Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:22:58.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Australia's ethical framework for when animals are used for scientific purposes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Rose  and
E Grant
M Rose*
Affiliation:
Room G6, Level 2, Clinical Sciences Building, Prince of Wales Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia
E Grant
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Committee, National Health & Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The basic tenet of the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (the Code) is that there is an ethical imperative in our decisions as to if and how animals are used in these circumstances. The Code provides a framework for ethical review which incorporates a set of guiding principles and establishes institutional Animal Ethics Committees with responsibilities for oversight of these activities; the nexus between animal welfare and scientific outcomes and the recognition that such ethical decisions are not matters for the scientific community alone but must involve the wider community are notions central to the effective implementation of the Code. The Code identifies the responsibilities of the parties involved such that arrangements within which individuals exercise their responsibilities are clarified and processes for accountability are transparent. First published in 1969 as an initiative of the scientific community under the auspices of the National Health and Medical Research Council, the seventh edition of the Code was published in 2004. The Code is a living document with changing community views and scientific developments reflected in each revision. The time course of the development of the Code provides a background to examine the way in which policies governing the use of animals for scientific purposes have evolved in Australia. This paper will provide an overview of these developments and discuss the influences which have shaped the key elements of this approach.

Keywords

animal researchanimal welfareethical frameworkethics committeespublic participationresearch governance
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , August 2013 , pp. 315 - 322
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anderson, EE 2006 A qualitative study of non-affiliated non-scientist Institutional Review board members. Accountability in Research 13: 135–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989620600654027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, W 1990 A new approach to regulating the use of animals in science. Bioethics 4: 45–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467 -8519.1990.tb00065.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bankowski, Z and Howard-Jones, N 1986 International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals. CIOMS: SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 1986 European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes. ETS 123. EU: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Cross, N, Pines, MK and Rogers, LJ 2004 Saliva sampling to assess cortisol levels in unrestrained common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). American Journal of Primatology 62: 107–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAFF (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2005 Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS). www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aawsGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2006 A user's guide to animal welfare science. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21: 77–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delpire, VC, Mepham, TB and Balls, M 2000 Proposal for a new ethical scheme addressing the use of laboratory animals for biomedical purposes. In: Balls, M, van Zeller, AM and Halder, ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation pp 841–849. Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Dresser, R 1999 Community representatives and nonscientists on the IACUC. What difference should it make? ILAR Journal 40: 29–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ilar.40.129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, S 2004 Rationalising public participation in the health service: the case of research ethics committees. Health & Place 10: 339–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.08.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliot, L and Hunter, D 2008 The experience of ethics committee members: contradictions between individuals and committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 489–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.022020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FELASA 2006 Principle and practice in ethical review of animal experiments across Europe: summary of the report of a FELASA working group on ethical evaluation of animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 41: 143–160Google Scholar
Flecknell, P and Waterman-Pearson, A 2000 Pain Management in Animal. WB Saunders: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Green, CJ 1979 Animal Anaesthesia. Laboratory Animals Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Homes, KA, Paull, MD, Birrell, AM, Hennessy, A, Gillin, AG and Horvath, JS 1996 A unique design for ease of access and movement of captive Papio hamadryas. Laboratory Animals 30: 327–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367796780739916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICLAS 2010 International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) Working Group on Harmonisation of Guidelines on the Use of Animals in Science. Ethical Review of Proposals to use Animals in Science. http://iclas.org/harmonization.htmGoogle Scholar
Ideland, M 2009 Different views of ethics: how animal ethics is situated in a committee culture. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 258–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.026989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchell, RL, Erickson, HH, Carstens, E and Davis, LE 1983 Animal Pain Perception and Alleviation. American Physiological Society: Baltimore, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
NHMRC 2002 Statement on Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
NHMRC 2003 Policy on the Care and Use of Non-human Primates. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
NHMRC 2004 Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
NHMRC 2008 Guidelines to Promote the Wellbeing of Animals used for Scientific Purposes, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
NMHRC and OGTR (Office of the Gene TechnologyRegulator) 2006 Guidelines for the Generation, Breeding, Care and Use of Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals for Scientific Purposes. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, JK, Heffernan, S, Thomson, PC and McGreevy, PD 2008 Effect of positive reinforcement training on physiological and behavioural stress responses in the hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas). Animal Welfare 17: 125–138Google Scholar
Obrink, KL 1984 Monitoring of animal experimentation: ethical review committees. In: Bankowski, S and Howard-Jones, N (eds) Biomedical Research Involving Animals. Proceedings of the XVII the CIOMS Round Table Conference pp 156–164, CIOMS, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Orlans, FB, Simmonds, RC and Dodds, WJ 1987 Consensus recommendations on effective Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. Laboratory Animal Science 37(S): 11–13Google Scholar
OTA 1986 Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing and Education. Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Pines, MK, Kaplan, G and Rogers, LJ 2007 A note on indoor and outdoor housing preferences of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108: 348–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M 1996 Striking the balance: the practitioner and the animal ethics committee. ANZCCART News 9: 1–4Google Scholar
Rowe, G and Frewer, LJ 2000 Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 25: 3–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowsell, H 1981 Animal committees. Nature 294: 204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/294204a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, WMS and Burch, RL 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen & Co Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2007 Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 294–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.015057CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, P 1990 New attitudes needed on animal testing. New Scientist 127: 16Google ScholarPubMed
Singer, P 1991 To join or not to join? The dilemma of Animal Experimentation Ethics Committees. The Animal Welfare League News. NSW Animal Welfare League: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
SSCAW 1989 Senate Select Committee Report on Animal Experimentation. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Tuler, S and Webler, T 2010 How preferences for public participation are linked to perceptions of the context, preferences for outcomes and individual characteristics. Environmental Management 46: 254–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9515-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warnock, M 1984 Scientific research must have a moral basis. New Scientist 104: 36Google ScholarPubMed
Webler, T and Tuler, S 2002 Unlocking the puzzle of public participation. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 22: 179–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02767602022003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L and Bourne, H 2007 Voices and values: lining values with participation in OR/MS in public policy making. Omega 35: 588–603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar