Search Results

Information about animal research in New Zealand 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 . 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 of Primary Industries . 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. 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. New Zealand’s use of animals in research can be found here: 2022 , 2021 , 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 Infographics: 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. 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. 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. In the interests of transparency, ANZCCART requested in 2015 that these codes be made available for public scrutiny. In response to our request, the institutional codes of ethical conduct approved by the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries that were current in 2015 (n=21) were made available from the FYI website , with an additional code available here . [Please note that the codes for Massey University, New Zealand Association of Science Educators and the University of Canterbury are not included on the FYI website as they are already available on their respective institutional websites.] In 2021 the ANZCCART New Zealand Openness Agreement has encouraged all signatories to make their codes publicly available on their institution’s website. ARRIVE and PREPARE Guidelines ANZCCART is supporting the adoption of the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting the findings of research projects using animals, and the PREPARE guidelines for planning research using animals. More information on these guidelines can be found here: ARRIVE , PREPARE . ANZCCART supports and encourages the re-homing of research animals as an alternative to euthanasia, wherever possible. ANZCCART Newsletters You can sign up for the ANZCCART Newsletter here . The latest editions can be seen here . Resource links The following resources are available on the use of animals in research, testing or teaching in New Zealand: What is ANZCCART? (flyer) National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) website National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) website Animal welfare in NZ (Ministry for Primary Industries) Guide to the Animal Welfare (Ministry for Primary Industries) Animal Research Saves Lives (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 1.8 MB, 14 pages) Three Rs Poster (ANZCCART resource) (PDF, 6.7 MB, 1 page) ANZCCART Newsletters Alt web (resource database hosted by Johns Hopkins University) SPCA New Zealand Culture of Care (A NAEAC guide for people working with animals in research, testing and teaching) (PDF, 428 kb, 6 pages)

Openness Agreement The New Zealand Board of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART), a Committee of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, has supported the development of an Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching for New Zealand. A draft version of the Agreement went out for consultation in 2020/21, and was launched at the ANZCCART 2021 conference on 27 July 2021: Press release about launch of Openness Agreement Media coverage: New Zealand Herald ; Science Media Centre NZ ; Radio New Zealand ; Farmers Weekly New Zealand has long been committed to maintaining and improving high standards of animal welfare as well as undertaking world-leading research and teaching using animals. Those involved in research have an obligation to demonstrate and promote these values, and in order to be seen as trustworthy they must be open, transparent, and accountable for the research and teaching that they conduct, fund or support, including when the high standards they strive for are not achieved. Doing more to communicate the context in which animal research and teaching takes place, the work that organisations undertake to incorporate the Three Rs (the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of animals), the regulations that govern this research, and the systems that are in place to report and rectify poor practice is key. ​ The objective of this Agreement is to ensure that the public are well informed about what animal research involves, the role it plays in the overall process of scientific discovery, how such research is regulated in New Zealand, and what researchers and animal care staff do to promote welfare, reduce animal usage and minimise suffering and harm to the animals. Several countries have now implemented (or are actively working on) formal ‘openness agreements’ to improve public understanding of animal research. Under such agreements, stakeholders make a public pledge to be more open about their involvement in animal research and explain details and reasons underlying it. The European Animal Research Association has several examples of openness agr eements. The longest established openness agreement is the UK Concordat on Openness on Animal Research . The UK Concordat has operated successfully since 2014 and now has over 120 signatories representing leading universities, research institutes, government agencies, funders and industry. Commit m e nts The Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching in New Zealand sets out five Commitments that require signatories to take steps to be more open about the use of animals in research and teaching. The five commitments are: We will be clear about why and how we use animals in research and teachin g. We will enhance our communications with the media and the public about our use of animals in research and teaching. We will enhance our communications with tangata whenua about our use of animals in research and teaching. We will be proactive in providing opportunities for the public to find out about research and teaching using animals. We will report on progress annually and share our experiences. ​ View the agreement here: ANZCCART Openness Agreement on Animal Research and Teaching in New Zealand – September 2023 ​ Openness Agree m ent Annual Report Signatories report annually on their progress and share experiences: ​ 2022 An nual Report: Download (Press Release ) (infographic ) 2023 Annual Report: Download (Press Re lease ) (infographic ) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Signatories The signatories to this agreement are: If your organisation would like to join the Agreement, please contact: anzccart@royalsociety.org.nz

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. The Three Rs animal welfare principles 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 ). Since then these ideas have become fundamental principles in the area of animal welfare for research, testing and teaching. ​ 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. Refinement aims to minimise and eliminate the suffering of animals used for research, testing and teaching. Good animal husbandry, ethical conduct and empathy are important if refinements are to be achieved. 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) Computer Assisted Learning (replacement) Mannequins and Dummies (replacement) Alternatives to shellfish toxicity testing (replacement) Fireflies to the rescue (reduction) Mathematical models (reduction) Tissue sharing (reduction) ​ 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

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

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.

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.

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. Read More ComPass Training ​ This free online course covers the Australian Code and NZ Guide and welfare issues relating to animal use in research and teaching. Read More ANZCCART 2024 Tuesday 10 September to Thursday 12 September, Ōtautahi Christchurch and online Read More Three Rs Resources Check out our resources covering the three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) in the use of animals in research and teaching. Read More

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 Melbourne 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.

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) .

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

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 • 129KB Applications are now open, and the deadline for nominations is 22 April 2024. Award recipients 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 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 Applications are now open, and the deadline for nominations is 22 April 2024. Award recipients 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 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 1.2, 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, and the deadline for nominations is 19 July 2024. First prize: $100, second prize: $75, third prize: $50. Conditions of entry and other details for the Competition can be found here: ANZCCART-Secondary-Student-Essay-Competition-2024 .pdf Download PDF • 205KB Award recipients: 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 Communication Competition The purpose of the competition is to encourage thinking about communicating the role animal research and teaching plays in today’s society, in an engaging way. This competition is open to organisations and individuals, as well as tertiary and secondary education students. Entries can include: animation, painting, sculpture, music, video, presentation, dance, writing or cooking. Applications are now open, and the deadline for nominations is 19 July 2024 . First prize (general entry): $100, second prize: $75, third prize: $50. First prize (Secondary school): $100. Conditions of entry and other details for the Competition can be found here: ANZCCART-Science-communication-competition .pdf Download PDF • 524KB Award recipients 2020 First prize (Secondary school): Oshadha Tharuka 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 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: Students have undertaken study or research on an animal-based project Animal Ethics approval has been applied for and given Correct procedures and practices have been undertaken in study Students know importance of ethics approval 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 Fellow ANZCCART (NZ) has created a new 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. The Current ANZCCART (NZ) Fellow (2023-25) is: Morgan Heslop, PhD student, Massey University. Previous ANZCCART Fellows were: 2021-2023: Essie Van Zuylen, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Canterbury 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 . Aotearoa New Zealand John Schofield 3Rs implementation award The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC), with the support of ANZCCART (NZ), run the Aotearoa New Zealand John Schofield 3Rs implementation award. The most recent winner of the award, in 2022, was 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. Previous winners of the award have been: 2020: Dr Benjamin Albert (Liggins Institute, University of Auckland) for refining methods for oral nutritional or drug intervention. 2018: Massey-SPCA Desexing Clinic The Aotearoa New Zealand John Schofield 3Rs implementation award is named in memory of ANZCCART (NZ) committee member Dr John Schofield. 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 .

Contact Us ANZCCART New Zealand c/o Royal Society Te Apārangi PO Box 598 Wellington, 6140 New Zealand Phone: +64 4-472 7421 Email ANZCCART Australia C/- The University of Adelaide SA 5005 Australia Phone: +618 8313 7585 Website Email How to Contact ANZCCART (NZ) Board Members for Media Comments ANZCCART (NZ) board members are generally happy to be contacted for comment. Please contact the ANZCCART (NZ) Executive Officer at the Royal Society Te Apārangi ( anzccart@royalsociety.org.nz ) and they will forward your request to the appropriate member.