Search Results

< Back Animal Comfort Animal welfare Previous Next

< Back general-info Information about animal research in New Zealand Previous Next

< Back Animal Welfare Principles The Three Rs Previous Next

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.

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. 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 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. 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

< Back Animal Ethics in New Zealand Schools Applying for Animal Ethics Approval Previous Next

< Back Use of Animals in NZ Use of Animals in New Zealand Previous Next

< Back Use of Animals in NZ Use of Animals in New Zealand Previous Next

Information about animal research in New Zealand The use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand Animal use in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand is strictly controlled under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 . Any person or organisation using animals must follow an approved code of ethical conduct, which sets out the policies and procedures that must be followed by the organisation and its animal ethics committee. Further information about the regulation of animal research is available from the Ministry for Primary Industries. It is the responsibility of everyone who uses animals to ensure that they are only used when absolutely necessary and that when they are used they are treated with care and respect. If an animal is used for research, testing or teaching the work must be conducted in line with the Three Rs (from the ideas of Russell and Burch in their 1959 book The principles of humane experimental technique available through the Johns Hopkins Alt Web website). Replacement Accelerating the development and use of predictive and robust models and tools, based on the latest science and technologies, to replace the use of animals in addressing important research questions where they would have otherwise been used. Reduction Appropriately designed and analysed animal experiments that are robust and reproducible, and add to the knowledge base. Refinement Advancing laboratory animal welfare by exploiting the latest in vivo technologies to minimise pain, suffering and distress and improve understanding of the impact of welfare on scientific outcomes. Animal use statistics Annual records of the annual numbers of animals used in research, testing and teaching have been collected and published by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) since 1987 ( MPI animal use statistics ). What is recorded are animals that have had their normal physiological, behavioural, or anatomical integrity altered by a procedure (called a 'manipulation'). 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. Further details of ‘manipulations’, annual statistics and the definition of an ‘animal’ according to the NZ Animal Welfare Act can be found below . 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 these new categories are required to be treated with the same duty of care as animals used for research and teaching. From 1 January 2019 the number of animals bred but not used also had to be reported in another new category. 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: 2024 , 2023 , 2022 , 2021 , 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 Infographics on this data (incorporated into reports from 2021): 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 ANZCCART NZ press releases relating to MPI statistics: 2024 , 2023 , 2022 , 2021 , 2020 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. Institutional Codes of Ethical Conduct under animal welfare legislation 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’. This system is unique to New Zealand. Each institutional Code sets out the conditions and rules for animal use and the approving procedures of its Animal Ethics Committee. Codes vary between organisations, depending upon the nature of the scientific activity. These Codes offer insights into how organisations value animals used for scientific or teaching purposes. A list of Code Holders can be found at the end of each MPI annual statistics report, including a list of organisations who have an approved arrangement to use the Code of another organisation. Since 2021 the ANZCCART New Zealand Openness Agreement has encouraged all research and teaching signatories to make the code they use publicly available on their institution’s website. 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 • 3.37MB 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 . Research animal re-homing ANZCCART supports and encourages the re-homing of research animals as an alternative to euthanasia, wherever possible.

< Back Information for New Zealand Teachers Resources Previous Next

< Back Use of Animals in NZ Use of Animals in New Zealand Previous Next

< Back 2014 ANZCCART Essay Competition Winner Conversations to Improve Animal Welfare in Research and Teaching (by Katherine Reid) Previous Next