Search Results

Links to resources from other organisations International organisations promoting the ethical care and use of laboratory animals ANZCCART (NZ) has memberships or partnerships with four international organisations that promote greater openness, or the ethical care and humane use, of animals in research, in order to learn from international best practice. AAALAC International In late September 2009, ANZCCART New Zealand was approved for membership in the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care international (AAALAC International). AAALAC International is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals in science through voluntary accreditation and assessment programs. AAALAC stands for the ‘Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care’. International Council for Laboratory Animal Science In 2005, ANZCCART New Zealand was approved for membership in the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS). ICLAS is an international scientific organisation dedicated to advancing human and animal health by promoting the ethical care and use of laboratory animals in research worldwide. European Animal Research Association In 2020, ANZCCART signed a MoU with the European Animal Research Association ( EARA ) which reflects a shared commitment to greater openness, improved communications and constructive public discourse in relation to animal research in Australia and New Zealand. Understanding Animal Research In 2020, ANZCCART became a member of Understanding Animal Research ( UAR ), which seeks to achieve a broad understanding of the humane use of animals in medical, veterinary, scientific and environmental research. There is now a UAR Oceania. External newsletters on the use of animals in research, testing or teaching: New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industry’s Welfare Pulse Feature articles This section includes a selection of external articles that are relevant to researchers, teachers and students who use animals in their work. If you know of an article that should be included in this resource bank please contact us with the full reference. Squeaky clean mice could be ruining research . Nature (2018):Apr 5;556(7699):16-18 Should research animals be named? Science (2015): Vol. 347 no. 6225 pp. 941-943 Line of attack . Science (2015): Vol. 347 no. 6225 pp. 938-940 Other relevant publications Quality of blood samples from the saphenous vein compared with the tail vein during multiple blood sampling of mice . Laboratory animals 44.1 (2010): 25-29. Social and physical environmental enrichment differentially affect growth and activity of preadolescent and adolescent male rats . Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science: JAALAS 47.2 (2008): 30. The use of sodium lamps to brightly illuminate mouse houses during their dark phases . Laboratory animals 38.4 (2004): 384-392. The therapeutic potential of regulated hypothermia . Emergency Medicine Journal 18.2 (2001): 81-89. Resource bank and recommendations on best practice ANZCCART aims to promote best practice whenever animals are used for research, testing or teaching. This resource bank contains articles, newsletters and information that will help you keep up to date with the latest developments in animal welfare. Resources and websites that provide information on alternative methods in animal research, testing and teaching. Resources and websites that provide information on animal welfare . Statistical design for animal welfare. We strongly recommend the resources on designing animal experiments provided by Michael Festing . Alt web (resource database hosted by Johns Hopkins University) Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Parliamentary Council Office website) ANZCCART Conferences on animal welfare in the context of research, testing and teaching Culture of Care (A NAEAC guide for people working with animals in research, testing and teaching) (PDF, 393 kb, 6 pages) Ethical guidelines for students in laboratory classes involving the use of animals and animal tissues NZ_Ethical_guide_2007 .doc Download DOC • 105KB Guide to the Animal Welfare Act (Ministry of Primary Industries website) SPCA New Zealand The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) website The National Animal Welfare Committee (NAWAC) website

ANZCCART Conference 2011 Science with feeling: animals and people Proceedings of the 2011 ANZCCART Conference Rotorua, New Zealand Contents and Foreword Opening Address Reflections on the use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand – a historical perspective – Dr A. C. David Bayvel, Linda Carsons, Paula Lemow and Dr Mark Fisher International reflections: looking back over the last 20 years – Dr Judy A. MacArthur Clark Session 1: I don’t like pain but what can we do about it? What’s special about pain? – Dr John Schofield “I’ll have the fish and shrimps”: pain and analgesia in invertebrates and fish – Dr Kurt K. Sladky The recognition and relief of pain in birds – Associate Professor Brett Gartrell Analgesia in ruminants – Dr Paul Chambers Cam Reid Oration 2011: Does the fetus feel pain, and why do we care to know? Professor Laura Bennet Session 2: Resolving the dilemmas Serving on an Animal Ethics Committee – a hospital pass or a valued distinction? Dr Mark Oliver Dr Geoff Dandie Serving on an Animal Ethics Committee – the system and pot pourri of issues Who qualifies as an investigator? – Dr Erich von Dietze and Dr Ted Rohr Animal Ethics Committees: a veterinary practitioner’s point of view – Dr Tim Mather Animal welfare in a new world – Jeanette Crosado Reflections on an Animal Ethics Committee – Dr Mandy Paterson ANZCCART New Zealand Animal Care Technicians’ Awards Compassion fatigue – Debbie Chesterfield Welfare in a chronic model of cardiac disease in sheep – Linley Nisbet Session 3: The importance of people Euthanasia in the workplace – impacts on staff – Professor Peter Davie Caring for the carers: compassion fatigue and disenfranchised grief – Dr Peter Huggard Reviewing the reviews: an update on the analysis of the process of ensuring regulatory compliance in the use of animals in science in New Zealand – Dr Virginia Williams and Linda Carsons Seeking nature in the city: the implications of feeding wildlife – Associate Professor Darryl Jones Female students’ attitudes towards the use of animals in scientific research and teaching – Sally Birdsall and Dr Beverley France Student and university perspectives on animal rights and wrongs – Dr Ngaio J. Beausoleil Animal models: their role in understanding brain dysfunction – Dr Ruth M. A. Napper Session 4: Science with feeling Science with feeling: relevance of animal emotions to research, testing and teaching – Dr Jim Webster Methodologies to measure affective states in animals: a focus on cognitive approaches – Dr Else Verbeek and Dr Caroline Lee What is it like to be a rat? Providing good environments for experimental animals – Dr Emily Patterson-Kane and Professor David J. Mellor

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-2023-Final-23Feb24 .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 .

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.

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 (Australian website) .

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 (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… 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

Applying for Animal Ethics Approval This page contains information about why you need to apply for ethics approval and how you can apply. When do you need to consider applying for animal ethics approval? You need to consider applying for animal ethics approval when using animals in teaching or in an investigation or experiment when the animal is being ‘manipulated’. This means that you are changing the animal’s normal needs, like what it eats and drinks, where it lives/sleeps or things it does (like its type of toys) in some way. This type of change (manipulation) is when ethics approval is needed and is required under New Zealand’s law called the Animal Welfare Act. Ethics approval means that a special group of people, such as science teachers and animal welfare experts have reviewed the way that your scientific experiment or investigation with animal(s) is being carried out. When they review it, they check that what is planned will not harm the animal(s) and its good health is maintained. If this group thinks that what is planned will not harm the animal(s), they will grant ethics approval. Who might need to apply for animal ethics approval? Any teacher and/or science technician using or caring for animals (e.g. for a Science Fair) in a learning or class situation should check with the New Zealand Schools Animal Ethics Committee if they need approval. Any student carrying out an investigation or experiment that involves animals should check if they need approval. The Application Process If you do need to apply for animal ethics approval for a teaching activity or for your science fair project, you need to complete a form and submit it to an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). The New Zealand Association for Science Education has their own AEC for teachers, science technicians and students who can approve your application. For more information, visit the New Zealand Schools Animal Ethics website . In general, the AEC wants to ensure that the animals that you use will be well treated and subjected to the minimal amount of harm or disruption. All manipulations must be carried out under the umbrella of the animal welfare principles of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement). When you are writing your animal ethics application, make sure you outline the benefits of carrying out the experiment or investigation and also fully consider the harm to the animal(s). The AEC will make a risk-benefit assessment. This means that if the risk of harm to the animals high (for example, the experiment is quite invasive) then the benefits must also be high (for example, the potential of a new medicine). However, if the risk is low (for example, playing music to your fish) then the potential benefit does not need to be very high (for example, it might help you and your class better understand how well fish hear). You also need to meet the normal husbandry requirements for the animal including providing food, shelter, warmth, safety and room to behave normally. Lastly, you need to show that you have considered the Three Rs animal welfare principles in the design of your experiment or investigation. Links: Ethical guidelines for school students (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 108 kb, 1 page) NZ Association of Science Educators (NZASE) website on animal ethics

The Three Rs Animal Welfare Principles for research, testing and teaching The Three Rs — replacement, reduction and refinement — were first introduced by the authors Russell and Burch in their 1959 book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (available through the Johns Hopkins Alt Web website and the abridged version on the norecopa website ). Since then these ideas have become fundamental principles in the area of animal welfare for research, testing and teaching. Replacement Where possible an alternative to using animals must be used. This could include a computer model or cell culture (where animal or human cells are grown in a laboratory). Alternatives to using live animals in teaching involve the use of mannequins/plastic models or recorded videos of animal procedures in veterinary or science classes. Researchers can also conduct experiments in species without complex nervous systems. This may involve choosing species for experiments that are not classified as ‘animals’ according to the Animal Welfare Act, such as insects or nematode worms. ANZCCART aims to help researchers, teachers and ethics committees know about and understand the alternatives to animal use. We promote recent developments in this area through our newsletters and conferences. Reduction Reduction refers to using less animals in research, testing and teaching than would have been used with older methods. Researchers should aim to minimise the number of animals used to obtain good experimental results. If the quantity of data in an experiment is too small, it will not be possible to conduct meaningful statistical analysis. Researchers should conduct a power calculation, which estimates the minimum number of animals needed for meaningful analysis and avoids using more animals than required. Animal use can also be reduced through the development of new technologies. For example, non-invasive medical imaging technologies can obtain data from each animal multiple times meaning more data can be gathered from fewer animals. ANZCCART promotes the principle of Reduction through the development of training programmes for people using animals and through information provided in our newsletters and conferences. Refinement At all times the health and wellbeing of animals should be a priority. Refinement involves modifying procedures to minimise the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm experienced by animals in research, testing and teaching. Refinements might include improving the housing conditions for animals, modifying procedures to reduce animal handling-distress or providing appropriate analgesia and anaesthesia in surgical experiments. As much as possible the animal should be able to live normally, free from any pain and suffering, throughout the research, teaching or testing process. Good animal husbandry and care is good for both the animal and the researcher, because unnecessarily distressed animals do not provide good quality scientific data. ANZCCART works alongside the government, research institutions and Animal Ethics Committees to promote Refinement. We present regular updates on topics such as anaesthesia in research animals through our publications and conferences. We work alongside schools and other teaching institutions to promote awareness of animal research and encourage the use of good animal husbandry practices in all instances where animals are used for research or teaching. Booklets outlining examples of the application of these principles can be found here . Resource links Download 3Rs Poster (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 6.7 MB, 1 page) CAAT website Norecopa resources about the 3Rs

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.

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 member of an animal welfare advocacy 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 is the Australian & New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching located in both New Zealand and Australia. Promoting the responsible use of animals in research and teaching, and informed discussion and debate within the community regarding these matters. 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. Learn More Caring for the Animals We Use in Research and Teaching ANZCCART is the Australian & New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching. We are located in both New Zealand and Australia as two independent organisations working collaboratively with a shared vision, mission and role in society . Our websites contain information for animal carers, animal ethics committee members, scientists, schools as well as other interested parties. Through these websites, we hope to further the primary goals of ANZCCART which include promoting the responsible use of animals in research and teaching, and informed discussion and debate within the community regarding these matters. When viewing our websites please be mindful that legislation and some animal welfare information will differ between our countries. Learn More Featured Initiatives Openness Agreement We support the Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching for New Zealand Three Rs Resources Check out our resources covering the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) in the use of animals in research and teaching Māori knowledge of animals Teaching and learning about Māori knowledge of animals and how Māori concepts can inform animal ethics Openness Agreement We support the Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching for New Zealand 1/4

Alternatives to using animals in research, testing or teaching This section contains a selection of resources highlighting the alternatives to using animals in research, testing and teaching. It is not yet possible to replace all animal use in research, testing and teaching. The biology of live animals is often too complex to be replicated entirely by alternative methods in research experiments. Non-animal teaching methods (e.g. mannequins or video recordings) can reduce the use of live-animals in teaching but it would not be appropriate for students to graduate with no live-animal experience before moving into careers working with animals. However, alternative or replacement methods complement live-animal use and collectively can reduce live-animal use overall, and the wording "alternative" and "replacement" are used interchangeably. Replacement means that where possible we encourage and support the replacement of animal use with alternatives (e.g., cell cultures). Reduction is about reducing the numbers of animals used in research, testing and teaching, without impacting on the quality of the data gained. This can be achieved through robust training programmes, preventing duplication of studies and ensuring good study design. ANZCCART Resources The Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) and the Ministry for Primary Industries have produced a series of booklets on the application of the three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) in the use of animals in research and teaching. The following focus on replacement and reduction. Cell-based Disease Models (replacement) (2019) Computer Assisted Learning (replacement) (2021) Mannequins and Dummies (replacement) (2021) Alternatives to shellfish toxicity testing (replacement) (2018) Fireflies to the rescue (reduction) (2019) Mathematical models (reduction) (2022) Tissue sharing (reduction) (2024) Resource links on alternatives 9th World congress on alternatives and animal use in the life sciences (conference website) Alt web (resource database hosted by Johns Hopkins University) Altex, alternatives to animal experimentation (journal website) Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (at Johns Hopkins University) EU reference laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL ECVAM) European society for alternates to animal testing ICCVAM (US committee advancing alternatives to animal testing) Korean centre for the validation of alternatives to animal testing (KoCVAM) Physicians committee for responsible medicine, alternatives to animal testing Statistics resources for experiments involving animals