provide practical guidance against which AECs will wish to measure their own practices. Complaints procedures, for instance, are worthy of reflection.
Kate Littin looked forward beyond the Three Rs [replacement, reduction and refinement], drawing on the recent literature and work being done in the various international Three Rs centres. Are the Three Rs now a ‘creed or an instrument?' Are they a constraint? Should 'responsibility' be a fourth R? There are issues here to which NAEAC will need to direct its attention.
The afternoon's breakout sessions produced some lively debate. Of particular interest were the workshop on species differences in sensory awareness led by Craig Johnson, (this year's recipient of the NAEAC Three Rs Award) and the discussion among animal welfare representatives led by NAEAC member and RNZSPCA Vice President, Jenny Prattley. The role of welfare representatives on AECs cannot be over-valued; apart from the statutory significance, the wealth of experience brought to deliberations by these committee members underpins their special contribution."
- John R Martin
Chair, NAEAC
Return to:
Page last updated: 30 April 2008