Nuffield Council on Bioethics / Home

http://www.rspca.org.uk

The RSPCA was established in 1824 as the first national animal protection society in the world. The Society is involved in preventing cruelty and promoting animal welfare in a wide range of uses of animals, as well as being an active campaigning organisation. It employs veterinary and scientific experts to identify animal-welfare concerns, and to devise ways of resolving them for farm livestock, wildlife, pets and animals used in research. The Society is opposed to all animal experiments that cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. It believes that the benefit and justification for animal use should be challenged on a case by case basis, and promotes the development and implementation of the Three Rs.
Since the early 20th century, the RSPCA has taken an active role in ensuring the sound application of legislation that protects animals. Upon receiving royal approval in 1840, an inspector was appointed to ascertain the treatment of animals in markets and slaughterhouses. Today, the Society comprises a national network of 187 branches, several animal hospitals, an emergency service for injured, trapped or stranded animals, and a national cruelty and advice telephone line.
The RSPCA has been influential in shaping UK legislation on animal welfare and also places emphasis on educating students, teachers, youth organisations and trainers about animal welfare. A range of National Curriculum resources is available, and activity days and courses are held at four education centres. In 1980, the RSPCA established the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, the first coalition of animal-welfare groups in Europe.

Laboratory Animals Science Association (LASA)
http://www.lasa.co.uk

The UK LASA was founded in 1963 by representatives from industry, academia, government and the research councils. Their aim was to establish an organisation which provided information and a forum for ideas on the science of using animals in research.
LASA provides advice to its members in the scientific community on developments in the Three Rs, good practice and techniques. LASA acknowledges the relevance of ethical issues raised by animal research and constantly reviews its policies. The Association also addresses ethical issues in its training courses. LASA is a member of both the Federation of European Animal Science Associations (FELASA) and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS).

Laboratory Animal Veterinary Association
(LAVA)
http://www.lavavet.org

A division of the British Veterinary Association, LAVA focuses on veterinary care and all aspects of the welfare of laboratory animals. LAVA’s members are veterinary surgeons involved in a wide range of laboratory-based animal medicine and science. Many members act as Named Veterinary Surgeons under the A(SP)A. LAVA is active in training and keeping members abreast of recent developments in the promotion of laboratory animal welfare.

Institute of Animal Technology (IAT)
http://www.iat.org.uk

The Animal Technicians Association, the IAT’s predecessor, was established in 1950. The IAT aims to advance and promote excellence in the care and welfare of animals in science, recognising that while humans have a moral and legal obligation to care for each other by prolonging life and alleviating suffering, there is also an obligation to ensure that the animals used to further these aims are properly cared for and protected.
The Institute has developed training courses for animal technicians, produced publications and introduced qualifications. In 1985, a Register of Animal Technicians was established to emphasise the Institute’s position on the ethical and legal aspects of care of laboratory animals. Many members of the Register, who are bound by a code of ethics, are specified as Named Animal Care and Welfare Officers (NACWO) under the A(SP)A and are responsible for the care of animals in designated establishments.

ECVAM was established by the European Commission in 1992 to actively support the development, validation and acceptance of methods that could reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals, implementing the provisions of Directive EEC 86/609. Its main activities are:

• to coordinate the validation of alternative test methods in the EU;

• to act as a focal point for the exchange of information on the development of alternative test methods;

• to set up, maintain and manage a database on alternative procedures; and

• to promote dialogue between legislators, industry, biomedical scientists, consumer organisations and animal-welfare groups, with a view to the development, validation and international recognition of alternative test methods (see paragraph 11.34).

RDS Understanding Animal Research in Medicine (formerly the Research Defence Society)
http://www.rds-online.org.uk

Founded in 1908, the RDS is a UK-based organisation representing medical researchers in the public debate about the use of animals in medical research and testing. RDS provides a public information service about the role of animal research, the controls under which research is carried out and the benefits that have resulted. It also liaises with the media and Members of Parliament, providing information, briefings, talks, interviews and arranging visits to research laboratories. RDS is funded by its members, most of whom are medical researchers, doctors and veterinary surgeons. Corporate members include research institutes, university departments, medical research charities, learned societies and pharmaceutical companies.

Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)
http://www.abpi.org.uk

The ABPI is the UK pharmaceutical industry’s pre-eminent association, representing about 100 companies that produce prescription medicines. Its member companies research, develop, manufacture and supply more than 90 percent of the medicines prescribed through the National Health Service (NHS) and are major exporters to other countries. Contract research organisations and other companies that support the pharmaceutical industry are affiliate members.
Under the auspices of its Research and Development Committee, the ABPI’s Animal Research and Welfare Advisory Group plays an active role in promoting best practice in animal welfare and implementing the Three Rs. The ABPI also supports science education from primary through to university level, producing educational materials that describe critical areas of science and technology, and explain the role of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of new medicines, the use of animals in research and the regulatory context.

Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC)M
http://www.amrc.org.uk

The AMRC is a membership organisation of over 100 UK charities that fund medical and health research. It was founded in 1972 and established as a charity in 1987. The AMRC aims to provide support and leadership for its members and the wider charity sector involved in medical and healthcare research through the provision of information and guidance. Member charities are obliged to use peer-review processes in allocating funding, and they are required to support, among other things, AMRC position statements on the use of animals in medical research. AMRC members are committed to ensuring that they support the most effective research in the right environment and that the researchers they fund follow good-practice
guidelines in their work.

Coalition for Medical Progress (CMP)
http://www.medicalprogress.org

The CMP is an alliance of organisations that share the common aim of seeking to ensure that the UK continues to lead advances in human and animal medicine. Researchers, funding bodies such as the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Wellcome Trust and professional bodies including IAT, LASA, LAVA (see above) cooperate in this initiative to explain and illustrate the need for research involving animals and its benefits, and to respond to specific issues of public interest.

Established in 1875 as the Victoria Street Society, the NAVS was the world’s first organisation campaigning against animal experiments. The Society was founded by the humanitarian Francis Power Cobbe, who in 1898 left to form the BUAV.
The NAVS operates through public education, political lobbying and publicity campaigns, and produces technical reports, educational literature, books and films. The Society funds non-animal research through the Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research, a department of the NAVS. In 1990, NAVS founded Animal Defenders International, to campaign on a broader range of animal and environmental issues.

British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV)
http://www.buav.org

Founded in 1898, the BUAV opposes all animal experiments on both ethical and scientific grounds. The organisation is dedicated to ending animal experiments, both nationally and internationally, through public campaigning, undercover investigations, media activities, political lobbying, corporate relationships, the provision of legal and scientific expertise, and the production and distribution of educational and information materials. Campaigns cover issues such as the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics, household products, chemicals and pet food, their use in medical research and the genetic modification of animals. The BUAV coordinates the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) and is a founder member of the International Council for Animal Protection in OECD Programmes (ICAPO).

• In 1975 the Sunday People newspaper published an exposé of ‘smoking beagles’ at laboratories belonging to Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which aroused wide public interest. The article carried explicit pictures of dogs that were confined to small boxes and forced to inhale tobacco smoke through devices attached to their muzzles. The research had the aim of testing the efficacy of tobacco substitutes, but adverse publicity resulted in its termination.

• In 1989–90 an undercover investigator recorded videoand audio-tape material and took photographs of experiments involving cats and rabbits conducted by Professor Wilhelm Feldberg and his assistant at the MRC’s National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) at Mill Hill in London. The professor was conducting basic research on the effects on blood sugar of heating the abdomen of an animal. Following the investigation, the 89-year-old scientist was accused of inadequately anaesthetising animals, poor performance and leaving anaesthetised animals unattended. The two researchers returned their licences to the Home Office before an inquiry into the matter was established by the MRC (there was some confusion in the reports at the time as to whether the licences were to be revoked or whether this was a voluntary measure). The inquiry found that, as a result of a failure by the researchers to maintain anaesthesia of sufficient depth, up to four rabbits experienced avoidable suffering. The inquiry also found that the Director of the NIMR (as the certificate holder) and the Named Veterinary Surgeon had failed in their statutory duties under the A(SP)A. As a result the Home Office required the Director to implement a number of changes at the Institute. In addition, the Home Secretary decided that nobody over the age of 70 should hold a project licence.*

• In 1989, a BUAV undercover investigator joined the contract research organisation (CRO)25 Huntingdon Research Centre, now Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), as a weekend cleaner of the rodent and dog facilities. She produced photographic images, some of which were published together with a report in the British newspaper Today, and subsequently in publications of the BUAV. The report accused HLS of condoning unnecessary animal suffering and providing poor ousing conditions. The subsequent investigation by the Home Office concluded that the company had not committed any legal offence.† HLS was infiltrated again in 1996 by an investigative journalist. The investigator filmed amongst other things a member of staff punching a beagle that was being held by a colleague, and the footage was included in a television programme. The two employees were subsequently prosecuted under the Protection of Animals Act of 1911 and admitted to charges of ‘cruelly terrifying dogs’. They were given community service orders and were dismissed from their employment.‡

• Wickham Research Laboratories, a CRO, was the subject of an undercover investigation by the BUAV in 1993. The investigator reported breaches in Home Office licence conditions and inadequate animal housing facilities. It was also alleged that the Home Office was sanctioning procedures for which non-animal methods were available. The Home Office Inspectorate and the Medicines Control Agency investigated these allegations. Their report disclosed poor management which had led to lax attitudes and practices among certain members of staff including the falsifying of test and environmental data. One case of unnecessary use of animals was also identified and some aspects of staff training were declared ‘unsatisfactory’. Responsibility for these failures was found to lie with the line manager for the named ‘day-to-day care person’ at the time. It was recommended that the manager, who had subsequently become the ‘day-to-day care person’ by the time of the Home Office investigation, should be replaced and his personal licence revoked. A number of other members of staff at Wickham received letters of admonition. The company was also directed by the Home Office to agree to a formal training scheme for all staff in its animal unit and to revise standard operating procedures. However, the Junior Minister of the Home Office, who reported the findings, said that he was satisfied that all the work at Wickham was properly licensed under the A(SP)A and that some of the other principal allegations above were also not substantiated.

• The NAVS undertook an undercover investigation at the Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School in 1994–5. Members of the Society reported the killing of rodents that were surplus to requirements and which had not been used, and improper killing methods. The organisation presented its report on the matter, Access Denied, to the Home Office and the Animal Procedures Committee. In 1996 the Home Office Inspectorate carried out an investigation into the allegations. The Inspectorate identified ‘irregularities in the application of approved methods for the humane killing of animals and deficiencies in middle management’. The certificate of designation (see paragraph 13.8) was revoked and a new certificate was issued once the medical school had met certain criteria set by the Home Office. These included the retraining of staff, the putting in place of operating procedures and changes to the animal care arrangements.**

• A BUAV infiltration took place at a primate research facility at Cambridge University in 2001–2. The BUAV alleged unprofessional care of animals involved in procedures, supported by video documentation. The Home Office was asked to review whether the circumstances of the research were acceptable under the terms of the project licence.
  The subsequent review by the Home Office concluded that the severity limits and bands for the projects, none of which was classed as higher than ‘moderate’, were correctly assigned, and that there was no evidence for the BUAV’s main allegations. However, having scrutinised details of all procedures performed extending back to 1998, four instances of non-compliance with licence authorities were identified by the Chief Inspector’s review. In 2004–5 the BUAV sought a judicial review against the Home Office on specific points relating to both the A(SP)A licences and the care of the monkeys they had filmed at Cambridge. The BUAV have been granted permission to proceed on two of the grounds relating to the former. The other grounds have not been allowed to proceed, although at the time of writing the BUAV is considering appealing against this decision.††




• In 2003 the BUAV reported its findings of an undercover investigation undertaken in Germany within Covance, a CRO. The BUAV alleged that Covance had breached German animal-welfare legislation. Covance denied the allegations and an investigation was initiated by the German authorities. All accusations were found to be groundless. In July 2004, the BUAV submitted a complaint to the European Commission stating that the German authorities had failed to properly transpose into national law the EU Directive regulating animal experiments. The BUAV also asserted that appropriate sanctions against Covance for breaches of German animal-welfare law had not been imposed. In refusing Covance’s application for an injunction, the appeal court in Nordrhein Westfalen allowed the dissemination of video and photograph material obtained by the investigator.‡‡