Animal welfare What is animal welfare and whose welfare is considered? Animals are recognized as sentient beings in New Zealand law. This means they have sufficiently complex nervous systems to support flexible and adaptive behaviour and, importantly, a range of different experiences and feelings that they can interpret as good/positive or bad/negative. In New Zealand, animals considered to be sentient are mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, octopus, squid, crabs, lobsters and crayfish (see Information about animal research in NZ for more information). The welfare of an animal depends on its mental state – the negative or positive experiences it is having at a particular point in time. Negative experiences might include pain, discomfort, breathlessness, nausea, fear, anxiety, hunger, thirst and even loneliness, frustration or boredom, depending on the kind of animal. Good experiences might include feelings of pleasure, comfort, safety and companionship, again depending on the kind of animal. The animal’s mental state is influenced by its perception of both its physical health and its environment. How can we understand an animal’s welfare state to make improvements? Often in research, it is necessary to perform procedures that may cause animals to experience negative states like fear, pain, nausea, or breathlessness. In addition to compromise during procedures, animals may also experience compromise in their home environment, during day-to-day husbandry and handling, preparation for, as well as recovery from, the procedure. An animal may be more likely to experience welfare compromise because of its age, physical state, particular type or breeding. When using animals in research, testing, and teaching, we have a responsibility to promote good welfare, meaning minimizing welfare compromise due to negative experiences and enhancing welfare by providing opportunities for positive experiences. The people responsible must consider the ways that their use of, or interaction with, the animals may impact their welfare. Another way to think about this is to ask “What mental states will the animal experience in this situation, in this physical condition or due to this procedure?”. We can understand the degree to which welfare is compromised by evaluating the quality, likelihood, severity/intensity and duration of any and all negative experiences; we do this using observable or measurable indicators of mental states, including behavioural, physiological and neurophysiological measurements. Likewise, we can understand the degree of welfare enhancement, primarily by evaluating animal’s behavioural responses to opportunities that arise or we provide. One model we can use to organize investigations of welfare and the evidence for an animal’s mental experiences and its overall welfare state is the Five Domains Model. This is an internationally recognised welfare assessment framework developed in New Zealand. It reflects modern understanding of animal welfare by breaking down the factors that influence welfare into four categories (Domain 1 Food and water; Domain 2 Physical environment; Domain 3 Health and physical status; Domain 4 Behavioural interactions) and includes the associated mental experiences in a fifth category (Domain 5 Mental states). With care, the Model can be used for any species in any context. It allows the user to apply their own knowledge of the animal species to identify potential sources of welfare compromise and opportunities for welfare enhancement. How can we improve the welfare of animals used in RTT? The Three Rs The Three Rs provide guidance on ways to minimize welfare compromise for animals used in RTT by avoiding animal use altogether (Replacement), reducing the number of animals that might experience welfare compromise whilst still achieving the purpose of having used them (Reduction) or reducing the likelihood, severity and/or duration of negative mental experiences arising due to the ways animals are used and managed (Refinement). Providing opportunities for positive experiences, while continuing to minimise negatives, is another way to refine animal use. For more information about the Three Rs see NC3Rs . Minimizing welfare compromise (Refinement) depends on what the problem is for the animal. Importantly, animals must be conscious to be having any mental experiences, including pain, so using general anaesthesia to make an animal unconscious is one way to reduce welfare compromise during a procedure. Pain can also be alleviated or reduced by using drugs that block or reduce pain signals (local anaesthetics or analgesics). However, pain-relieving drugs won’t reduce hunger, thirst, breathlessness, nausea, fear or loneliness. So, the remedy must be appropriate for the problem, and the effectiveness of the intervention should be evaluated using methods like those described above. For example, fear due to human-animal interactions can be reduced by avoiding or refining handling procedures, while anxiety might be relieved by manipulating animal housing or social groupings. Likewise, such changes in animal housing and management can provide animals opportunities for positive experiences. Promoting these feelings wherever possible can enhance the welfare of animals, as well as making them easier to handle and work with. Resources for minimizing welfare compromise: Beausoleil, N., & Mellor, D. (2015). Introducing breathlessness as a significant animal welfare issue. New Zealand Veterinary Journal , 63 (1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.940410 Resources for enhancing welfare: ·Baumans, V. (2005). Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Rodents and Rabbits: Requirements of Rodents, Rabbits, and Research. ILAR Journal , 46 (2), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.46.2.162 Rault, J.-L., Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., & Hemsworth, P. (2020). The Power of a Positive Human–Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare. Frontiers in Veterinary Science , 7 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.590867 Resources for understanding animal welfare and its assessment: Mellor, D. J. (2017). Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare. Animals, 7(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080060 Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B., & Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870 Littlewood, K.E.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Mellor, D.J. Updating the Five Provisions: Aligning Welfare-Focused Care with the Five Domains Model. Animals 2026 , 16 , 1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16121927

Use of Animals in New Zealand Records of the annual numbers of animals used in research, testing and teaching have been collected since 1987, and record animals that have had manipulations involving the normal physiological, behavioural, or anatomical integrity of the animal by deliberately subjecting it to a procedure which is unusual or abnormal when compared with that to which animals of that type would be subjected under normal management or practice. This can involve exposing the animal to any parasite, micro-organism, drug, chemical, biological product, radiation, electrical stimulation, or environmental condition; or enforced activity, restraint, nutrition, or surgical intervention; or depriving the animal of usual care. Proportion of animals (per type) used in research, testing and teaching in 2024 From 1 January 2018, the definition of ‘manipulation’ was expanded to include the killing of an animal for research, testing or teaching on its body or tissues, and the breeding or producing offspring that have potentially compromised welfare due to breeding (for example, to research some hereditary medical conditions). All animals reported in this new category are required to be treated with the same duty of care as animals used for research and teaching. Reasons for animals being bred but not used might include: Wrong sex for the specific research project (this is because the sex ratio of offspring can often not be controlled prior to birth). Creating or maintaining genetically altered lines (not all offspring have the required genetic alteration). Number bred was over and above what was needed (exact size of litters or number of offspring born are usually unpredictable). Sufficient numbers are needed to sustain animal colonies, as well as ensure adequate diversity and sufficient timely supply for research and teaching purposes. ‘Sentinel animals’ used for health screening of other animals in the laboratory, whose condition hints towards any subtle health issues in the lab that could widely impact other animals’ welfare. The animals can also be useful after death in teaching and training, or by storing tissues from the animals which can be used in future research. This may reduce the number of animals that need to be bred and used in future. Statistics on New Zealand’s use of animals in research can be found here: 2024 , 2023 , 2022 , 2021 , 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 Infographics on this data can be found here: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 The definition of animal, however, varies from country to country: In New Zealand it includes any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, octopus, squid, crab, lobster, or crayfish, including any mammalian foetus, or any avian or reptilian pre-hatched young, that is in the last half of its period of gestation or development, but excludes any animal in the pre-natal, pre-hatched, larval, or other such developmental stage (other than those indicated previously). Marsupial pouch young are also considered animals. In Australia it includes any fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and cephalopods, but with some variation by state. In some States it also extends to lobsters, crabs or crayfish. In South Australia, a license is not required to use fish for research purposes. In the US , it includes warm-blooded animals, but excludes birds, rats and mice bred for use in research. In the EU , it includes live vertebrate animals and cephalopods, including independently feeding larval forms and foetal forms of mammals.

New Zealanders' Attitudes to Animal Research in 2023 A recently conducted study reveals New Zealanders’ perspectives and knowledge on the use of animals in scientific research, testing, and teaching. The study was conducted on behalf of the New Zealand board of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART NZ). You can read the report here: ANZCCART_Animal research report Final .pdf Download PDF • 1.25MB ANZCCART Press release: New Study Reveals New Zealanders' Views on Animal Use in Scientific Research and Teaching Science Media Centre expert reaction to the study can be read here .

FAQs Frequently asked questions: 1. What regulations exist for animal research in New Zealand? New Zealand law mandates that researchers must apply to an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) to gain approval for using animals in research, testing, and teaching. These AECs are also tasked with monitoring approved research activities. The composition of AECs includes a veterinarian, a scientist, a nomination of an approved organization (e.g., SPCA), and a layperson with no involvement in animal research. This diverse membership provides a broad perspective on animal welfare. The government, while not directly involved in AEC decision-making, regulates animal research by reviewing the codes of ethical conduct that AECs and researchers operate under, oversees these AECs and requires annual reporting from the organisations that have them. 2. Is cosmetic testing on animals allowed in New Zealand? Testing on animals for developing, making, or testing a cosmetic or an ingredient that is intended exclusively for use in a cosmetic is explicitly banned in New Zealand under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, 2015 amendment. 3. How are animals chosen for research? Animals are selected for research based on the specific needs of the study and the suitability of different species to provide relevant data. The selection process is governed by ethical considerations, aiming to use non-sentient, or non-living organisms where possible and to minimize the number of animals used. Researchers must demonstrate that no viable alternatives exist and that the potential benefits of the research justify the use of animals. 4. Are there alternatives to using animals in research? Yes, researchers actively seek alternatives to animal testing, such as cell-based models, computer modelling, and other technologies that can reduce or eliminate the need for animal use. This effort aligns with the Three Rs: Replacement of animals with non-animal methods, Reduction in the number of animals used, and Refinement of techniques to reduce impacts. 5. How can the public learn more about animal research? The public can learn more about animal research through various trusted sources, including animal welfare organizations, regulatory bodies, and research institutions. Many of these organisations support openness about use of animals in research and teaching as signatories to the Openness Agreement on Animal use in Research and Teaching in New Zealand. They provide educational resources online, offering insights into how animal research is conducted, regulated, and how it contributes to scientific and medical advancements. Engaging with these sources can provide a balanced view of the ethical considerations and the importance of animal research in certain contexts.

ANZCCART Conference 2001 Joint ANZCCART/NAEAC Conference on 28-29 June 2001 Held at the Novotel Tainui Hotel, Hamilton, New Zealand NB: this page was written in advance of the conference Exploring the relationships between ourselves, animals, and the environment is the theme of the conference jointly organised by the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) and the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). Issues to be addressed include the interdependence and interconnectedness of all life, the images of science and scientists, relevant legislation, dealing with new technology, fish research, and what could and should statistics or the popular media tell us. In understanding these relationships and challenging our beliefs, this conference will help to map the intricate connections between humans, animals, and the environment. It will therefore be valuable to anyone interested in how we learn, communicate, and evolve the relationships between ourselves and the natural world. This conference will be of special interest to those involved in education, in science in both the public and private sectors, and to those interested in teaching, animal welfare, the environment, ethics, and the communication and regulation of community expectations. The programme will provide both local, Australian, and international perspectives. ANZCCART aims to provide leadership in developing community consensus on ethical, social, and scientific issues relating to the use of animals in research and teaching. NAEAC provides independent advice to the Minister of Agriculture on policy and practices relating to the use of animals in research, testing and teaching. Programme Thursday, 28 June 8.15 am Registration 8.45 am Opening Session 1 Primary and secondary education Focus: To consider how our interaction with animals and the environment has changed and how we might develop better interactions through education 9.00 am Cam Reid Oration: Learning, animals and the environment — an animal rights perspective Mr Gary Reese, Compassion in World Farming, London; former member of SAFE, Auckland (by videoconference) 9.40 amInfluences on learning Mrs Barbara Benson, Dunedin College of Education 10.20 am Morning tea 10.50 am Consequences of the continuity between the human and biological worlds Professor David Penny, Massey University 11.30 am Science in the classroom Mr Peter Trim, Independent consultant 12 noon Lunch Session 2 Tertiary education and research and teaching Focus: To consider the influences which impinge on the acceptability of animal-based research, testing and teaching and how we might acknowledge and incorporate them 1.00 pm Public perception of scientists: Frankenstein and Einstein Professor Frank Griffin, University of Otago 1.40 pm The next generation of scientist Dr Catherine Morrow, AgResearch Ruakura 2.20 pm Alternatives and the future Professor Bruce Baguley, Auckland Cancer Society Research Institute 3.00 pm Afternoon tea 3.30 pm The Animal Welfare Act 1999 – impacts and issues Professor John Marbrook, Deputy Chair NAEAC 4.10 pm Skeletons and sovereigns in the cupboard — learning from history Dr Mark Fisher, AgResearch Poukawa Friday, 29 June Session 3 Future challenges Focus: To consider the challenges that we could use to build an appropriate learning environment for our interaction with animals and nature 8.30 am Moving forward with the media Dr Mark Matfield, Research Defense Society, UK (by videoconference); Dr Kay Weavers, University of Waikato 9.25 am Democratically modified science Ms Ronda Cooper, Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 10.05 am Morning tea 10.25 am The next Animal Welfare Act Hon Pete Hodgson, Minister of Research, Science and Technology 11.10 am Fish as experimental animals Good for science and fish? Dr John Baldwin, Monash University, Melbourne 11.40 am “Back off man, I’m a scientist” Dr David Scobie, AgResearch Lincoln 12.20 pm Lunch Session 4 Care and regulation Focus: To consider how society should move forward in dealing with the regulatory aspects of animals and the environment. 1.00 pm Dealing with the emerged technologies Dr Judy McArthur-Clark, Biozone, UK 1.40 pm Living with the legislation Dr Donald Hannah, ERMA NZ 2.20 pm Care beyond regulation Dr Barbara Nicholas, Christchurch 3.00 pm Close of conference Conference details Venue The 2001 ANZCCART conference was held jointly with the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). The venue is the Novotel Tainui Hotel, Alma Street, Hamilton — located on the banks of the Waikato River in the Central Business District of Hamilton.

Awards ANZCCART New Zealand provides a range of awards to promote professional development and to recognise those that provide an excellent service towards improving animal welfare in the context of animal use in research and teaching. There are various awards that are applicable for Animal Technicians, AEC members, Researchers, and Students (secondary and tertiary). So please take advantage of this opportunity to nominate someone or apply for an award yourself. New Zealand AEC Member of the Year Award This award has been created by ANZCCART to recognise the excellent service offered to Animal Ethics Committees by their members in New Zealand. As part of this award, ANZCCART provides for the recipient to the annual ANZCCART Conference. View details of the application form and eligibility criteria below: AEC Member Award information .docx Download DOCX • 130KB Nominations are now closed, and will open again in January 2027 . Award recipients 2026 Dr Christine Sumner (SPCA) 2025 Dr Craig Gillies (Department of Conservation) 2024 Dr Jim Webster (AgResearch) 2023 Adrian Bibby (Victoria University of Wellington) 2022 Dr Bruce Dobbs (University of Otago) 2020 Ms Ali Cullum (AgResearch Ltd) and Professor Anthony Phillips (University of Auckland) 2018 Dr Deborah Samson (University of Auckland) and Dr Dave Morgan (Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research) ANZCCART New Zealand Animal Care Award ANZCCART New Zealand has established a national award to recognise the significant contribution made by individual New Zealand-based technicians and research assistants, particularly in regard to the welfare of the animals. For more information, see the awards criteria and nomination form below: Animal-Care-Awards-Criteria-and-Nomination-Form .doc Download DOC • 35KB Nominations are now closed, and will open again in January 2027 . Award recipients 2026 Ms Fiona Matiya (Bioeconomy Science Institute) 2025 Ms Charlotte Morgan (University of Otago) 2024 Ms Charley Hurst (AgResearch) 2023 Mr Geoff Purchas (Massey University) 2022 Mr Aaron Malthus (AgResearch Ltd) 2021 Mr Trevor Watson (AgResearch Ltd) 2020 Ms Brittnee Southland (Massey University) 2019 Mr Jaskirat Kaur (Malaghan Institute of Medical Research) 2018 Technicians of the Large Animal Unit, Vernon Jansen Unit (University of Auckland) 2017 Ms Stephanie Delaney (AgResearch Ltd) ANZCCART New Zealand Secondary Student Essay Competition ANZCCART hopes to inspire students to think critically about the role animal research plays in today’s society and to engage with the difficulties that surround animal use. Building on the NCEA assessment tasks for NCEA Achievement Standards (Biology 2.2, and 3.2), which integrates biological knowledge to develop an informed response to a socio-scientific issue, the ANZCCART New Zealand Secondary School Essay Competition is an opportunity to showcase student work developed in these modules. Applications are now open with submissions invited by 14 August.. First prize: $150 and second prize: $100. Conditions of entry and other details for the Competition can be found here: ANZCCART-Secondary-Student-Essay-Competition .docx Download DOCX • 172KB Award recipients: 2025 First prize: Isabel Te Hira (Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu) Entry - School Essay Competition .pdf Download PDF • 124KB 2024 First prize: Millie Ashley (Lynfield College) Animal Research .pdf Download PDF • 118KB Second prize: Candice Liu (St Cuthbert's College) animal research .pdf Download PDF • 79KB 2023 First prize: Brier Chin (Wellington Girls' College) Animals In Research in New Zealand (3) .pdf Download PDF • 90KB Second prize: Hasnula Babaranda (James Hargest College) Babaranda .pdf Download PDF • 138KB 2022 First prize: Oshadha Perera (Southland Boys’ High School, Invercargill) Oshadha 2022 ANZCCART Essay Competition .docx Download DOCX • 20KB 2020 First prize: Hannah Wilson (Rudolf Steiner School) – Essay Second prize: Shruti Sharma (Epsom Girls Grammar School) Third prize: Devanshi Ranjan (Epsom Girls Grammar School) – Essay Note: The views and opinions expressed in these essays are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of ANZCCART NZ. ANZCCART New Zealand School Science Fair Prize ANZCCART will support the awarding of an ANZCCART School Science Fair Prize, with the provision of prize money for the best project where, either: Students have undertaken study or research on an animal-based project Animal Ethics approval has been applied for and given Correct scientific protocols were followed in the study Students know importance of ethics approval Or: Students have undertaken study or research that would have normally involved the manipulation of animals (as defined in the NZ Animal Welfare Act) but have found a way to find the results without doing so. Students describe what the animal-based project would have looked like and how well the alternative non-animal based project achieved the same goals. Students explain why they chose to replace animals in their project. Email for more information about how to get prize sponsorship . More information about how to apply for Animal Ethics Approval for school science fair projects can be found at the National Association of Science Educators . ANZCCART School Science Fair Award recipients: 2024 NIWA Wellington Science & Technology Fair - Jedd Rix Aurora Energy Otago Science and Technology Fair - Boon Franzbowden, Hebe Song, & Juliet Lyall Cam Reid Oration The Cam Reid Oration is an initiative introduced by the ANZCCART New Zealand Board in 1995 in recognition of the late Dr Cam Reid's pioneering role in the evaluation and adoption of standards of ethical conduct for animal experimentation in New Zealand. It is awarded at the ANZCCART (NZ) Conference every three years. ANZCCART Fellow ANZCCART (NZ) has created an ANZCCART board observer position for early stage researchers, to both give early stage researchers an opportunity for ANZCCART board experience, but also to inform the Board with their perspectives. The Fellowship is: Award: $3k per year Period: 2 years Conditions: Postgraduate (within 8 years of completion of undergraduate degree) – for people in PhDs or Post Docs. This does not preclude the ability to hold a non-Fellowship position on the Board at a later date. For information about the position, contact: anzccart@royalsociety.org.nz Previous ANZCCART Fellows were: 2023-2025: Morgan Heslop, doctoral student, Massey University 2021-2023: Essie Van Zuylen, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Canterbury Aotearoa New Zealand John Schofield 3Rs implementation award The principles of the 3Rs are a cornerstone of the ethical use of animals in research, testing and teaching (RTT). The Aotearoa New Zealand John Schofield 3Rs Award celebrates achievement in the development and/or implementation of the 3Rs. The Aotearoa New Zealand John Schofield 3Rs Implementation Award was established in memory of Dr John Schofield, a veterinarian and ANZCCART (NZ) committee member who gained national and international recognition for his work advancing the welfare of animals used in research and teaching. Throughout his career, he made significant contributions to the development and implementation of the 3Rs principles, while also supporting others to adopt these practices in research, testing, and teaching. The award recognises individuals who demonstrate similar achievements and commitment to advancing the 3Rs in these fields. A history of the award and its precursor can be found here . The biennial $10k award is jointly offered by the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) and the New Zealand board of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART(NZ)). Applications for the 2026 award is now open. Applications close on Wednesday 30 September 2026. Please read the Terms of Reference and Application Form linked below before submitting your application. Aotearoa-New-Zealand-John-Schofield-3-Rs-Award-2026-Terms-of-Reference-2 .pdf Download PDF • 152KB Aotearoa-New-Zealand-John-Schofield-3-Rs-Award-2026-Application-form .docx Download DOCX • 149KB Applications or nominations should be sent as an electronic attachment (Word or PDF) to NAEAC via email at naeac@mpi.govt.nz . The most recent winners of the award, in 2024, were Otago Polytechnic and Equibreed ART Ltd, for applying the Three Rs in veterinary nursing and allied animal healthcare training, and developing an in vitro model for understanding, diagnosing and reducing early embryonic death in horses. Previous winners of the award have been: 2022: Neil Ward and colleagues from Information Technology Services, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University for an innovative web-based database application to enable teachers and researchers to share samples for use in research, testing and teaching. 2020: Dr Benjamin Albert (Liggins Institute, University of Auckland) for refining methods for oral nutritional or drug intervention. 2018: Massey-SPCA Desexing Clinic Global 3Rs Awards Programme The Global 3Rs Awards program recognizes significant innovative contributions toward the 3Rs of animal research to advance ethical science, by any researcher in academia or industry in any area of biology. Up to four Global Awards (North America, Europe, Pacific Rim, and the Rest of World) are made in the amount of $5,000 (USD) each. Award nominations must be based on a primary research paper that advances any of the 3Rs and is published in a peer-reviewed journal in the last three (3) years. These may include modifications to existing research techniques or any innovative research approach including, but not limited to: improvements to whole-animal models, tissue-based models, molecular techniques, analytic and computational models, study design or technique refinements, and translational medicine applications. For more information see: here The Ron Kilgour Memorial Trust Student Travel Award The Ron Kilgour Memorial Trust (RKMT) was established as a memorial to the late Dr Ronald Kilgour to organise, promote and foster activities in relation to research and teaching in the areas of ethology, behaviour, social values and personal, social and agricultural development and associated international relations. The RKMT accepts applications from students, within New Zealand, who are currently enrolled in a graduate degree (Honours, MSc or PhD) and are studying in the area of animal behaviour and welfare. The award will provide partial or full funding to attend and present their research at a relevant congress (e.g., ISAE, IEC or similar). Selection will be based on the potential impact of the students’ research toward improving animal welfare and on financial need. The award has the following objectives: To increase the profile of animal behaviour and welfare as a scientific discipline. To encourage students to investigate issues in animal behaviour and welfare. To provide students the opportunity to attend a conference to present their research and increase their profile by providing networking opportunities with other scientists working in the field. Email for application details . Discontinued awards ANZCCART Tertiary Essay Competition The student winner of the inaugural 2014 ANZCCART Essay Competition was Katherine Reid (Massey University), for her essay entitled Conversations to Improve Animal Welfare in Research and Teaching . The student winner of the 2018 ANZCCART Essay Competition was Alysha Mckeeman (University of Otago), for her essay entitled Moral Status and Obligations to Animals in Research . The student winner of the 2019 ANZCCART Essay Competition was Caitlin Morton-Burns (University of Canterbury), for her essay entitled Openness of animal research as a limitation to scientific endeavour . ANZCCART Communication Competition The purpose of the competition is to inspire New Zealand entrants to facilitate openness about the use of animals in research and teaching.. This competition is open to organisations and individuals, as well as tertiary and secondary education students. Entries can take any form, provided enough evidence is submitted for judging by the expert panel. Accompanying text to outline how its use facilitates openness in the role that animal research and teaching plays in society can be submitted.. Applications are now closed and will open again in April 2026. The competition prize is $200. Conditions of entry and other details for the Competition can be found here: ANZCCART-Science-communication-competition .docx Download DOCX • 659KB Award recipients 2025 First prize Oshada Perera (student, University of Otago) Openness in the Use of Animals in Research - communication competition .pdf Download PDF • 127KB 2020 First prize (Secondary school): Oshadha Perera (Southland Boys’ High School) Oshadha Perera .pdf Download PDF • 104KB 2020 First prize (general entry): Meg Brasell-Jones for “ Connectivity/Reciprocity ” Note: The views and opinions expressed in these communication examples are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of ANZCCART NZ.

ANZCCART Conference 2008 Blue Sky to deep water: the reality and the promise Proceedings of the 2008 ANZCCART Conference Auckland, New Zealand Preliminary pages Introduction Mark Fisher Welcome John Martin SESSION 1: Sharing experiences (dilemmas and compliance) Doing animal experimentation in a national organisation with regional responsibilities under state legislation Dr Chris Prideaux ( See PowerPoint presentation – PDF, 629 kb, 18 pages) Meeting animal welfare needs in a biotherapies environment- challenges for the CSL/Pfizer Animal Ethics Committee Dr John Phelps Assessing a research project with reference to the big picture Grant Shackell International benchmarking: AAALAC International Accreditation Dr Kathryn Bayne SESSION 2: Transgenics and modelling Modelling human muscle activity Professor Andrew Pullan Using zebrafish in human disease research: some advantages, disadvantages and ethical considerations Dr Michael Lardelli (See PowerPoint presentation – PDF, 5.6 MB, 26 pages) The benefits of using sheep to model human brain disease Jessie Jacobsen et al. SESSION 3: Great idea but not necessarily what I expected Great idea but not necessarily what I expected (Sometimes the techniques worked; sometimes they didn’t) Dr Allan Goldenthal, Dr Glen Harrison (See Powerpoint presentation – PDF, 1MB, 10 pages) Julie Hitchens ( PowerPoint presentation) Dr Jacqueline Keenan (PowerPoint presentation) Associate Professor Donald Love SESSION 4: Challenging ethics A brief but practical summary of ethics James Battye The Cam Reid Oration: Should we be giving attention to justifying animals in science? Dr Mark Fisher Infrared thermography and heart rate variability for non-invasive assessment of animal welfare Dr Mairi Stewart et al. (ANZCCART Student Award winner) ( PowerPoint presentation) SESSION 5: Death as an event, death as a challenge Euthanasing animals-the human experience Dr Erich von Dietz ( PowerPoint presentation) Managing grief associated with euthanasia Dr Dianne Gardner ( PowerPoint presentation) Recruiting Rats to the Research Resort: the importance of well trained resort personnel Dr John Schofield SESSION 6: Wildlife and conservation The artificial incubation of kiwi eggs: a conservation tool Suzanne Bassett and Claire Travers ( PowerPoint presentation) Researching wildlife in New Zealand: conservation opportunities are both constraints and opportunities Dr Mark Hauber Animal welfare issues in vertebrate pest management and research in New Zealand Dr Penny Fisher et al. SESSION 7: Fish welfare Working towards the development of best practices in fish and fisheries research or The troubles with fish and fish biologists! Howard Gill, Carolyn Ashton and Andrew Rowland The fish: What potential for awareness? Dr Colin Johnston ( PowerPoint presentation) “Pain” and analgesia in fish: What we know, what we don’t know, and what we need to know before using analgesics in fish Dr Don Stevens

2026 ANZCCART Conference Date: Wed, 21, 12:00 am - Fri, 23 Oct 2026, 5:00 pm Location: Sydney, New South Wales Email: anzccart@adelaide.edu.au Registrations are open Draft Program - updated Register here Venue and Accommodation Rydges World Square Hotel, 389 Pitt Street, Sydney. Tel: +61 2 8268 1888Accommodation at the venue is subject to availability at a price of $299 which includes one breakfast per room. Accommodation link Pre-Conference Tours ANZCCART is offering 3 Pre-conference Tours on Tuesday 20 October. All tours depart from Rydges Hotel and numbers are limited. Costs may apply for return transport. Book through Eventbrite. More information Post-Conference Workshop (EOI) More information Conference mini-program brochure Download mini-program brochure Cam Reid Oration The Cam Reid Oration is an initiative introduced by the ANZCCART New Zealand Board in 1995 in recognition of the late Dr Cam Reid's pioneering role in the evaluation and adoption of standards of ethical conduct for animal experimentation in New Zealand. It is awarded at the ANZCCART (NZ) Conference every three years. Previous Cam Reid Orators: 1995: Mr Chris Puplick, former Senator, Australian Parliament 1997: Mr Andrew McCaw, Office of Ombudsmen, Wellington 1999: Dr Jean Fleming, University of Otago 2001: Mr Gary Reese, former Director of Save Animals from Exploitation, Auckland 2003: Professor Jane Harding, Liggins Institute in Auckland 2005: Professor Don Evans, University of Otago 2008: Dr Mark Fisher, Kotare Bioethics Ltd, Hastings 2011: Professor Laura Bennet, University of Auckland 2014: Dr Siouxsie Wiles, University of Auckland 2017: Dr Helena Hogberg, Johns Hopkins University 2021: Professor Craig Johnson, Massey University 2024: Professor Natalie Waran, Companion Animals New Zealand Archive of ANZCCART Conference proceedings: 2025 ANZCCART Conference - Brisbane Australia (PDF 11MB, 70 pages) 2024 ANZCCART Conference - Christchurch, New Zealand ANZCCART Conference proceedings 2024 .pdf Download PDF • 708KB The conference served this purpose with emphasis on educating those who use animals in R&T, those who regulate such use under the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act or the eight equivalents in Australian states/territories, and the need for openness with the public. The conference delivered on its theme of use of animals in education, teaching and training in New Zealand and Australia in a neutral forum, where a diversity of ethical opinions were recognised and respected, and promoted openness and transparency with the public by those using animals in R&T. 2023 ANZCCART Conference - Adelaide, South Australia (PDF 3.4MB, 54 pages) 2022 ANZCCART Conference - Melbourne 26-28 July (PDF 3.4MB, 99 pages) 2021 ANZCCART Conference – Openness in Animal Research (PDF 7.2MB, 160 pages) Exploring the benefits and risks of openness in regards to the use of animals in Australian and New Zealand research. View the conference proceedings View the conference presentations The 2021 conference (delayed from 2020) looked at ‘openness’ in animal research and teaching. Public confidence in animal research hinges on the scientific community engaging in the evolving conversation about how and why animals are used. Being open about these matters is a worthwhile endeavour, and to be encouraged. To gain a broader perspective on how openness looks in practise, the conference examined overseas examples, both success stories and failures, and learn from different cultural viewpoints. 2019 ANZCCART Conference – Breaking Down Laboratory Walls (PDF 4.1MB, 138 pages) 2018 ANZCCART Conference – Keeping it Relevant (PDF, 198 pages) 2017 ANZCCART Conference – Maintaining social license in a changing world (PDF) Part 1 , Part 2 The theme of the conference was maintaining social licence in a changing world. The conference covered a wide range of topics from addressing social license in different contexts, to advances in replacement, reduction and refinement technologies, lessons from animal ethics committee front lines, and animal handling. https://vimeo.com/240602922 https://vimeo.com/240606138 https://vimeo.com/240729080 2016 ANZCCART Conference – Man or Mouse (PDF, 3.5 MB, 109 pages) 2015 ANZCCART Conference – Animal ethics – the gold standard 2014 ANZCCART Conference – Mixing it up – ethics, science, and adventure tourism (PDF 1.7MB, 106 pages) The use of animals for research and teaching can be awkward. Necessary, justifiable, ethical, well managed, well regulated without doubt. But still it can be awkward. It raises awkward questions. The conference sought to provide good answers to those questions. 2013 ANZCCART Conference – Can we do better? (PDF, 3.96 MB, 162 pages) 2012 ANZCCART Conference – Thinking Outside the Cage: A different point of view (PDF, 2 MB, 128 pages) 2011 ANZCCART Conference – Science with feeling: animals and people (ANZCCART website) The eclectic mix of contributions in these proceedings recognise the complex interdependence between animals and people, an inextricable connection woven with feelings. 2010 ANNZART Conference – Ethics in a changing environment (PDF) 2009 ANZCCART Conference – AEC best practice (PDF, 3.2 MB, 126 pages) 2008 ANZCCART Conference – Blue Sky to deep water: the reality and the promise (ANZCCART website) The contributions to the 2008 conference "Blue sky to deep water: the reality and the promise" held in Auckland, New Zealand, reflect the conference presentations dealing with science, values and the reality of understanding “backward running rats” and “cunning fighting fish”. 2007 ANZCCART Conference – Getting it Right (PDF, 1 MB, 120 pages) 2006 ANZCCART Conference – Responsibilities – The 4th R (PDF, 2.9 MB, 175 pages) 2005 ANZCCART Conference – Animal Ethics Committees and animal use in a monitored environment: is the ethics real, imagined or necessary? (PDF, 2.6 MB, 98 pages) The conference focused on what Animal Ethics Committees do in regulating and monitoring the use of animals in research and teaching, and the public’s and scientists’ expectations of the process. 2004 ANZCCART Conference – Animal Ethics: New Frontiers, New Opportunities (PDF, 1 MB, 44 pages) 2003 ANZCCART Conference - Lifting the veil: finding common ground 2003 - ANZCCART .pdf Download PDF • 12.55MB The theme of this ANZCCART Conference is "Lifting the veil: finding common ground". This theme was borne out of a perceived need to respond in a positive way to concerns that have been expressed in New Zealand regarding secrecy in the regulatory processes governing animal research. 2003 ANZCCART Workshop - Monitoring Animal Welfare and Promoting Refinement (PDF) 2002 ANZCCART Conference – Animal welfare and Ethics Committees. Where are the goalposts now? (PDF, 2.2 MB, 94 pages) 2001 ANZCCART Conference – Learning, animals and the environment: Changing the face of the future (ANZCCART website) 2001 ANZCCART .pdf Download PDF • 8.97MB Exploring the relationships between ourselves, animals, and the environment was the theme of the conference jointly organised by ANZCCART and the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC). Issues to be addressed included the interdependence and interconnectedness of all life, the images of science and scientists, relevant legislation, dealing with new technology, fish research, and what could and should statistics or the popular media tell us. 1999 AWAC/ANZCCART Conference - Innovation, ethics, and animal welfare: public confidence in science and agriculture 1999_ANZCCART .pdf Download PDF • 11.50MB The conference placed the welfare of animals squarely in the context of the challenges posed by changing patterns ofinternational trade, scientific and technological innovation, and societal attitudes. A central issue was that of the relationship between the wider community-including producers and consumers of livestock products-and scientists. 1997 ANZCCART/NAEAC Conference - Ethical approaches to animal-based sceince 1997_ANZCCART .pdf Download PDF • 16.20MB Ethical approaches to animal-based science emphasises value systems. Value systems are of importance to all of those concerned with animalbased science, whether as proponents or opponents of it. 1995 ANZCCART Conference - Farm animals in Biomedical and Agricultural Research 1995_ANZCCART .pdf Download PDF • 8.98MB This was the sixth conference held by ANZCCART and the second in New Zealand. Its theme moved from the narrower area of traditional laboratory animals to encompass the much wider field of farm animals in biomedical and agricultural research. 1994 ANZCCART Conference - Animal welfare in the twenty-first century: ethical, educational and scientific challenges 1994_ANZCCART .pdf Download PDF • 10.91MB The conference considered what directions animal welfare thinking might take in the future, the implications of those directions for human uses of animals in education and science, and the initiatives we would like to see taken to safeguard the welfare of the animals used in the educational and scientific arenas.

Conversations to Improve Animal Welfare in Research and Teaching (by Katherine Reid) Society is composed of individuals and personal ethics are a choice made on an individual basis. These individual choices coalesce to form the societal ethic. The societal ethic becomes the basis of the acceptance or rejection by society of a practice such as the use of animals in research and teaching. It is by influence on the individual that science gains its approval. These opinions of the individual are formed from numerous and nebulous factors. Because the knowledge and experience of the individual is the basis for their decisions, the influence of science must be to affect that knowledge and experience. That influence is exerted in conversation. Through literal and figurative conversations ideas are exchanged and the reasons for decisions are considered. These conversations take place among the members of society, some of whom are themselves scientists. Many of the most important conversations are commonplace and mundane. Other conversations are dramatic taking place in print and media. Conferences, seminars and meetings are the venues for more conversations. But always conversations occur between individuals who are members of society. In some conversations the individuals are scientists. Sometimes scientists talk to non-scientists. And non-scientists will converse among themselves. All of these conversations form the basis for the personal decisions on ethics which provide continued acceptance of the use of animals in research and teaching. From individual knowledge and personal experience conclusions are drawn and this is the basis for personal ethics. The knowledge and experience of individuals is extraordinarily diverse. For scientists, the training and experience of the discipline is a strong influence on their personal decisions about animal use. Part of scientific training regarding the basis for animal use includes the principle wherein cost to animal health and welfare is squared against the benefit derived from the use. Reduction, refinement and replacement are equally important principles which seek to maximise this equation and gain the greatest benefit for animal cost. These are good principles and their application is an important ethical justification for continued use of animals in research and teaching. But these principles must not be employed without careful consideration and understanding of the meaning behind them. Unconsidered reliance upon conventional principles is not sufficient to ensure continued acceptance by society. In application such principles must be vibrant and living practices and not be allowed to stagnate and harden into unconsidered dogma. Scientists are also individuals within society and not a separate or opposed entity. Scientists embrace scientific values and these values become part of the basis for societal acceptance. But not all scientists share identical background and variance occurs among the opinions of scientists as to the ethics and acceptance of animal use. Acceptance of animal use by scientists is a part of societal acceptance and a significant influence but not the entirety. By thought and discussion, these concepts will be kept alive in the minds of scientists. These principles will serve as some of the topics for conversation. As with scientists, acceptance by non-scientists within society is based on the particular knowledge and experience of the person. There is also a factor of visceral reaction and emotional perception of the question. The particular acceptance or rejection by an individual is generally not based on direct experience of the realities of animal use and welfare of animals. It is also highly unlikely that the individual decision about acceptability of animal use is based on understanding of the benefits gained. Essentially, non-scientists do not apply the same principles that scientists are trained to use. So upon what does the average individual base their decision? The cynic will say that non-scientific opinions are based on emotional and irrational reactions. They will contend that the emotional reaction is due to lack of scientific education or direct experience. They will further put forth that the average member of society is unwilling and uninterested in education or a greater appreciation of the realities of animal use. This same cynic will likely conclude that the acceptance or rejection of animal use by society should be based on strict application of scientific rationale and valueless science. This, in their opinion, is the only way to derive the single correct conclusion in a given situation. The fallacy of this argument is that even scientists cannot agree on correct application of the scientific method and rational evaluation by multiple parties does not always reach the same conclusion in any given case. Furthermore, science is not without emotion. Scientists too have an emotional response but training reduces the influence of this. The response is reduced but not eliminated. Scientists are human and, however logical and calculating, they still feel emotions about the work in which they engage and the animals which are used in that work. Misuse of animals in any context will affect scientists as human beings. That reason alone is sufficient to motivate scientists to carefully consider the welfare of animals used in their work. An emotional reaction is also not entirely irrational. Human emotions have evolved for survival. Emotions in favor of improving animal welfare can be argued to be self-protective. Humanity existed as an agrarian society for millennia and depended upon hunting since before the advent of agriculture. Before humans ate animals and kept warm in their skins they depended upon an ecosystem which relied upon healthy and vibrant animal populations. The inherent desire to protect animal species is not entirely irrational and can be thought to be based upon the human symbiosis with the other animal species. Conversation is the tool by which each party comes to appreciate the emotional reaction of the others. The pragmatist will say that animal use is a strictly mathematical cost versus benefit equation where the pain or damage inflicted on animals must be weighed strictly and mathematically against the benefit derived. The evidence of benefits to society gained by the use of animals in research and teaching is undeniable and exhaustive. The average individual, a critical decision maker about the acceptance of animal use is largely unaware of the extent to which animal use has benefited them. Even scientists are not completely informed about the extent to which their lives have benefited from animal based research. Scientists are also insufficiently informed of the negative aspects of animal use. The apparent equation becomes imbalanced and does not reflect the reality which it attempts to judge. The ability to solve the equation accurately is further impaired by the lack of understanding on both sides of the equation; cost and benefit. The effects on society for good or ill will not be determined except in the context of history. It is impossible to know how the benefit from animal use will weigh ultimately. In practicality, lack of understanding of animal physiology and management makes accurate evaluation of animal welfare precarious. Knowledge of animal pain and the experience of suffering is changing and improving continually. Judgment can only be based on the most recent understanding and the future will undoubtedly show that understanding to be deficient. Conversations among individuals will weigh this balance in a way that accounts for, evaluates and incorporates the grey areas. One current conversation puts forth that greater transparency in animal based research would benefit public understanding and thus promote acceptance. The thought is that if society were more clearly aware of the realities of animal use then they would be able to make informed decisions. Decisions would be based on logical evaluation and understanding of animal welfare. It is unlikely that greater awareness by non-scientists of the realities of research for animals will improve the welfare of animals. Society is generally not prepared to learn how the sausage is made. There are harsh techniques and uncomfortable realities of animal use of which non-scientists are not aware. Showing society the harm that is done without sufficient realization of the benefit derived is likely to create a strong and justified negative reaction to the techniques employed in research. This negative reaction by some members of society would not support the continued use of animals, even research for the benefit of animals. Lack of continued veterinary research would impact animal welfare negatively. Veterinary research is absolutely necessary for better understanding of the needs and physiology of animals. If improvements in the welfare of animals used in research and teaching are to be made, veterinary research is a necessity. By the fact that the superficial appearance of animal use would likely be uncomfortable to the uninitiated it can be concluded that there are important improvements which must be made in animal welfare. This reinforces the importance of societal acceptance of animal use and motivates the need to engage in conversations. To reprise the three R’s principles of animal use, conversation represents an important tool in refinement of animal use in teaching and research. The purist will put forth that the acceptance of society is based upon the quality of research and that only from high quality research can relevant results be obtained. They will further add that any benefit to society is only derived from research that is applicable and relevant to society. These individuals will contend that both sides of the cost-benefit equation are dependent on quality of work done and analysis performed. The purist forgets that conclusions derived from data are subject to interpretation. These conclusions are in turn based on analysis of raw data and that analysis is subject to the style and influence of the primary investigator. It can be startling to realize how science is not, in actuality, fact. Society believes that an observed phenomena, measurable and recordable, must be real. Society and science both accept that once something is published in peer reviewed literature, it becomes practical fact. Better scientists see the influence of analysis and interpretation and understand the process of scientific investigation in elucidation but not proof. Science contends that this method is the best available representation of reality. This is a leap of faith, though oddly logical. By faith, science becomes religion and subject to dogma. But any observation, measurement and recording is still only subjective. Scientific investigation into cognitive neurosciences and the mechanisms of consciousness reveal that reality is perception. An observed phenomena is subject to perception and is an individual experience. Observation therefore is a personal experience, different for every individual. Measurement and recording equally are interpretations which require analysis. Science itself undermines its own essential tenants and the dogmatic are forced to resolve the discrepancy. As science develops and progresses human knowledge of consciousness, the faith in science as fact will be challenged. Acceptance by society will change to accommodate. Conversation will benefit all parties as understanding of the mechanisms of human cognition change. There are direct implications to the ethics of animal use for human purposes. These will come forward as science reveals more about the nature of human and animal consciousness. New understanding will change how all view animal welfare and the relationship between humans and animals. It will be a radical change in thought for all parties and continued conversation will be essential for all to resolve the issues that will surround the new understanding. Understanding of the subjectivity of perception promotes humility. The intent here is to demonstrate the variety of perspectives and opinions in order to appreciate the reasoning behind individual decisions. It is also to show that no single perspective is the correct approach. The acceptance of society is a synthesis of varied perspectives with the advantages and disadvantages of all. The function of conversation is to express, develop and share positions, examine fallacies and failures as well as the strengths and to organically create a community and society opinion from the mosaic of individual perspectives. Engaging in conversation has several important functions. It is necessary to learn and experience the opinions and perspectives of others as well as learn important knowledge from the experiences of others. It is also necessary to debate and be coerced into articulation of logical arguments. Arguments require support with reasons and rationale and communication of these forces their examination. By explaining opinions to others, insight is gained on both sides as to the reasons for decisions. This practice moves decisions away from dogmatic authoritarianism to insightful, and carefully considered choices based in reason with due respect given to emotion. Conversation also induces self-analysis and promotes a critical evaluation of personal practices and beliefs. Most will have to examine their own practices if they are to confidently argue for those practices to others. As an example, a scientist who cannot comfortably discuss the animal techniques used in their lab with others including non-scientists will be forced to begin to examine those techniques. They will have to critically evaluate if they are in fact based on ethical decisions about animal use. The mutual exchange aspect of conversation also serves to communicate ideas between parties with different experience. Participants in the conversations gain empathy for others’ point of view and in return allow empathy from others. These benefits will ultimately be crucial to ensure the continued use of animals in research and teaching. Conversation and debate with non-scientists is important for the scientist as a member of both society and of the scientific community to which they belong. It is all too easy for any person to only engage with those who share their ideas and values, such as scientists discussing animal use only among other scientists. Such conversations in isolation are unlikely to produce fruitful progress and will not serve to improve the acceptance of animal use by society. Because science is an integral part of society and functions within society, scientists cannot remain isolated and removed from that society. Conversations with the broader group will promote a greater understanding of society’s values by members of the scientific cohort. If science is to continue to function as a valued part of society, scientific values will need to incorporate societal values. This conversation will also work for promoting understanding of scientific values by non-scientific portions of society. It is the propagation of this greater mutual understanding which is one of the key functions of conversation and critical to the continued use of animals in research and teaching. Conversation must also take place within the scientific community. There is no doubt that for the greatest benefit to be derived with the least cost to animal welfare, science must be of the highest quality. The debate must continue as to what constitutes high quality, relevant research. Individual scientists will need to embrace the importance of research quality and move beyond mere acquiescence to authority. Individual scientists need to determine for themselves what constitutes quality research and implement this because it provides the greatest benefit, not because they suffer penalties otherwise. Conversation within scientific society will be necessary for individuals to understand what is quality science, how to implement good practice and the importance of this. Exchange of ideas, as occurs in conversation also serves to improve education of all participants. The cynic was convinced that society was unwilling to self-educate and keep themselves informed. By conversation, the uninformed gain valuable insight and improve the breadth of their experience. In turn, through conversation, the cynic will hopefully come to understand that scientists are humans with emotions and subject to emotional reaction. The pragmatist will see that the mathematical equation is not so easily weighed but will learn from conversation that cost versus benefit is highly complex. The purist will come to understand that while high quality science is in fact essential, defining what constitutes high quality is difficult and will require continued evaluation through debate and conversation. The actual conversations do not need to be elaborate or formal. They will take place naturally and develop organically. People will congregate and talk at school or on the bus. The issues discussed will be the topic of conversations at scientific meetings and committee hearings as well as at conferences and in classrooms. Conversations will take place in the elevator and in lecture halls. The quiet will listen patiently while the talkative ramble on. The erudite will relish the opportunity to debate and all interested parties will finish with a slightly different perspective than they started. What is important for the purpose is that no one shrink from the conversation. The topic can be difficult and emotional at times. Many will not have thought about the topic and others will be excessively enthusiastic. But all must consciously engage and participate. There is no excuse for not participating. Every member of society has a responsibility to converse. This is because all of society will derive benefit from the good usage of animals in research and teaching. For the same reasons, all will be impacted if society withdraws its acceptance of animal use or if that animal use is poor. Acceptance of animal use in research and teaching is based on the decisions and opinions of the individual. Many and varied factors influence those decisions and opinions. The breadth and depth of experience and knowledge which underpins the perspectives of individuals is vast and only continues to grow, expanded by continued scientific research and investigation. There is no single act or policy that can guarantee that society will continue to accept the use of animals. There are in place many sound principles as well as irrational dogmatic beliefs. It is an overwhelming task to try and resolve the varied experiences and opinions of a society composed of such varied individuals. Free societies do not dictate morals but rather allow free and open debate to determine ethics. The mechanism of this debate is the simple conversation. By conversation, progress will continue and the opinion of society will adapt to meet the needs of that society. The place of scientific research and the use of animals in science will continue to develop organically with that society as it progresses. The simple conversation will serve to bind science within society and determine the future of animal use in research and teaching.

Information for New Zealand Researchers and Tertiary Education Researchers, technicians or tertiary teachers are often directly responsible for animal welfare. The following information has been designed by ANZCCART to assist these groups when they are conducting research, testing and/or undertaking teaching involving animals. Animal ethics and legislation in New Zealand Please click to follow link for information on ethics and legislation in New Zealand. Understanding Animal Ethics Committees Please click to follow link for information on Animal Ethics Committees and the criteria for assessing applications . Assistance with statistics in designing studies with animals Appropriate research study design is an important part of reducing the numbers of animals used in research and testing. We strongly recommend the free interactive course on designing animal experiments provided by Michael Festing. Designing and reporting animal experiments ANZCCART (NZ) endorses the PREPARE and ARRIVE guidelines for the designing and reporting of animal experiments involving the use of animals. The guidelines are intended to improve the planning and reporting of research using animals – maximising information published and minimising unnecessary studies. PREPARE guidelines for planning animal experiments can be found here . ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal experiments can be found here . The ARRIVE reporting guidelines have been endorsed by over 1,000 scientific journals including nature, and the journals of the Royal Society Te Apārangi. A 3-minute video about the PREPARE guidelines can be found here . Animal welfare Please click to follow link for information on managing pain and anaesthesia in research animals. Alternatives to using animals in research, testing, or teaching Please click to follow link for information on alternatives to using animals in research, testing, or teaching. ComPass Animal Welfare Training This free online course covers the Australian Code and NZ Guide and welfare issues relating to animal use in research and teaching. Successful completion of Phase one of the course and its quiz fulfills the mandated basic training needs of researchers and teachers using animals as well as members of Animal Ethics Committees (AEC) in Australia and NZ (except AEC members in Victoria who are required to complete the Animal Welfare Victoria training). The aim is to standardize and augment the training offered for animal users in research and teaching throughout Australasia by offering this free online interactive and resource-rich course to all who need this training. For the course link and more information . Resource bank and recommendations on best practice There are ANZCCART resources and Links to r esources from other organisations that contain information and resources about animal welfare and alternatives to using animals. If you would like to add information or resources to this database please contact us . Information updates Our regular newsletter ANZCCART News contains updates on animal welfare, legislation and alternatives to using animals. If you are doing work that has animal ethics approval you should receive this newsletter (via email). If you have not been receiving a copy of ANZCCART News please contact us . Archived editions are available here . ANZCCART Conferences ANZCCART holds an annual conference which discusses animal welfare in the context of research, testing and teaching. The conference location varies and usually is held two successive years in Australia followed by one year in New Zealand. For more details please see our conference page . ANZCCART Contacts for questions If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact us .

Information for New Zealand Teachers, Science Technicians and Students All animals need to be cared for and treated with respect at all times as they are sentient living things. Everyone has a legal obligation to provide animals in their care with all of their needs – food and water, shelter, the opportunity to behave normally, to be handled carefully by people, and to ensure/maintain their good health. These legal requirements exist to protect the animals with whom we interact. This includes making sure that our pets are treated well, that farm animals are taken care of and that our native species are not exploited. In New Zealand the use of animals in research, testing and teaching is controlled by the Animal Welfare Act 1999. This legislation is designed to protect animals in New Zealand from harmful or inhumane treatment. It covers our obligations to care for animals, the people who can conduct surgical procedures on animals, animal exports, humane treatment of wild animals, and codes of welfare. The Three Rs The Three Rs are important animal welfare principles that guide the way we interact with animals. ANZCCART promotes and encourages the implementation of these principles when interacting with animals. These three principles are: Replacement Avoiding or replacing the use of animals in areas where they otherwise would have been used. Reduction Minimising the number of animals used, consistent with scientific aims. Refinement Minimising the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that research animals might experience.

Information on animal ethics and legislation in New Zealand In New Zealand the use of animals in research, testing and teaching is controlled by the Animal Welfare Act 1999 . This legislation is designed to protect animals in New Zealand from harmful or inhumane treatment. It covers our obligation to care for animals; who can conduct surgical procedures on animals; animal exports; humane treatment of wild animals; and codes of welfare. For information on the control of animal use in research, testing and teaching under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, see the Ministry for Primary Industries website . Before institutions in New Zealand are permitted to use animals for research, testing or teaching, they must apply for a licence from the government. The licence is called a ‘Code of Ethical Conduct’, and the institution is called a 'code holder'. See here for more information. Anyone wishing to carry out any form of research, testing or teaching on an animal must first apply for approval from an Animal Ethics Committee. To gain ethical approval to work with animals (research, testing or teaching) you must submit an application to an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). Most research institutions (e.g. university) have their own Animal Ethics Committees. Approval is normally sought by a lead investigator or teaching team leader. Once approval is given it will allow the named students and employees to carry out the animal work provided they are adequately trained and are fully aware of the protocols, including those around animal care. To find out how to apply you should contact your Head of Department or the research office of your institution. If you work in an institution or company that does not have an Animal Ethics Committee please contact the Ministry for Primary Industries ( animalwelfare@mpi.govt.nz ) for advice on how to proceed. Information for Researchers on Applications to Animal Ethics Committees If you are working with animals in New Zealand for research, testing or teaching then it is likely that you will need to apply for Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) approval. Ten top tips for animal ethics application success Preparing ethical approval applications can be a challenging exercise for many researchers. Many proposals are sent back to applicants for modification before approval can be granted. To assist researchers in the preparation of animal ethics applications the University of Auckland has produced a brochure, based on an analysis of past AEC decisions, to provide some helpful advice. ANZCCART (NZ) has reviewed this document and strongly endorses its use by the New Zealand research community. The document covers the following 10 topics: Writing with purpose in mind Writing for a non-scientific audience Providing a clear narrative and chronology Including and reconciling scientific information Justifying and minimising animal numbers Assembling the right team Piloting and/or staging the project Monitoring and documenting the animals Getting surgery and pain management right Making the endpoint clear Download the brochure for more information. When you are preparing your animal ethics application you need to consider each of the points listed above. In addition to demonstrating good experimental design and sound reasoning for conducting your work, you will also need to demonstrate that you can meet the normal husbandry requirements for the animals including providing for their nutrition, environment, health, behaviour and mental state. The right team is a team that has been trained in all aspects of their proposed role or arrangements have been made for training to be provided. Lastly, you need to show that you have considered the Three Rs animal welfare principles in your experimental design.