Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion.
Briefing Paper No. 03/1998 by Honor Figgis and Gareth Griffith
Page Content
- The purpose of this background paper is to look at the facts
and arguments relating to several aspects of the scientific use of animals in
New South Wales, with some interstate and international comparisons. The main
points can be summarised as follows:
- For a large number of people, the use of animals in research
raises difficult moral questions. A spectrum of attitudes towards the
use of animals can be found. At one end are those who believe that animal
experimentation for any reason is simply wrong, and at the other end are those
who do not find the use of animals in research problematic in any way. Many
people find themselves somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum, seeking to
protect the welfare of animals as far as possible without compromising the
welfare or, possibly, the convenience of humans (pp 1-3).
- Attitudes to the use of animals are generally shaped by
personal convictions as to whether animal experimentation has benefitted human
and/or animal welfare; whether some or all animals do in fact experience pain,
stress or anxiety; and what the moral status of animals is in relation to
humans. These questions are all the subject of debate in scientific and
philosophical circles (pp 3-16).
- There are three principles central to the humane conduct of
animal research: the replacement of animals with other experimental
techniques; the reduction of the number of animals used in experiments;
and the refinement of procedures to minimise the impact of experiments
on animals. These principles guide the continuing efforts to develop
alternatives to animal experiments. The extent to which existing alternatives
can replace animal experiments is a controversial question. Another area of
debate is how the three principles should be incorporated into animal research
systems (pp 57-70).
- Animal use figures in New South Wales tend to vary from
year to year. The use of animals may decline in some research areas, but
increase in others. While there is no clear downward trend in the number of
animals used, there are specific instances of reduction in the use of animals
and refinement of experiments to reduce the impact on the animals involved. In
New South Wales, a total of 2, 481,031 animals were used in research and
teaching in 1995-96. Almost 78% of these animals were fish, followed by
domestic fowl (7.7%), mice (5%), sheep (3.1%) and rats (2%). Altogether 2728
cats, dogs and primates were used, about 0.1% of the total number of animals.
Several other Australian States collect animal use figures, but these are not
directly comparable as the methods of collecting information vary widely among
the States (pp 21-25).
- The adequacy of the available animal usage figures has
been criticised on several grounds. It is said that the published statistics do
not inform people about critical aspects of the research being conducted, such
as how invasive the animal research procedures are, their justification, or
their potential to cause pain or distress. Criticisms have also been made about
a lack of publicly available information on how many animal experiments are
actually producing significant or valuable results (pp 21-23).
- Australian State and Territory legislation regulating animal
research varies considerably, but the regulatory systems generally share
similar basic features. The animal research legislation in New South Wales,
South Australia, Victoria and the ACT is more comprehensive and up to date than
that of Queensland, Western Australia and the NT, although these last three
jurisdictions are currently reviewing their legislation. Common features of
State regulatory systems are: mandatory research licences for individuals or
institutions, and mandatory prior approval by an ethics committee of procedures
involving animals. Community representatives and animal welfare supporters are
brought onto institutional animal ethics committees in order to ensure
community participation in decisions about what animal research should be
allowed (pp 25-33).
- A unifying force linking the various State systems is the
Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific
Purposes produced by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The
guiding principles of the Code are: the requirement to establish the necessity
of the proposed study; the requirement to make an ethical judgment that the
proposed experiment is justified, weighing its scientific and educational value
against the potential effects on the animals; the obligation to treat animals
with respect and to consider their welfare; and strategies to apply the
principles of replacement, refinement and reduction (pp 26-27).
- There are a number of possible regulatory models for
controlling animal research. At one end of the regulatory spectrum is a system
in which there is no government control or intervention, with all decisions on
experimentation being taken by researchers and their institutions; at the other
end is a totally regulated system where government takes responsibility for
approving experiments and for monitoring the conduct of research. In between
these two extremes is enforced self-regulation', the type of system adopted in
New South and other Australian jurisdictions, and commonly adopted in other
countries. The selection of an animal research regulatory regime is generally
informed by arguments about the relative effectiveness of self-regulation and
government intervention in controlling the conduct of animal research (pp
34-47). Similar arguments arise in determining how the animal research laws
should be enforced (pp 54-57).
- Animal ethics committees play a key role in the
operation of the New South Wales animal research laws. Although the benefits of
these committees are generally accepted, there is debate about their
effectiveness in practice. Questions centre around: what the role of the
community and animal welfare members should be; the selection of these members,
and the level of institutional and administrative support given to them; and
how ethics committees should approach their task of weighing the costs and
benefits of animal experiment proposals (pp 47-53).
