Minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2004
Thu, 20 May 2004
RIA (03) 6th meeting
NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS
WORKING PARTY ON THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH INVOLVING ANIMALS
Minutes of the meeting held at the Nuffield Foundation
28 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3JS
on Thursday 8 January 2004
PRESENT
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Chair)
Professor Allan Bradley FRS
Professor Grahame Bulfield CBE
Professor Robert Combes
Professor Maggy Jennings
Professor Barry Keverne FRS
Dr Judy MacArthur Clark
Dr Timothy Morris
Mr Nick Ross
Dr Lewis Smith
Professor John Spencer
Ms Michelle Thew
Professor Jonathan Wolff
APOLOGIES
Professor Kenneth Boyd, Professor Steve Brown, Professor Ian McConnell, Dr Mark Matfield, Professor Martin Raff FRS
SECRETARIAT
Dr Sandy Thomas, Mr Harald Schmidt, Ms Nicola Perrin, Ms Caroline Rogers
INTRODUCTION BY THE CHAIR
1 The Chair welcomed the members of the Working Party and outlined the schedule for the meeting. In the morning, a fact finding meeting with experts involved in regulatory issues relating to animal research would be held. The commissioned evidence review on animals’ capacity of experiencing pain and the responses to the consultation would also be considered. In the afternoon, the discussion would focus on the first draft of the Report.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
2 Some members of the Working Party hold the view that minutes of the last meeting should be revised to make a clearer distinction between the views shared by all members of the Working Party and those for which there was no consensus. Approval of the minutes was therefore deferred until an amended version had been circulated to all members.
FUTURE FACT FINDING MEETINGS
RIA 04 (01)
3 Members considered a draft programme for a future fact finding meeting at a laboratory undertaking research on primates and discussed the possible form of such a meeting. The Secretariat was asked to explore the possibilities of arranging such a meeting, bearing in mind the Working Party’s preferences.
EVIDENCE REVIEWS
RIA 04 (02)
Animal’s capacity to experience pain, harm or distress
4 The evidence review on the capacity of animals to experience pain, harm or distress had been received from Professor David Morton. The Chair invited members to consider Professor Morton’s paper noting that commentaries by Professor Marc Bekoff and Professor Colin Allen would be available for the next meeting in March.
5 The Chair invited members to consider which parts of Professor Morton’s review should be incorporated into the Report. It was agreed that the discussion relating to the continuum between simple and more complex organisms, and a corresponding continuum of the capacity of experiencing states of pain, harm or distress, should be reflected in the respective section of the Report. In incorporating Professor Morton’s draft it would also be important to discuss the concepts of ‘pain’ and ‘suffering’.
International comparison
6 A review on differences in regulation and awareness of animal research, produced by Dr Mark Matfield and Ms Michelle Thew, would be considered at the next meeting.
CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC
RIA 04 (03)
7 It was observed that in the past, quotes from consultation respondents who had made a particularly important point had been included in Reports. In some instances they had been used in support of arguments presented by the Working Party, while in other instances they had served as illustrations of views which were not shared by the Working Party. In addition, respondents often gave good examples which could be included in Reports. Members were invited to consider the consultation responses and make suggestions as to which comments should be addressed directly or indirectly in the next draft of the Report.
FACT FINDING MEETING
RIA 04 (04)
8 A note of the fact finding meeting with Dr Jon Richmond, Head, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Division, ASPD, Home Office, Professor Michael Banner, Chair, Animals Procedure Committee (APC), and Mr Richard West, Secretary, Animals Procedure Committee (APC) is at Annex A.
DRAFT REPORT
RIA 04 (05)
9 The Director commented briefly on the drafting and on the peer review process. The latter was scheduled for early summer, so that comments could be considered at the Working Party’s ninth meeting. In the past, Working Parties had nominated between 4 and 8 peer reviewers. The reviewers to be proposed by the Working Party would have relevant expertise in relation to the ethics of research involving animals and would be asked to assess the quality of the entire draft Report, according to suggested guidelines by the Council. Members were invited to suggest a list of possible peer reviewers which would be sent to the Council, for approval.
10 Professor Jonathan Wolff had provided an extensively revised outline of Chapter 6. This took into consideration comments made by members of the Working Party in a recent email discussion concerning Chapters 2 and 6. According to the original outline of Chapter 6, two ‘extreme’ views should be presented, which would allow for identification of a shared ‘middle ground’. However, it was observed that the position diametrically opposed to the radical antivivisectionist was not actually held by anyone in the debate, since everyone agreed that the welfare of animals needed to be considered in some way. Also, the approach might reinforce the commonly perceived polarisation of views with regard to research involving animals. However, the majority of views was more complex, as, for example, the 2002 MORI poll had shown. For this reason, the proposed new structure of Chapter 6 aimed to present a framework that could explain the rationale for the entire spectrum of views which were a feature of the debate.
11 A number of points were made in the discussion of the revised approach for Chapters 2 and 6. The distinction between ethical and scientific objections was very useful. It was suggested however, that the content of Chapter 6 should be moved to Chapter 2, since it addressed some of the fundamental questions relevant to the deliberation on the ethics of animal experimentation. After discussion, it was agreed that it would be more appropriate to retain the current structure. However, it would be important that Chapter 2 was purely descriptive. Chapter 6, on the other hand, should challenge the readers to make up their minds, and it should contain the conclusions of the Working Party. Regarding consistency, it was observed that there was some discontinuity between the discussion and concepts used in Chapters 2 and 6, which should be eliminated in the next draft.
12 Members of the Working Party also considered how the issues raised by genetic modification should be addressed in the Report. There was some discussion about whether or not welfare implications of identical phenotypes should be evaluated differently depending on whether they occurred in a genetically modified, a specifically bred, or a wild animal. On one view it was not the process that mattered in this respect, but the ‘product’: less attention should be paid to the fact that an animal was genetically modified, and more to the actual effects of the intervention on the phenotype.
Annex A
FACT FINDING MEETING WITH EXPERTS INVOLVED IN THE REGULATION OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
13 The Chair welcomed the guests and invited them to provide brief introductions to their involvement in the regulation of animal research.
14 Professor Banner had chaired the Animals Procedures Committee (APC) for five years, and was accompanied by Mr West, Secretary of the Committee. The APC was a non-regulatory advisory body to the Home Office. On request of the Secretary of State, its secretariat provided advice on specific licence applications which raised ‘novel and contentious’ issues. The APC also conducted detailed studies, examining controversial areas that raised regulatory issues. A number of reports had been published including, most recently, the cost-benefit analysis and the use of primates.
15 Dr Richmond was Head of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Division (ASPD), a newly formed business group of the Home Office (HO). Previously he had been the HO’s Chief Inspector. There were four parts of the business group: the licensing unit, which issued licences on behalf of the Secretary of State; the policy unit, which monitored and developed policy formation; the Inspectorate, which advised on applications and inspected licensed premises; and the Secretariat to the APC. The HO operated the 1986 A(SP)Act, which implemented Directive 86/609/EEC and the Council of Europe’s Convention ETS 123, in some parts exceeding the provisions of these instruments.
16 Members discussed a number of issues arising in the context of regulating animal research: the workings of the 1986 A(SP)Act and the difficulties in assessing basic or ‘blue sky’ research in the cost-benefit analysis; the activities of the Home Office Inspectorate and practicalities of visits by Home Office Inspectors; common criticism in relation to the current severity banding, the assessment of severity of procedures and the information provided in the Statistics; issues raised by the use of GM animals and primates in research; obstacles to a more widespread implementation of the 3Rs; and the implications of the proposal for new legislation on chemicals (REACH system) and of Directive 86/609 EEC, which was currently being revised.
Last Updated Mon, 7 June 2004