Session C7: Ethical Analysis and National Standards

Chairs: Neil Wells (New Zealand) and Nelson Garnett (USA)

C7: Five Plus Three: Legislating for the Five Freedoms and the Three R's--Animal Welfare Act 1999 (New Zealand)
N.E. Wells and J.H. Nicholson. School of Animal Health and Welfare, UNITEC Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. nwells@unitec.ac.nz.

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (New Zealand) commenced on January 1, 2000. Rather than focusing on punishing cruelty, the Act establishes a positive duty of care that every owner or person in charge of an animal must provide for its physical health and behavioral needs. The Five Freedoms, which were initiated by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (UK), were modified as the five basic needs of animals relating to proper and sufficient food and water, adequate shelter, the ability to display normal patterns of behavior, physical handling that minimizes distress, and protection from and rapid diagnosis of injury or disease. Minimum standards are provided in a series of codes of welfare, which is tertiary legislation under the Act. Promotion of the Three R's first championed by Russell and Burch, has been incorporated as a purpose of Part 6 of the Act, which restricts projects that use animals, establishes codes of ethical conduct and animal ethics committees, and establishes reviews of code holders and animal ethics committees. The legislative process that enabled this to be realized is examined and analyzed, and the process by which other Commonwealth countries have emulated this legislation is explained.

C7: The Humane Society of the United States' Pain & Distress Initiative
Martin L. Stephens. Animal Research Issues, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC, 20037, USA. MStephens@hsus.org.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) launched its Pain & Distress Initiative in 1998, to encourage greater attention to the prevention and alleviation of pain and distress (P&D) in research animals. The Initiative's ultimate goal is to eliminate all significant P&D in animal research by 2020. There have been several developments to date. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a proposal to upgrade the regulation and reporting of P&D. The HSUS has created a newsletter (The Pain & Distress Report), distributed periodically to over 2,000 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, scientists, and regulators. We have written a comprehensive critique of carbon dioxide (CO₂) euthanasia, arguing that it causes avoidable P&D in animals. We have challenged more than 50 institutions in regards to their under-reporting of unrelieved P&D in animals. Finally, a survey conducted for The HSUS revealed that Americans strongly oppose the use of animals in experiments that cause them to suffer.

C7: Ethical Review Committees in the Netherlands: Looking Back and Forward
W.A. de Leeuw and R. From. Inspectorate for Health Protection, Commodities and Veterinary Public health, P.O. Box 16.108, 2500 BC The Hague, The Netherlands. wim.de.leeuw@kw.nl.

Since the second half of the eighties, the vast majority of the animal experiments proposed have been assessed by ethical review committees. With the revision of the Experiments on Animals Act in 1996, this ethical assessment of animal experiments by an ethical review committee was introduced as a legal obligation. These committees must meet certain criteria that are defined by law, and they must be recognized by the Minister. At present, there are 30 committees operating. Some facts and figures with regard to the functioning of these committees will be presented. In 2000 and 2001, the Inspectorate focussed on the way the ethical review committees operated. The main features of the findings of the Inspectorate will be presented. It can be concluded that, in general, the ethical review committees operate in accordance with the letter of the law. It appeared, however, that they don't always operate according to the spirit of the law. Also some of the difficulties that are experienced by members of the committees will be elucidated. In conclusion, some considerations concerning the possible ways to go forward will be discussed.

C7: Ethical Evaluation of Research Proposals by Ethics Panels Advising the European Commission Roman Kolar. Akademie für Tierschutz, Animal Welfare Academy, Spechtstr, 1, D-85579 Neubiberg, Germany. roman.kolar@tierschutzakademie.de.

Ethical principles with regard to animal experimentation exist in European Community legislation and other official EU documents. Therefore, applications for funding of research under the Community's research program may undergo an ethical review that is carried out by so-called ethics panels, consisting of experts chosen by the Commission for their competence in ethical aspects of research. The work of these panels differs substantially from that of other ethical committees, as they exist on institutional, local, regional, or national levels. First, they may examine other ethical aspects than those of animal experimentation or animal welfare alone, such as the use of human volunteers. This is reflected by the composition of the panels. Second, their decisions are normally based on consensus. Third, even though these decisions may refer to Community legislation, the criteria applied are not restricted to those provided by this legislation. The European Commission's ethics panels, hence, provide for a unique model of ethical evaluation. Nevertheless, the functioning of this system (e.g. formal and practical basic conditions, information content of applications, type of decisions taken, lacking of any quality control) offers various opportunities for improvement.

C7: Achievements in Raising Awareness on the Use of Alternative Methods in Latin America and the Caribbean
G. Murillo, L.U. Perez, J.R. Pascual, and E. Tur. Laboratory for Alternative Methods, Center for Toxicology and Biomedicine, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba 90400. uperez@toxi.scu.sld.cu.

Activities to promote the awareness and acceptance of alternatives in Latin America and the Caribbean were initiated four years ago. As a result, information about the Three R's has been distributed to students, teachers, researchers, and authorities in more than two hundred academic and research centers from seventeen countries. Short courses and lecture series were presented to hundreds of attendees from those sectors. Many educators have already been persuaded of the advantages of using alternatives. So far, models, software, and videos have been used, and further resources in the Spanish language are planned to assist the replacement of animal use in practical classes. As an integral part and a remarkable event of the project, the First Caribbean and Latin American Workshop on Alternative Methods was held in Santiago de Cuba in December 2001. In spite of these accomplishments, much still needs to be done in order to increase the use of alternatives in various fields of scientific and educational activity within the region. The commitment is still present and further initiatives will ensue.