Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:58:51.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethical Review Process in the UK and Australia: The Australian Experience of Improved Dialogue and Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

R H Bradshaw
R H Bradshaw*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK
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.

A study was carried out in Australia and the UK of the legislation and procedures relating to the welfare and use of animals in scientific research. In Australia, a National Code of Practice for the Care and Treatment of Laboratory Animals has been adopted and it is a legal obligation for all Institutions to adhere to the Code. Each institution has an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) responsible for ethical review and animal welfare which must include, within certain stipulated parameters, a veterinarian, a research scientist, a member of a rights/welfare organisation and an additional lay member. In the UK the situation is different, as the Home Office directly administers the law regarding the use of animals in research. In April 1999 the Ethical Review Process (ERP) was introduced; every Institution must establish an ERP which must include a named veterinarian and representatives from the Animal Care and Welfare Officers and others. In both countries great emphasis is placed on the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement in experimental research. Substantial differences in culture and ethical review structure between the two countries are identified. However, various recommendations are outlined, based on the Australian experience, to build on existing structures and further develop the UK ERP. These recommendations should be seen as long-term aims and seek to further improve animal welfare through facilitating communication, increasing accountability and creating an environment conducive to open discussion.

Keywords

animal welfareAustraliacommunicationethicallaboratoryreviewUK
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , May 2002 , pp. 141 - 156
Copyright
© 2002 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Baker, R 1999 Regulation and classification of the use of animals for scientific purposes in Australia. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 27: 148 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Broom, D M and Johnson, K G 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia 1997 Australian National Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal's point of view: consumer demand theory and animal welfare. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1993 Through Our Eyes Only? W H Freeman & Company: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A F and Broom, D M 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1989 Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1990 Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1992 Education and training for personnel under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Home Office statement of policy on education and training. In: Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1992 pp 35–37. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1995 Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals in Designated Breeding and Supplying Establishments. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1997 Code of Practice for the Humane Killing of Animals under Schedule 1 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1998 Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1997. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1999a The Use of Animals in Scientific Procedures. Home Office, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 1999b The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. Home Office, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 2001 Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 2000. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M 1994 Ethics Committees for Laboratory Animals: A Basis for their Composition and Functions. RSPCA: Horsham, West Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M 1998 Lay Members and the Ethical Review Process. RSPCA: Horsham, West Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M and Hawkins, P 1998 Developing the ethics component of the UK modular training system for laboratory animal scientists: a LASA workshop report. Animal Welfare 7: 445–458Google Scholar
Jennings, M, Moore, G and Howard, B 1998 The Ethical Review Process in Academia. LASA: Tamworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Orlans, F B 1997 Ethical decision making about animal experiments. Ethics & Behaviour 7: 163–171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, W M S and Burch, R L 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Skene, L 1994 Animal experimentation ethics committees — what are they trying to achieve? In: Baker R M, Burrell J H and Rose M A (eds) Effective Animal Experimentation Ethics Committees. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Adelaide, October 1992: ANZCCART, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Smith, J A and Jennings, M 1998 Ethics training for laboratory animal users. Laboratory Animals 32: 128–136CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Boyd Group 1995 Ethical Review of Research Involving Animals — A Role for Institutional Ethics Committees? Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
UFAW 1999 The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals. UFAW: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar