This paper examines theorigins of questionsconcerning transgenic

animals, how we make ethi-cal decisions, and whetherethical issues relating totransgenic animal productionare different from those in theproduction of non-transgenicanimals. It examines oneexample of an application of autilitarian approach to mak-ing decisions about trans-genic animals, and some ofthe many ethical questionsarising from the conse-quences of transgenesis.

Sources of ethical issuesEthical issues associated withgenetically modified animalsare sometimes discussed asthough they are synonymouswith welfare issues, althoughthey arise from many sources,primarily:

* Our views and beliefsabout animals and nature,and the relationship ofanimals with humans.

* The demonstrable andpossible consequences ofproducing and usingtransgenic animals, in-cluding those related toanimal welfare, ecologyand the environment, eco-nomic and social factors,and human health.

A generalised framework formaking ethical decisionsAs scientists, welfarists,members of Animal EthicsCommittees, and members ofthe broader community, howdo we weigh ethical issuesabout the use of animals?Most people take anapproach that philosophersmight describe as "preferenceutilitarianism". Simply, weexamine the relative weightof benefits that will be gainedby a particular use of an ani-mal compared to harm thatwill be done by that use, buttempered by the level of con-sciousness that we ascribe tothe species, and the level of

empathy that we feel with it.

Our decision-makingprocess often includes "intrin-sic" objections to certain uses,uses that are objectionable ofthemselves, irrespective ofthe weight of benefit thatmight arise from the use.Intrinsic objections lie at theheart of much oppositionabout the creation and use oftransgenic animals.

That kind of approach isquite appealing as a means ofmaking practical decisionsabout the use of animalsbecause a cost-benefit analy-sis is the system we use tomake many everyday deci-sions, and because by bring-ing empathy into the deci-sion, we are more likely toarrive at a conclusion withwhich we feel emotionallycomfortable. A number ofwriters in the field have pro-posed that, just as a decisionbased purely on emotion isnot able to be morally defend-

ed, so any ethical stancebased exclusively on logicand reason is likely to fail thetest of application to real-lifesituations. Others disagree,stating instead the view thatmoral decisions about theacceptability of genetic engi-neering should be made sole-ly on "a rational and consid-ered basis" (Reiss andStraughan, 1996).

Broadly speaking, theapplication of this approachto a range of situations deliv-ers three types of outcomes:

* Some uses are generallyacceptable, often becausetheir costs (usually wel-fare, health and environ-mental) are perceived asnegligible.

* Some uses are acceptableonly where the benefitsare sufficiently great andoutweigh any perceivedcosts.

* Some uses are intrinsical-ly unacceptable, irrespec-

The Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching

Contents ...

Ethical issues relating to transgenicanimal production

Ethical issues relating to transgenic animal production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Notes from workshops on Transgenic Animal Welfare are now on the web . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Welfare audits for farm animals and implications for transgenic animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Animal use in veterinary science teaching . . . . . . . . . .7ANZCCART has a new Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8ANZCCART News goes electronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Queensland’s new Animal Welfare and

Protection Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Conference 2002 announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Proceedings of ANZCCART’s New Zealand

Conference 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Coming up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

N e w sMarch 2002 Vol 15 No 1

Breaking News!

ANZCCARTConference 2002

see Page 11 for details

2 ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1

tive of the magnitude ofbenefits or costs.

Intrinsic objections totransgenic animals are under-pinned by a range of socialand personal beliefs:

Religious teachings about theplace of humans in nature and inrelation to a creation deity.Most religions have some-thing to say about the place ofhumans relative to other life-forms, whether it be one ofhuman dominion over ani-mals, an ethos of steward-ship, or explicit instructionabout avoidance of associa-tion with certain animals.Transgenesis challenges thoseteachings, and is seen to placehumans in the position of"playing God" by creatingnew life-forms or tinkeringwith the blueprints of lifeforms.

Personal beliefs about respectand consideration owed to otherlife forms. These beliefs areoften explained in terms ofviews about the sentience ofother life forms, their aesthet-ic appeal, ecological value, orwonderment at their biologi-cal complexity.

Concepts of the "natural" oracceptable in nature. This oftenmay be expressed in terms ofa religious belief, evolution-ary process, or ecologicaldependency. Transgenesis isoften perceived as involvingthe creation of life-forms bymeans not found in nature.

Concepts of species barriers.Beliefs in barriers betweenspecies, in particular betweenhumans and other species,are deeply ingrained andcommon to most cultures,irrespective of how we viewhumans in relation to otherlife-forms or our personalbeliefs about the considera-tion owed to other life forms.The "otherness" of otherforms of life is an awarenessformed in early childhood. Incommon belief, species aredefined in terms of breedingbarriers, and transgenesis isseen as breaching those barri-ers.

The economic nexus – "patent-ing and ownership of life". Thecommonly held belief thatpatenting and ownership of

transgenic life forms is wrongseems at odds with the gener-al acceptance of the owner-ship of non-transgenic lifeforms (livestock, pets, strainsof plants). The apparent con-tradiction may be explainedin terms of a more subtleview of the human-animalrelationship, and a belief inthe existence of a "naturalpurpose" for animals. Own-ership of non-transgenic life-forms may be seen as a rela-tionship based on steward-ship or custodial responsibili-ty, whereas the patenting oftransgenic life forms is seen tosubvert human obligationsinferred in that traditionalrelationship, and implies nonatural purpose for theorganism other than ahuman-defined one.

How important are intrinsicethical objections?

Several surveys of publicopinion about biotechnologyhave identified moral or ethi-cal factors as contributing toopposition to genetic manip-ulation (see review inHamstra, 1998). Althoughsurveys such as one from theUK in 1985 found that 70% ofrespondents thought geneticengineering was "morallywrong" (Reiss and Straughan,1996), later surveys suggestthat public attitudes arebased on quite complex andsubtle calculations of cost,benefit and ethical considera-tions, such that the level andnature of intrinsic objectionsis more difficult to pinpoint.

Identification of intrinsicobjections which could con-tribute to public policy andregulation of genetic engi-neering is not without prob-lems. Intrinsic objections arebased heavily on beliefs root-ed in personal experience,hence identifying a set ofwidely acceptable intrinsicobjections that could beapplied in a consistent man-ner is likely to be difficult.

Proponents of geneticengineering sometimes don’ttake intrinsic ethical objec-tions with a great deal of seri-ousness, assuming that anyopposition that does notfocus on welfare or health orenvironmental concerns issimply an emotional reaction

to the introduction of a newtechnology that is withoutany kind of rational basis,and can be expected to disap-pear as people become accus-tomed to the new technology(Banner Report, 1995).

Nevertheless, it is quiteclear that some intrinsic ethi-cal objections are stronglyheld, and can’t be remediedby addressing welfare orenvironmental concerns, orby appeals to logic, or byexamples which demonstratesome inconsistency of reason-ing, or by promises of vastbenefits that genetic engineer-ing may bring at some time inthe future.

An application of a utilitari-an ethical approach to trans-genic animals: The BannerReport

In 1995, the UK’s Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries andFood delivered a seminalreport about the ethical impli-cations of emerging technolo-gies, including genetic modi-fication, on the breeding offarm animals. Commonlyreferred to as the BannerReport, it articulated threeprinciples for animal use.

* "Harm of a certain degreeand kind ought under nocircumstances to beinflicted on an animal.

* "Any harm to an animal,even if not absolutelyimpermissible, nonethe-less requires justificationand must be outweighedby the good which is real-istically sought.

* "Any harm which is justi-fied by the second princi-ple ought, however, to beminimised as far as is rea-sonably possible."

The Banner Reportregarded intrinsic objectionsseriously and didn’t take theview that, simply becausethose views were oftenexpressed with some degreeof emotion, that they wereirrational or invalid. It alsotook the view that an assess-ment of ethical matters sim-ply on the basis of a cost-ben-efit analysis, withoutacknowledgment of theintrinsic objectionableness of

some actions, is not accept-able to the majority of thecommunity, nor is it a goodbasis for public policy. Cost-benefit analysis could not bethe sole test of ethical accept-ability, it said.

The Banner Report sum-marised the range of intrinsicethical objections as arisingfrom a belief that some use ofanimals:

"...involves an essentiallyimproper attitude towardsthem, expressing, in effect,the view that animals are nomore than the raw materialsfor our scientific projects oragricultural endeavours ..."Such an attitude "fails to takeaccount of the fact that thenatural world in general, andanimals in particular, areworthy of our respect as pos-sessing an integrity or goodof their own, which we oughtnot simply to disregard." (p.12).

The Banner Report tookthe view that transgenesiswas not intrinsically objec-tionable, but some of itsapplications could be.Whether the nature of thegenetic modification involvedthe transfer of genetic materi-al between species, or simplymodification within a species’genome, was irrelevant to itsethical acceptability.

Using these principles,the Banner Report dividedthe use of emerging technolo-gies on animals into three cat-egories:

* Uses which are generallyacceptable within therequirement for minimisa-tion of harm included tech-niques such as embryotransfer, that can be usedin the development oftransgenic animals.

* Uses which are justified onlyin particular circumstanceswhere substantial good isexpected included the useof animals for xenotrans-plantation (animals raisedfor the transplantation ofbodily organs intohumans), currently view-ed as a use of transgenicanimal production thatwill be achievable in thenear future.

Uses which were identified

ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1 3

as intrinsically objectionableincluded genetic modifi-cation of a type which"can be thought to consti-tute an attack on the ani-mal’s essential nature".

The concept of an essen-tial nature is not new, beingsimilar to the Aristotelianconcept of telos, the end stateor goal of an animal, and thebasis of arguments put for-ward by modern-day ethicistssuch as Holmes Rolston andMichael Fox. Its critics arguethat the concept of an essen-tial nature is useless as thebasis for an ethical systembecause it is not practicallypossible to draw up a set ofrules which objectivelydefines the essential nature ofa cow or pig or chicken.

Rather than trying to pro-vide rules about what consti-tutes an attack on essentialnature, the Banner Report(pp.14-15) cited three hypo-thetical examples to illustratetheir view of what was, andwas not, acceptable:

Genetic modification thatincreases the protein content ofcows’ milk. The Banner Reporttook the view that this kind ofmodification "seeks toenhance a particularly desir-able trait…does not affect theanimal’s defining characteris-tic, nor threaten the achieve-ment of its natural ends orgood…but respects its essen-tial nature and well-being."

Genetic modification that causespoultry breeding stock to pro-duce only female chicks. TheBanner Report took the viewthat this kind of modification"would not deprive thechicken of the freedom toexpress normal behaviours",although it is more radical inthe sense that the end resultmay not be argued to be astraight-forward enhance-ment of a particularly desir-able existing trait.

Genetic modification thatdecreases the sentience andresponsiveness of pigs, thusmaking them more sedentaryand quicker to put on weight.The Banner Report took theview that this kind of modifi-cation, irrespective of anybenefit to profit margins, isethically objectionable be-cause the human ends and

purposes override the endsand purposes which are nat-ural to the animal, and is anattack on the animal’s essen-tial nature.

"Transgenic animal productionis no different from conventionalbreeding methods." The propo-sition is often put that trans-genic animal production isindistinguishable from tradi-tional breeding methods, andsince the traditional breedingmethods are ethically accept-able, so is transgenic animaluse.

Transgenic animal pro-duction can be both qualita-tively and quantitatively dif-ferent from animals bred bytraditional methods. Trans-genetic animals can be madeto display novel characteris-tics which cannot be achievedby traditional breeding andtreatment methods, and socan be used for some entirelynew purposes, and for awider range of existing pur-poses (such as acting as med-ical models for a wider rangeof conditions).

Transgenesis also enablesus to expand uses to whichwe can put animals at a farmore rapid rate than do con-ventional breeding methods.It is different, even if thenature of the difference is pri-marily the rate of changewhich is made possible.Irrespective of whether thenature of that differencebetween particular transgenicand non-transgenic methodsis more one of rate of changemade possible rather thanqualitative change, it does notfollow that there are no ethi-cal differences - just that per-haps the ethical boundariesare difficult to define.

Bruce and Bruce (1998)discuss the ethical trap ofgradualism: because there isgeneral acceptance of the factthat humans have used pigsfor meat for millennia, andmore recently for medicaluses such as skin and heartvalve transplants, thereforethere is no ethical differencebetween those uses and xeno-transplantation. To acceptthat view is to assume that wecondone all use of animals, orany use for which there issome human benefit, simply

because we condone someuses.

It does not follow that ouracceptance of a current prac-tice implies or requires thatwe accept a similar practice –sometimes it just forces us toreassess our acceptance of thecurrent practice. So an out-come of deeper considerationof the ethics of geneticallymodified animals may be areassessment of our ethicalacceptance of non-transgeniccurrent farming and breedingpractices.

Transgenic animals arecertainly different from non-transgenic animals in that it ismuch harder to make ethicaldecisions about their use, andthis is a very real problem forregulatory groups as well asthe public. Leaving aside thequestion of which intrinsicobjections should contributeto regulation, the main prob-lem is that the level of uncer-tainty around both costs andbenefits is so much higher forgenetically modified animals.It is that much harder to pre-dict the nature of undesirableoutcomes, and to estimate theprobability of achieving anoutcome, whether undesir-able or those which might bethe objective of the work. It isalso much easier to produceextreme and unforseen out-comes.

This uncertainty is princi-pally due to genetic engineer-ing being a leading-edge tech-nology that we understandimperfectly, and our attemptsto manipulate genes towardsparticular outcomes are, to alarge extent, experimental.Secondly, the technology hasevolved more rapidly thanour capacity to regulate it,and has been driven in partby commercial interests, bothwhich may have resulted insome lack of access to infor-mation that would allowthose risks and benefits to beevaluated more accurately.

Ethical issues derived fromconsequences

Many ethical questions arisefrom the consequences (ani-mal welfare, environmental,human health, social and eco-nomic) of the developmentand use of transgenic ani-mals. Some commonly

voiced concerns are present-ed here, with examples oftheir origins.

Is it ethical to use transgenicanimals where the purpose ofthat genetic modification meansthat disease or disability or envi-ronmental degradation will beinevitable? The often-citedexample is that of oncomice,mice genetically modified toinevitably develop cancers. Asecond example is theAustralian proposal to releasetransgenic bacteria which willmake ruminant stock animalsmore immune to the poiso-nous effects of fluoroacetate.This proposal was rejected bythe Genetic ManipulationAdvisory Committee afterwidespread criticism on envi-ronmental grounds. Thegenetic modification wouldhave enabled livestock graz-ing to be expanded and inten-sified in areas of native vege-tation which was previouslyprotected by its naturallyhigh levels of fluoroacetate,with probable effects on theconservation of native faunaand flora. The high risk ofspread to feral ruminant pop-ulations was also of concern.

Is it ethical to establish trans-genic animal lines where there ismuch greater "wastage" of ani-mals? Some sources ofwastage include low successrates of current techniques tocreate novel lines of trans-genic animals (often cited at2% or less), and inherent phe-notypic instability thatrequires culling of variantanimals in order to keep thetransgenic line "pure". Athird source may be variabledemand for a wide range ofanimal lines, placing pressureon businesses that supplyanimals to manage their stockanimals in ways whichincrease economic efficienciesbut require more culling.

Is it ethical to use transgenesis toaddress welfare concerns anddowngrade conditions of care?Transgenesis is often cited ashaving the potential to reducewelfare problems in animalproduction, in particularreducing disease susceptibili-ty. However, it could beargued that (using the exam-ple from the Banner Report)the transgenic pig that hasbeen modified to have

4 ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1

decreased sentience andresponsiveness is less likelyto experience suffering fromits condition, and hence thatthe genetic modification pro-duces a net welfare benefit forthe individual. Taken onestep further, the view couldbe taken that such a pigwould be equally content in asmaller enclosure than thosegiven to its non-transgenicpigs.

If it were possible to pro-duce a transgenic chickenthat was less aggressive,based on an argument that itwould reduce the need forpractices such as de-beaking,would that be ethical? Theissue would have to beweighed against the questionof whether there are otherways to reduce pecking thatdon’t involve a genetic modi-fication – ways such as largerand better designed housingand avoidance opportunities.

Is it ethical to develop transgenicanimals where benefits are notprimarily for health, welfare orenvironment? For example,are economic efficiencies,human comfort (such as bald-ness cures or pets with novelcharacteristics), or scientificcuriosity and public acclaim(such as the much-publicisedplan by the AustralianMuseum to clone theTasmanian tiger) sufficientlyethical reasons to developtransgenic animals?

Do we need some transgenicapplications?

Discussion of pros and consof particular transgenic pro-posals is sometimes playedout without much considera-tion of the need for sometransgenic applications.There seems to be an assump-tion that, risk factors provid-ing no barrier, the "market"for transgenic animals shouldbe the primary determinantof what new transgenic ani-mals should be developed.However, the question ofneed may be quite strong inthe public mind. It mayexplain the apparentlygreater acceptance of trans-genic animals for medicaluses than for food productionwhich is evident in some sur-veys (see Hamstra, 1998).

The public is quite readyto ask questions such as:"Why do I need transgeniccows which have higher-pro-tein milk when I already havea protein-rich western diet?"and "Why do I need a trans-genic pig which producesmeat at a lower cost whennon-transgenic bacon is only$7 per kilo?" The question ofneed has not been seriouslyconsidered in public debate,nor addressed by proponentsof biotechnology.

Conclusion

Ethical concerns about trans-genic animal use stems fromboth intrinsic objections, andthe purpose and conse-quences of transgenic animalproduction. Intrinsic objec-tions will not disappear frompublic belief or public policysimply because they might beemotionally expressed orviewed as difficult to apply ina consistent manner.

The use of transgenesis toimprove animal welfare out-comes should not be assumedto be a preferable alternativeto developing, exploring andimplementing better practicesin the way animals arehoused and treated.

It doesn’t necessarily fol-low that because we acceptsome uses of animals, weaccept all uses, or that ouracceptance of current prac-tices about non-transgenicanimals implies or requiresthat we accept a similar prac-tice for non-transgenic ani-mals. Considering whethertransgenic animal productionis ethically similar to non-transgenic animal productionsuggests that both formsdeserve deeper ethical con-sideration, preferably as awhole rather than separately.

Miranda GottBiodiversity Research andManagement DivisionNSW National Parks andWildlife Service Hurstville, Sydney,NSW 2220

References

Banner (1995). Report of theCommittee to Consider theEthical Implications ofEmerging Technologies inthe Breeding of FarmAnimals. UK Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries andFood.

Bruce, D. and Bruce A. (eds.)(1998). Engineering Genesis:The Ethics of GeneticEngineering in Non-HumanSpecies. Earthscan Public-ations Ltd.

Hamstra, I.A., (1998). PublicOpinion about Bio-technolo-gy: a Survey of Surveys.European Federation ofBiotechnology TaskGroup on Public Percep-tions of Biotechnology www.kluyver.stm.tudelft.nl/efb/home.htm

Reiss, M.J. and Straughan, R.(1996). Improving Na-ture?The science and ethics ofgenetic engineering.Cambridge Univer-sityPress, Cambridge.

Editor’s note

This paper was presented atworkshops held on theWelfare of TransgenicAnimals in Sydney on 28November and Melbourne on30 November 2001.

Notes fromthe work-shops on

TransgenicAnimalWelfare

ANZCCART held

workshops on this

topic in Sydney

and Melbourne in

late November

2001.

Notes from

these workshops

are now available

for downloading

from ANZC-

CART’s website

www.adelaide.edu.au/

ANZCCART/

These work-

shops were spon-

sored in collabora-

tion with the

Animal Welfare

Committee of the

National Health

and Medical

Research Council

(NHMRC).

ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1 5

For the last two and a halfyears a collaborativeproject has been under-

way to develop a comprehen-sive welfare audit for thechicken meat industry. This isa landmark project in that itprovides the world’s firstcomprehensive animal wel-fare audit for an entire indus-try, in this case for the chick-en meat industry from thehatchery to the processingplant. It provides an agreedset of questions for an auditorto use that have been devel-oped in conjunction withinputs from a number ofstakeholders and that arebased on good farming prac-tices in the industry.

Currently, the only wel-fare requirements for farmanimal industries to abide byare "codes of practice" forindividual industries. These"codes" are developed bySCARM (Standing Comm-ittee on Agriculture andResource Management) andagreed to for national adop-tion by ARMCANZ (Agri-culture and ResourceManagement Council ofAustralia and New Zealand).Such national/state codes areeither adopted withoutchange or there may be someminor modifications by indi-vidual States and Territoriesto meet local requirements. Aperceived negative aspect ofcodes of practice for farm ani-mals is that they are seen asgenerally reflecting only min-imum welfare standards. Onebenefit of a welfare audit isthat, in time, it will assist inchanging the perception of anindustry that is seen as onlycomplying with minimumwelfare standards to one ofan industry striving toachieve high welfare stan-dards.

While this welfare auditdocumentation for the chick-en meat industry and similarprojects that are under wayfor the pig and dairy indus-tries are being developed foranimals of normal genotypes,there is no reason why theprinciples cannot be utilisedfor transgenic animals.

Some of the principles areto decide on the industry sec-tors to be covered and to forman appropriate managementgroup that is manageable insize, representative of allstakeholders and has theappropriate expertise or net-works to obtain requiredinformation. For the chickenmeat audit the ManagementGroup had representativesfrom industry, the welfarelobby, legislators andresearch and teaching staff. Itwas also an attempt to have aconsumer representative, butthere are few consumerorganisations in Australia.For transgenic animals itwould be very worthwhileincluding a consumer repre-sentative, or at least one ortwo community representa-tives, similar to the positionheld by category D memberson AECs. The chicken meatindustry was divided into thefollowing sectors: hatchery;broilers; breeder rearers;breeder layers and pick-up;transport and processing sec-tors.

For transgenic animals,we must first decide what theindustry is. There is no rea-son why audit documenta-tion for farm animal speciescannot be developed or mod-ified to include issues of con-cern for transgenic animals.Currently, the number oftransgenic farm animals isprobably small and the majorpart of the transgenic indus-try is laboratory animals forresearch and laboratory ani-mals and perhaps transgenicfarm animals for pharmaceu-tical developments and pro-duction. Thus, this industryis part of the laboratory ani-mal industry and it will benecessary to develop docu-mentation for differentspecies and strains andinclude the range of transfor-mations, from simple to com-plex. Deciding on the indus-try sectors will vary, depend-ing on the species and strain,but areas that should proba-bly be included for allspecies/strains are parentstock and gestation, neonataland postnatal development,

rearing, breeding and trans-port and relocation.

Another important princi-ple is to have terms of refer-ence to ensure a project, oncestarted, is completed on time.While every attempt shouldbe made to reach consensus,this may not always be possi-ble. Some useful clausesalong the following lines aresuggested for inclusion interms of reference:

i) Recognise that theresearch group is respon-sible for completing theproject and therefore mayneed to make decisionscontrary to individuals’opinions. Notwithstand-ing this recognition,attempts will be made toreach a consensus.

ii) Recognise that it is not theintention of the audit doc-umentation to change the"code of practice",although it may identifyareas that require change.

It is important to identifyto the management groupwhat welfare audits will notachieve. They will not achieveeither quick changes to cur-rent industry practices or res-olution of controversialissues. Nevertheless, they canidentify and encourage adop-tion of best practice, identifyareas that may require furtherexamination and identifyareas in relevant codes ofpractice that may require res-olution. In relation to trans-genic animals it would needto be made clear that thiswould not be the forum toresolve ethical issues sur-rounding the production anduse of such animals.Nevertheless, it is an appro-priate forum to raise suchissues and to include them inbackground/training sect-ions of the documentation, sothat industry is made awareof the breadth of the issues.The focus of a welfare audit ison the practical animal andfacility management issuesthat contribute to welfare.

While animal housesassociated with research insti-tutions and breeding estab-lishments in Australia arelicensed and audited, there isno agreed audit documenta-tion, based on the experiencesof developmental problemsand best practice, such asthose being developed for theagricultural animal indus-tries. As well as providingstandardised audit documen-tation, an important benefit isfor self-assessment to deter-mine how facilities are per-forming compared to indus-try targets and to identifyareas for improvement. Thereis community concern aboutanimal experimentation and agreater concern about trans-genic manipulations of bothplants and animals. Theseconcerns are recognised byStates having separate sec-tions in legislation for animalexperimentation and a sepa-rate body involved withissues of genetic manipula-tion. If industries do notaddress community concernsthemselves, there is likely tobe further regulationimposed. A recommendationfrom ARMCANZ at the endof the year 2000 for the eggindustry, provides someguidance. They have recom-mended that the industrydevelop a quality assurance(QA) programme thatincludes food safety, biosecu-rity and welfare. In thefuture, it is likely that thoseindustries which have QAprogrammes that includewelfare and that have someexternal auditing will receiveless scrutiny from govern-ment.

Industry-wide feedbackwas obtained for the chickenwelfare audit by circulatingdrafts for comment to allchicken meat companies andrevised documents were sub-sequently provided to com-panies as both hard copiesand on a CD. Each booklethas audit questions, back-ground information on thepurpose of the questions andhow the questions/practicesrelate to welfare and theCodes of Practice for welfare

Welfare audits for farm animals and implicationsfor transgenic animals

6 ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1

for both the transport andkeeping of poultry. Examplesof recording sheets are alsoincluded to assist far-mers/unit managers demon-strate compliance with anaudit. The audit questionsinclude both critical ques-tions, which are defined asthose where "if somethinggoes wrong the welfare of thebirds is irrevocably damaged"and good practice questionswhich reflect the current stateof knowledge and its practi-cal implementation in theindustry. For a number ofareas there are "targets" forfarmers/unit managers toaim for, based on currentindustry information on goodfarming practice, or that actas a trigger for attention. Theaudit questions have beenbased around managementtasks that are routinely con-ducted. Thus, welfare is inte-grated into routine farm andanimal management and isnot considered as a separatetask. The purpose of theaudit documentation is three-fold: firstly, to provide docu-mented evidence of highquality animal care by identi-fying and encouraging bestpractice for each sector of theindustry; secondly, to identi-fy and monitor equipmentand animal problems associ-ated with quality animal care;and thirdly to identify andmonitor human resourceissues associated with qualityanimal care.

While it was not possibleto evaluate all sectors of theaudit, there was some evalua-tion of all booklets "on-farm"to provide feedback on thevalidity of the questions andany perceived difficulties inimplementing the audit.Also, there was a more com-prehensive evaluation of thebroiler audit. Twenty-fourbroiler farms contracted toone company were used. Thecompany provided produc-tion data for the three previ-ous batches of birds and thefarms were ranked from 1 to24 according to their perfor-mance. Pairs of farms withsimilar performance wereallocated to treatment andcontrol groups. The 12 treat-ment farms received the auditdocument and were asked tocomplete the recording

sheets. The 12 control farmsdid not receive a copy of theaudit document and wereasked to continue recordingwhat they normally wouldhave done such as mortalities,culls, feed supplied and bodyweight. Growers participatedin the study for three batchesof birds. At the end of thethird batch, the audit wasconducted for the periodfrom two to five weeks of age;this time period was chosento avoid variation due topick-up schedules. Asexpected, record-keeping wasbetter at the treatment farmsand there was also a signifi-cantly lower mortality (1.37versus 1.74 %) in the firstweek after placement.

While a reduced mortalitycan be considered a welfarebenefit, and some productionadvantage may be expectedfrom implementing the wel-fare audit, because of theclose link between welfareand production, any produc-tion advantage should beconsidered as just a bonusfrom implementing the wel-fare audit. A welfare audit isseen as having a number ofadvantages. These are: animmediate improvement inanimal welfare; public reas-surance of high welfare stan-dards; market protection anddevelopment by having sys-tems in place to minimiseindustry-wide risks; a mecha-nism for recommendingupgrades to welfare codes ofpractice; generally higherstandards of animal welfarethan the minimum standardscurrently in the codes of prac-tice; demonstrated industrycommitment to welfare; con-tinual improvement in ani-mal welfare; certainty for all;intangible benefits includingimproved production, bettermaintenance of equipment,fewer crises and improvedstaff training; less focus onindustries with QA by gov-ernment, welfare groups andthe public; improved relation-ships between industry andwelfare groups and thepotential to reduce conflictbetween industry, govern-ment and welfare groups;improved industry sustain-ability.

The model described

above, that covers some of theprocedures adopted in devel-oping a welfare audit for anagricultural industry, hassome obvious parallels for asimilar undertaking for trans-genic animals. It allows arange of stakeholders to seethe processes /procedures/outcomes (by appropriate on-site visits), it allows for pre-cise definition of the issuesand the development of rea-sonable targets and reviewpoints (based on industryexperience and current prac-tices) and it provides for aprocess whereby a consensuscan be reached. It also pro-vides a forum for people withdifferent views to openly dis-cuss some of the ethical issuesand provides a means of peo-ple getting an appreciation ofothers’ views in a non-threat-ening situation. The issue ofhaving agreed and standard-ised welfare targets is onethat is generally lacking formost commercial animalenterprises.

Some important compo-nents in developing themodel are the need for a man-agement group that includeswide representation and par-ticularly includes non-indus-try stakeholders, e.g., RSPCAand/or Animals Australia,agreed terms of reference,availability of a confidentiali-ty agreement for participants,if it is deemed to be requiredand acknowledgement that itis a process cannot be rushed,as the stakeholders have tolearn a degree of trust andthis takes time.

Specifically, in relation totransgenic animals, as well aslaboratory and farm animals,there is already considerableexperience and expertiseavailable. Development of awelfare audit, based on themodel described above, cantake advantage of this experi-ence and expertise and pro-vide some very useful andcredible documents for use asa standardised audit tool. Itcould be used by organisa-tions that are currentlyinvolved with transgenic ani-mal production and thosewho wish to develop suchanimals. The suggested tar-gets to be developed are sim-ilar to those that would be

used for conventional species,such as specific targets forgrowth rates, survival atbirth, to weaning and duringrearing and temperature,housing and ventilation tar-gets. Less tangible, but equal-ly important targets, such asappearance, sound andbehaviour at specific stages ofdevelopment and best meth-ods of euthanasia are alsosuggested for development.In addition, because of anawareness of problems asso-ciated with transgenic animalproduction, the list of targetscould be expanded, depend-ing on the species, to includebirthing difficulties, standingand competency of move-ment at birth, teat seeking,sucking and suckling behav-iours (as indicators of poten-tial viability), and behaviour-al tests to indicate appropri-ate rates of development suchas learning tests, socialbehaviour observations andtests and fear tests. The latteris predicated on the view thatfear of novelty develops atappropriate stages of devel-opment for the species. Thepurpose of targets, and therequisite record keeping, isfirstly to provide some stan-dards for determining com-pliance with an audit and sec-ondly to provide early identi-fication of problems andintervention. Thus, theprocess is one that encour-ages continual improvement,on an industry-wide basis.

The process outlinedabove is a way of capturingthe knowledge and expertisethat is already available andsubsequently applying theknowledge and measuringthe outcomes, using existingaudit procedures that arealready in use for the trans-genic animal industry. It ishighly likely that the exper-tise and knowledge is avail-able, but bringing it togetheris a costly process, probablyin terms of dollars and cer-tainly in terms of time.

John L. BarnettAnimal Welfare Centre,Victorian Institute of AnimalScience,Department of NaturalResources and Environment,Werribee, Victoria, 3030

ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1 7

Changing patterns of animaluse for learning in Veterin-ary Science

The Faculty of VeterinaryScience at the University ofSydney aims to produce vet-erinarians who are compe-tent, confident and compas-sionate. Veterinary graduatesmust be skilled at managingclinical problems and shouldbe advocates for the care andwelfare of animals. TheFaculty has been an activepartner in the University-wide move to reduce, replaceand refine the use of animalsin teaching and research.However, in order for veteri-nary graduates to becomeexperts in animal treatmentand care they need to workwith animals in a variety ofdifferent contexts.Consequently, completereplacement of animals inteaching is neither feasiblenor desirable so we must bal-ance the competing needs forstudents to gain experiencewith animals (to achieve com-petence) with our desire toreduce animal use. Studentsachieve competence in thekey skills of animal handling,surgery, clinical practice andanaesthesia through directexperience with live animals.Veterinary education mustalso enable students to devel-op and refine their beliefs andattitudes to animal use. Weneed to demonstrate the high-est ethical standards andaccommodate the diversity ofviews that students hold onanimal welfare. Since theFaculty adopted an AnimalWelfare Policy in 1999, it hasintroduced policies onAnimal Use in Teaching andApplied Anatomy, SmallAnimal Surgery andAnesthesia, andConscientious Objection (seefaculty web sitewww.vetsci.usyd.edu.au

Our new curriculum(introduced from 2000) devel-ops the key themes of animalwelfare and ethics through-out the course, starting withProfessional Practice andAnimal Hus-bandry (year 1,2), Animal Behaviour and

Welfare Science (year 3) andClinical Practice Units (years4 and 5). The major changesin Faculty philosophy anduse of animals over the lastfive years have been:

* replacement of non-sur-vival practical classesusing laboratory animalswith other forms of teach-ing;

* replacement of live ani-mals for surgery andanaesthesia teaching withclinical cases including anew spey/neuter clinic;

* increased use of cadavers(from abattoirs or animalsthat were killed for otherreasons);

* refinement through anincrease in the non-inva-sive use of animals.

Reduction and replacement

Veterinary physiology hasreduced and replaced ani-mals in teaching over the last5 years. Over 300 rabbits, ratsmice and sheep were previ-ously used each year in labo-ratory - based classes. Usagewas reduced to zero in 2001.This change has been drivenby two factors: developmentof well-defined learning out-comes that link physiology toclinical practice, and recogni-tion of the changing views ofstaff and students on non-sur-vival experiments with ani-mals. Many students raisedconscientious objections tokilling animals for teaching.The rationale proposed foruse of live animals in labora-tory classes included devel-opment of skills in animalhandling, anaesthesia,surgery and physiologicalmonitoring. The classes alsoprovided a vivid learningenvironment for the students.However, skills in these areasare addressed in other clinicalunits of study, and they werenot specific learning objec-tives for physiology and werenot assessed.

Frequently the classeswere dominated by technicaldifficulties of setting upexperiments, limiting thetime available for reflection

and discussion of the mean-ing of the results. Data fromthese experiments were usedas a focus for workshops toreplace the practical classes incardiovascular and respirato-ry function. Non-invasivepractical classes are also con-ducted using students as theirown experimental subjects(e.g., to examine sensory per-ception and to monitor car-diovascular function).Commercially available com-puter programs have re-placed experiments on home-ostasis and neuromuscularcontraction.

Plastinated material isbeing used to replace somefresh and fixed dissectionmaterial for anatomy. This isa relatively new techniquewhere fixed animal tissuesare replaced gradually withsilicone polymers or epoxyresins to produce an accurate,durable anatomical specimenthat can be handled by stu-dents. Abattoir specimens areused to teach production ani-mal anatomy wherever possi-ble.

Live dogs have beenreplaced with cadavers forsurgery practical classes.These cadavers are unwanteddogs that have been humane-ly killed as part of routinepound operations. It is impor-tant to stress that theUniversity has absolutely noinfluence over their supply.Instead of being incineratedimmediately by the pound,the cadavers serve as a valu-able teaching resource.Students also use a variety offoam and wood models togain experience with sutureand orthopaedic techniques.Final year students gain expe-rience in live animal surgeryby participating in theUniversity’s recently estab-lished spey/neuter clinic.Around 400 dogs from thepound per year go to newhomes and are desexed bystudents working in the clin-ic. This provides a high quali-ty learning experience for stu-dents and a valuable serviceto the community.

A combination of videos,computer programs andmodels have replaced manyof the animals previouslyused to teach clinical skills.The faculty has produced 20videos for equine medicineand surgery, plus videos onassisted reproduction tech-niques. Videos are also usedto illustrate diseases in veteri-nary clinical toxicology andexotic diseases.

Refinements and shiftingpatterns of use

Dogs, cats, horses and othercompanion animals arebrought in for classes wherethey are used non-invasivelyto demonstrate animal han-dling, behaviour and clinicalexamination skills. Studentsalso gain early experience inhandling companion animalsthrough a variety of tasksthey complete at EducationalSupport Veterinary Practicesduring the first years of thecourse.

Conclusions

The use of animals in veteri-nary education at SydneyUniversity is changing to bet-ter reflect the range of viewsheld by our students, staffand the community. Thesechanges do not necessarilymean a decline in the qualityof students’ "hands on" expe-rience. Rather they haveresulted in a careful reap-praisal of the learning out-comes of the veterinary cur-riculum and development ofsome creative alternativesthat enable students to gainexperience with animals andto develop strong skills inethical management ofhuman-animal interactions.

Rosanne TaylorChairTeaching and LearningCommitteeFaculty of Veterinary ScienceUniversity of Sydney

Animal use in veterinary science teaching

8 ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1

ANZCCART NEWS goes electronic– for the time being at least

As readers of the last edition (Vol. 14 No. 4, 2001) of this journal will know, ANZCCART NEWS (hereaftercalled “The News”) will be published electronically rather than in printed format this year.

Over the 14 years since its first publication The News has fulfilled one of ANZCCART’s major aims, name-ly the promotion of informed discussion and debate on the use of animals in teaching and research. The Newsnow boasts a readership of some 5,000, and has established a reputation for the quality and contemporary natureof its articles. We have become used to seeing copies of The News, with its distinctive design, on library shelvesand tearoom tables.

The decision to publish The News electronically will be reviewed at the end of 2002. In the mean time,instead of receiving a copy of The News through the post, readers will need to view it (or preferably download it)from the ANZCCART web site. This will take some getting used to, and we ask for your patience and coopera-tion during this period of change. In particular, we call for readers of The News who occupy leadership positionsin organisations, such as Chairpersons of Animal Ethics Committees, Laboratory Heads and Government Sectionleaders, to make multiple copies of The News and distribute these to interested parties. By doing this, we hopeto retain our readership base for 2002.

We are presently investigating the future mode of publication of The News and ANZCCART would welcomesuggestions from readers.

We are establishing an email list for all those who wish to be notified when we post the next editionson the web. Please email ANZCCART at anzccart@adelaide.edu.auif you would like to be placed on thatlist.

Rory HopeDirector

ANZCCART appoints new DirectorDr. Rory Hope has been appointed Director of ANZCCART, initially on a 6-month contract basis. He suc-

ceeds Dr. Robert Baker who has taken up the position of CEO of the South Australian Farmers Federation.

Rory completed his BSc (Honours) and PhD degrees at the University of Adelaide in the Department ofGenetics. His major research interests were in measuring levels of genetic variation in natural and laboratorypopulations of Australian marsupials, and in determining the causes and consequences of such variation. Thetwo species used in this research were the brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and the fat tailed dunnart(Sminthopsis crassicaudata). Rory assisted Professor Henry Bennett to establish a fully pedigreed laboratorycolony of dunnarts, a colony that has provided a wealth of useful information about the genetics and biology ofthis species.

Having completed his PhD, Rory spent two years working in the Department of Biochemistry, University ofOxford, where his research involved the use of cell fusion techniques to create inter-specific somatic cell hybridsthat contained chromosomes from placental and marsupial mammals. These hybrids proved useful in mappinggenes to marsupial chromosomes.

In 1974 Rory returned to the University of Adelaide to take up a lectureship in the Genetics Department.His teaching and research emphasised human biochemical genetics; and population and evolutionary genetics,with special reference to marsupials. His interests and skills gradually changed towards those of molecular biol-ogy, and especially molecular evolution, and his most recent research concerns the role of gene duplication inthe evolution of gene families in mammals.

Before joining ANZCCART Rory was an Associate Professor in the newly formed Department of MolecularBiosciences at Adelaide University, where he headed the Laboratory of Molecular Evolution.

ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1 9

New animal welfare legislation in Queensland

On 1 March 2002,Queensland’s newAnimal Care and

Protection Act 2001 (ACPA /the Act) was proclaimed andreplaced the outdatedAnimals Protection Act 1925.

The Queensland Govern-ment’s Department ofPrimary Industries (DPI)became the lead agency foranimal welfare in 1995 andthe Animal Welfare Unit(AWU) within the Depart-ment’s Animal and PlantHealth Service was estab-lished in 1998. Since thenAWU staff have worked withanimal user, animal welfareand community groups todevelop policy principles andto draft an Animal Care andProtection Bill.

The Bill was introduced tothe Queensland Parliamenton 31 July 2001 by theMinister for PrimaryIndustries and Rural Com-munities, Henry Palaszczuk,and was passed unanimouslyin the House to become theAnimal Care and Protection Act2001. Since passage of the Billthrough Parliament, regula-tions have been developedand the first round of trainingof ACPA inspectors has takenplace.

The Act does much morethan provide for the legalprocess to punish people whohave been cruel to animals.The Act has features to helppeople who have responsibil-ity for animals to understandthe accepted standards ofcare that these animalsshould enjoy.

These features include:

* a Duty of Care on all peo-ple in charge of animals;

* Codes of Practice for ani-mal welfare;

* Animal Welfare Direct-ions from inspectors tohelp people achieve prop-er standards of care foranimals.

Purposes of the ACPA

The purposes of the ACPAare to do the following:

* Promote the responsiblecare and use of animals.

* Provide standards for thecare and use of animalsthat:- achieve a reasonable

balance between thewelfare of animalsand the interests ofpeople whose liveli-hood is dependent onanimals;

- allow for the effect ofadvancements in sci-entific knowledgeabout animal biologyand changes in com-munity expectationsabout practices in-volving animals.

* Protect animals fromunjustifiable, unnecessaryor unreasonable pain (i.e.,cruelty).

* Ensure that the use of ani-mals for scientific purpos-es is accountable, openand responsible.

Key Features of the ACPA

Proactive, educative approachThe Act promotes the respon-sible care and use of animalsthrough a strong focus oneducation, underpinned bylegislation.

Applies to all animalsThe Act covers all vertebrateanimals (except humanbeings), including fish. It alsohas the potential to cover cer-tain non-vertebrates such ascrustaceans and cephalopods.

Types of animal useThe Act covers all types ofanimal use, including live-stock production, recreation,sport, entertainment andexhibition, the control of feraland pest animals, the use ofanimals for scientific purpos-es, working animals, compan-ion animals and wildlife.

Duty of CareThe Act places a Duty of Careon everyone who is in chargeof an animal. It is an offenceto breach that Duty of Care.

The Duty of Care is topositively provide for thewelfare needs of animals. Tofulfill their duty of care to ananimal in their charge, people

must take reasonable steps toprovide the animal’s needsfor the following in a waythat is appropriate:

* food and water* accommodation or living

conditions for the animal* to display normal pat-

terns of behaviour* the treatment of disease or

injury, or* ensure any handling of

the animal by the person,or caused by the person, isappropriate.

The Act uses the word"appropriate" with regard tothe Duty of Care. Rather thanbeing rigid and prescriptive,the Act allows the flexibilityto cover different types of ani-mal use and different circum-stances such as the age, con-dition and history of the ani-mal.

Codes of PracticeThe Act recognises Codes ofPractice on animal welfare fora wide range of animal uses.For instance all of the nation-al livestock animal welfarecodes (the Pink Codes) are“officially named” in theAnimal Care and ProtectionRegulation 2002 and are usedas benchmarks for acceptableanimal welfare standards,thus providing some certain-ty in business planning andgood guidelines to all peopleinvolved with livestock onhow to fulfill their Duty ofCare.

The Codes are also usedby inspectors as references todetermine whether peopleare fulfilling their Duty ofCare, and as a guideline forissuing written directions torectify animal welfare prob-lems. Non-compliance withthese “named” codes is notautomatically an offenceunder the Act. Compliancewith a Code provides exemp-tion from acts which wouldotherwise constitute cruelty –such as mulesing sheep – aslong as both the relevant pro-visions of a code and theDuty of Care are compliedwith. Other codes are com-pulsory, rather than “named”and for these it is an offence

not to comply with the Code.There will be monitoring pro-grams to ensure compliancewith these compulsory codes.Currently the Australian Codeof Practice for the Care and Useof Animals for Scientific Pur-poses (6th Edition, NHMRC,1997) and the Welfare ofAnimals in Circuses Codes arecompulsory.

InspectorsThe two main groups fromwhich inspectors are drawnare DPI (these are stockinspectors and veterinarians)and the RSPCA. Inspectorsunder the Act are appointedonly when DPI is satisfiedthat the person has the neces-sary expertise or experience,or has completed anapproved training program.The Animal Welfare Unit hasa professional senior trainingofficer on staff. She has led ateam with two staff from theAnimal and Plant HealthService Legislative SupportUnit and one RSPCA inspec-tor to design and develop avery comprehensive trainingprogramme for all futureACPA inspectors. Inspectorshave powers to investigateoffences of cruelty, seize ani-mals, direct persons to under-take measures to alleviatesuffering, recommend theforfeiture of animals anddestroy animals.

Accountability of InspectorsAll inspectors, irrespective ofwhat organisation employsthem, are accountable fortheir conduct to the Director-General of DPI. The Act hasan in-built range of strictaccountability mechanisms.

Animal Welfare DirectionsAnimal welfare directionsallow inspectors to order acourse of action to improve asituation where animals arenot being adequately caredfor. These directions aim to:

* prevent a potential animalcruelty situation fromoccurring

* resolve an existing prob-lem

Inspectors have theauthority to issue written

10 ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1

directions, specifying indetail what the person incharge of the animal must doto ensure the animal is prop-erly cared for. This directioncould include providing food,water, rest or shelter, or con-sulting a veterinary surgeon.In the case of livestock, theCodes of Practice would beused as a key standard fordetermining whether or notanimals were being cared foradequately.

Offences

(a) It is an offence for peopleto breach their Duty ofCare to an animal in theircharge.

(b) There is also a generaloffence of “cruelty”. Thiscovers types of activitiesthat a large majority of thepopulation would instant-ly agree are absolutelyunacceptable. This in-cludes beating, abusing,terrifying, inhumane kill-ing and transporting ani-mals that are unfit fortransport. The underly-ing principle here is thatthe activity is unjust orunreasonable or unneces-sary, and that the animalsuffers as a consequenceof the activity.

(c) The Act also lists offencesrelated to what are called“prohibited” events –such as organised cock-fights and dogfights.

(d) Other offences include:

* Abandoning animals.* Knowingly causing an

animal in captivity to bekilled or injured by a dog.

* Keeping or using an ani-mal as a kill or lure forblooding, racing or train-ing dogs.

* Feeding harmful or poiso -nous substances or layingthem as baits with theintention of injuring orkilling an animal.

* Allowing an animalunder your immediatesupervision to injure orkill another animal.

* Not complying with anAnimal Welfare Direct-ion.

There are a number ofregulated surgical proce-dures, and it is an offence tocarry out these proceduresexcept if performed by a vet,in the interests of the animal’swelfare. These proceduresinclude docking the tails ofcattle and horses, cropping ofdogs’ ears, debarking dogsand declawing cats. Thereare also restrictions on thesale of animals on which cer-tain of these regulated proce-dures have been carried out.

PenaltiesSome maximum penalties forindividuals under the ACPAare listed in the table below.Maximum penalties for cor-porations are up to 5 timesthe level for individuals. Onepenalty unit is currently $75.

Use of Animals for ScientificPurposesThis type of animal use is theonly one specifically men-tioned in the Purposes of theAct and that purpose is toensure that such use isaccountable, open andresponsible. Scientific Pur-poses is defined as per theAustralian Code of Practice forthe Care and Use of Animals forScientific Purposes, 6th edition1997 (the Green Code) i.e. ifthe animal is used: "… in anactivity performed to acquire,demonstrate or developknowledge or a technique in ascientific discipline including:

* diagnosis* environmental studies* field trials* producing biological pro-

ducts* product testing* research* teaching."

Those who wish to use ananimal for scientific purposesin Queensland should beaware of the following provi-sions of the ACPA which willapply to them:

Registration of Scientific UsersIt is an offence to use (orallow use of) animals for sci-entific purposes in Queens-land without appropriate reg-istration with DPI.

The following must register:

1. Institutions whose staffand/or students use ani-

mals for scientific pur-pose. This registrationwill cover individualsretained by that institu-tion while acting in thatcapacity. (Retain meansemployed or engaged,whether or not for remu-neration, OR studentswhile in the course oftheir studies at that insti-tution).

Such retained individualsor students at registeredinstitutions do NOT haveto register individually.

2. Individuals who are NOTretained by or a student ata registered institution.

As part of the registrationprocess, the registrant will berequired to:

* name each Animal EthicsCommittee (AEC) whichwill be used, and

* provide the terms of refer-ence for each named AEC.

Registration can be suspend-ed or cancelled if the AEC hasnot:

* performed any of its func-tions under the scientificuse code; or

* complied with the code tothe extent it is relevant tothe committee.

The Animal Welfare Unitis currently finalizing the reg-istration processes and proce-dures and database. The Unit

Offence Penalty Units Fine / Imprisonment

Cruelty 1000 $75,000 /2 yearsBreach of Duty of Care 300 $22,500 / 1 yearUnreasonable abandonment or release 300 $22,500 / 1 yearParticipation in prohibited event (dog fight, coursing, bull fighting, etc.) 300 $22,500 / 1 yearBeing present at a prohibited event 150 $11,250 / 1 yearDebarking dog, declawing cat, tail docking horse or cow(other than as per regulation) 300 $22,500 / 1 yearKeep or use animal as kill or lure 300 $22,500 / 1 yearFailure to comply with animal welfare direction 100 $ 7,500 / 1 yearUse of an animal for scientific purposes by anunregistered entity 300 $22,500 / 1 year Failure of registered scientific user of animals to provide annual report to DPI 150 $11,250 (no jail)Use of animal for scientific purposes without AEC approval or Code compliance 300 $22,500 / 1 year

ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1 11

ANZCCARTConference 2002

Title: Animal welfare and Animal Ethics Committees:Where are the goalposts now?

Venue: Gold Coast International Hotel,Queensland.

Dates: Thursday 17 – Saturday 19 October, 2002

The conference is being especiallydesigned to appeal to, and be valuable for,people concerned with animal welfare ingeneral, and Animal Ethics Committees inparticular.

Further information about the conference,including registration and accommodationdetails, will be posted on the ANZCCARTweb site:

www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/

and will appear in the June edition of ANZC-CART News

will contact Institutionsabout registration over thenext few months. Institutionsare not required to take anyaction about registration untilcontacted.

Restrictions on Scientific Users

It is an offence to use (orallow use of) animals for sci-entific purposes unless:

(a) the use is approved by ananimal ethics committeewhose registered terms ofreference includes moni-toring the use; and

(b) any requirements of thecommittee made underthe scientific use code inrelation to the use havebeen complied with; and

(c) the provisions of thecode, to the extent theyare relevant to the use,have been complied with.

Reporting

It is an offence for a regis-tered institution or individ-ual not to supply an annualreport to DPI containinginformation which will beprescribed by regulation.

Monitoring

The ACPA provides for thedevelopment of monitoringprogrammes to check forcompliance with the scientificuse Code. These monitoringprogrammes will be conduct-ed by specially trained“authorised officers”.

While compliance withthe scientific use code hasbeen required by regulationin Queensland since 1991, therequirements for registrationand reporting and the abilityfor the administering author-ity to monitor compliance (asopposed to reactively investi-gating reports of non-compli-ance) are new for Queens-land. Many other states andterritories have had suchrequirements for a long time.The new requirements haveresourcing implications forthe Animal Welfare Unit, ani-mal users, Animal EthicsCommittees and institutions.

We hope all those affect-ed will work cooperativelywith us to get all these newprocesses running smoothly

and fulfill the Animal Careand Protection Act’s purposeof ensuring that the use ofanimals for scientific purpos-es is accountable, open andresponsible.

Linda B. MurphyPrincipal Scientist (Animal Welfare and Ethics)Animal Welfare UnitAnimal and Plant Health ServiceDepartment of PrimaryIndustriesQueensland Government

Editor’s note

Although this article specifi-cally refers to State-based leg-islation in Australia, it haswide implications for animalwelfare and the use on ani-mals for research and teach-ing in Australia and NewZealand. Linda Murphy wasasked, at short notice, to con-tribute the article to ANZC-CART News so that it couldappear alongside the prelimi-nary announcement of theANZCCART Confer-ence,which will be held in Queens-land later this year.

12 ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1

Learning, animalsand the environ-

ment: changing theface of the future

The Proceedings of the con-ference jointly organised by

ANZCCART and the NationalAnimal Ethics AdvisoryCommittee (NAEAC) in

Hamilton, New Zealand, inJune 2001 are now available for

sale from the New Zealandoffice of ANZCCART for $40including GST, postage and

packaging.

Attitudes in societyseem to be changingfrom those that

Nature is something to bedominated, to something inwhich human kind shouldparticipate, value and nur-ture. Such relationships arecomplex, requiring an under-standing deeper than thatnormally acknowledged byadversaries in formal debates.The contributors to Learning,animals, and the environment—changing the face of the future,explore and map the intricateconnections between hu-mans, animals and the envi-ronment.

Contributors to theseProceedings reflect and cap-ture the expansive complexi-ty of learning, communicat-ing, and evolving the rela-tionships between the naturalworld and us. The need toreconnect with that naturalworld by establishing new, orin some cases re-establish oldvalues, is eloquently put byGary Reese in Learning, ani-mals, and the environment—ananimal rights perspective .Sentiments documented aslong ago as the 19th Centuryby George Romanes (1885)and Henry Salt (1892) arenow part of our everydaylives. ANZCCART’s presti-gious Cam Reid Orationaddressed this vital contribu-tion to social change andthough unforeseen circum-stances prevented his presen-tation at the conference, thewritten paper captures thespirit of the movement.

The first session was devotedto primary and secondaryeducation and considered

how our interaction with ani-mals and the environmenthas changed and how wemight develop better interac-tions through education.

Barbara Benson pointedout in Influences on learning,that young people are mostinfluenced by their families,friends, classmates, what theyread, what they see and hearfrom the media, and probablymost importantly, what theyobserve and interpret fromwhat they see, hear and smell.These influences are not sim-ple—our language can con-vey both positive and nega-tive messages about animalsas well as teach us abouthuman foibles.

The Consequences of thecontinuity between the humanand biological worlds wereaddressed by David Penny.From Descartes and Darwinto the present day Great ApeProject, the change in classifi-cation of animals is giving usour values and affecting theway we see animals. PeterTrim's paper discussed theAnimals in Schools andEducation Trust and its activ-ities.

The second session con-sidered the influences thatimpinge on the acceptabilityof animal research and testingand tertiary education, andhow we might acknowledgeand incorporate them. FrankGriffin, in Perceptions of bio-medical science: Frankenstein orEinstein, advocates greaterinvolvement of the sciencecommunity in clear, informedand objective public debate.The contribution of science toNew Zealand and Australiawill remain compromisedunless the value science canbring is clearly enunciated byscientists and shared by thepublic.

The exciting, rewarding,passionate and incredibleside of science was shared byCatherine Morrow in Thenext generation of scientists.Imagine if Ernest Rutherfordwas as well known as JonahLomu! Bruce Baguley beganAlternatives and the future withtwo searching questions—have animal experiments ledus in the right direction in

anticancer research and canthe past help guide us in thefuture? While we have tech-niques such as robotic screen-ing of drugs, the animal stillseems the best means ofunderstanding the complexi-ty of the relationship betweencancer and its host. The impactof the new Animal Welfare Act1999 was considered by JohnMarbrook — challenging usto use statistics and compar-isons between humans andanimals in experiments, tothink beyond the philosophyof replacement, reductionand refinement. My ownpaper, Skeletons and sovereignsin the cupboard — learning fromour myths considered howcultural beliefs and expecta-tions, as represented in sto-ries and myths, inform ourvalues and decisions.

The session on the chal-lenges that we could use tobuild an appropriate learningenvironment for our futureinteractions with animals andnature was the theme of thethird session. Mark Matfield,and then Kay Weaveraddressed Moving forwardwith the media. The need toacknowledge the media’srequirements, the strategicintent of the stories and howthe audience hear them, andthe stereotypes of vivisection-ists were some of the topicsdiscussed. While the mediaare frequently bagged, they ineffect Henry Salt (1892)Henry Salt (1892) "sell sci-ence" (Nelkin, 1995; Taylor,2001) suggesting that groupslike ANZCCART are not con-vincingly allaying public con-cerns regarding the use ofanimals in science.

In Democratically modifiedscience , Ronda Cooperreminds us of the issues sur-rounding science such as theroles of experts and non-experts, and how we mustface the future through moreinclusive communication,public participation, accessi-bility and learning. Theimportance of people drivingchange was how PeteHodgson began The nextAnimal Welfare Act. Futurelegislation will have to grap-ple with animal rights, theinclusion of emotional andspiritual dimensions to ani-

mal welfare along with therational analyses, and againthe greater inclusion of thepublic. John Baldwin asked towhat extent do we need toask Fish as experimental ani-mals: good for science and fish?While the benefits of researchmay accrue to humans and tofish indirectly if their envi-ronment is protected as aresult, the conclusion “justleave us [fish] alone mate,and don’t bugger up ourenvironment” underlies thedilemma facing human use ofnature. Finally, in an out-standing presentation, DavidScobie addressed the titleBack off man, I’m a scientist.Capturing the sentimentswhich others also allude to,this paper deals with theforces which shape the scien-tist as a human and as a partof the community. A greateracknowledgement of therightful place of traits such asthe emotions, and of thesocial and economic forceswhich contribute to the realanimal and environmentalissues are some of the conclu-sions reached in this thought-ful and thought-provokingcontribution.

The last session focusedon how society should moveforward in dealing with theregulatory aspects of animalsand the environment. JudyMcArthur-Clark continued atheme common to many pre-sentations in Dealing withemerged technologies—benefitsand burdens — the need forthose in science to trulyunderstand the public andacknowledge their genuineconcerns. Importantly, whilemany technologies are basedon biological knowledge, thereal challenge will be inunderstanding and managingthe systems in which theywill be used. Donald Hannahreminded us of the legalrequirements in Living withthe legislation. There remainsignificant dilemmas andchallenges in managing riskto ensure the health and safe-ty of people and communi-ties. The difficulties of usinglegislation to decide ethicalissues was noted and BarbaraNicholas further addressedthis in Care beyond regulation.Public discussion is an inte-gral part of the process of sci-

ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1 13

Australian VeterinaryAssociation

Annual ConferenceAdelaide

6-10 May, 2002

Includes two day programby AVERT on animal

ethics issues.

For further information, contact:

avacos@ava.com.auTel: 02-6273-8855Fax: 02-6273-8899

International course onlaboratory animal

science27 May - 7 June 2002Utrecht, Netherlands

Details from:Professor L.F.M. van

ZutphenFaculty of Veterinary

MedicineUniversity of Utrecht

PO Box 80.166,3508 TD Utrecht

NetherlandsFax: 31 30 153 7997

email: pdk@las.vet.uu.nl

Australian Society forAnimal Production

ConferenceFinding the balance -

profitability withresponsibility

Adelaide7-11 July, 2002

Contact: Thomas BanhaziTel: 08 8303 7781Fax: 08 8303 7975

email:Banhazi.Thomas@saugov

.sa.gov.au

Fourth World Congresson alternatives and

animal use in the lifesciences

New Orleans, USA11-15 August, 2002

email: dpease@hsus.org

website: www.worldcongress.net/

Coming upence and the challenge is inhow we live with diversityand value diverse world-views. As different peopleframe things in differentways, we need to seek com-mon language and meaningin reaching a true under-standing of each other.

In dealing with contro-versial subjects such as ani-mal experimentation, indi-viduals and interest groupsunderstandably rely heavilyon examples to support theirargumentative strategies (La-follette and Shanks, 1996).This approach inevitablyleads to confrontation andthe success of the bestdebater or most powerfulinterest. What is needed is adeeper understanding of theparadigms upon which webase such positions. Inunderstanding them andchallenging our beliefs, thisProceedings will be valuableto anyone interested in howwe learn, communicate andevolve the relationshipsbetween ourselves and thenatural world. They will beof special interest to thoseinvolved in education andscience, and to those interest-ed in teaching, animal wel-fare, the environment, ethics,and the communication andregulations of communityexpectations. Use thisProceedings to challengeyour own thinking and ofthose around you—only byof humans, animals and theenvironment.

One impulse from a vernal woodMay teach you more of man,Of moral evil and of good,Than all the sages can.

Sweet is the lore which Naturebrings;Our meddling intellectMis-shapes the beauteous formsof things:-We murder to dissect.

Enough of Science and of Art;Close up those barren leaves;Come forth and bring with aheartThat watches and receives.

William Wordsworth

Mark FisherANZCCART (NZ)AgResearch PoukawaHavelock NorthNew Zealand

References

Lafollette, H. and Shanks, N.(1996). Brute science.Dilemmas of animal experi-mentation. Routledge,London.

Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling sci-ence. How the Press coversscience and technology .Revised edition. Free-man, New York.

Romanes, G. J. (1885). Mentalevolution in animals.Kegan Paul, Trench andCo., London.

Salt, H. S. (1892). Animalrights. Considered in rela-tion to social progress . 1980edition. Centaur Press,London.

Taylor, M. J. (2001). Biotech-nology, farmers and themedia. Proceedings of theNew Zealand Society ofAnimal Production 61:87–89, 91.

14 ANZCCART News March 2002 Vol 15 No 1

AVERT Conference

If you wish to attend theAustralian Veterinariansin Ethics, Research and

Teaching (AVERT) Confer-ence (7-8 May, 2002,Adelaide, Australia) to beheld in association with theAustralian Veterinary Assoc-iation, and if you are NOT aveterinarian, your daily regis-tration fee will be as for the"standard registration" cate-gory.

The registration form andgeneral details about the con-ference are available from theAVA website:www:ava.com.au/

Latest ILAR journal-

Mouse models ofhuman disease

The theme of the latestedition of the Institutefor Laboratory Animal

Research Journal ILAR (Vol.43: 2, 2002) is Mouse models ofhuman disease. The journalcontains a number of excel-lent articles, including thoselisted below:

* The Mousetrap: What canwe learn when the mousemodel does not mimic thehuman disease? (SarahElsea and RebeccaWilliams).

* Mouse models ofAlzheimer's disease: Aquest for plaques and tangles(James Richardson andDennis Burns).

* Complexities of cancerresearch: Mouse geneticmodels (Kent Hunter andRobert Williams).

* Welfare issues of geneticallymodified animals (MelvinDennis).

2002 Russell andBurch Award

The Humane Society ofthe United States(HSUS) is currently

seeking nominations for the2002 Russell and Burch Award.The award is presented on anannual basis to "scientistswho have made outstandingcontributions toward theadvancement of alternativemethods in the areas of bio-medical research, testing andhigher education". Alter-native methods are those thatcan replace or reduce the use ofanimals, or refine proceduresso that animals experienceless pain or suffering.

The award, which carriesa prize of US$5,000, is givenin honour of the two scientistswho introduced the conceptof "the three Rs" - replace-ment, reduction and refine-ment - a concept stronglysupported by ANZCCART.

Nominations for thisimportant award close 15May 2002. Additional infor-mation can be obtained from:

Gina AlvinoInformation SpecialistHSUSemail: ari@hsus.org

Animal ResearchNews and Analysis

Animal Research Newsand Analysis is an elec-tronic newsletter pro-

duced and distributed peri-odically by the AnimalResearch Issues section of theHumane Society of theUnited States (HSUS). Theaim of the publication is toprovide interested partieswith up-to-date news andinterpretative analyses on theuse of animals in research,testing and education.

Further details can beobtained from the web sitewww.hsus.org/act/11348

New ZealandConference on

Animal Welfare

Aconference entitledAnimal Welfare: FromScience to Solution will

be held in Hamilton, NewZealand on 27-28 June 2002.

The conference hosts arethe National Animal WelfareAdvisory Committee (NA-WAC), the InternationalSociety for Applied Ethology(Australasian Region) and theMinistry of Agriculture andForestry (MAF).

Amongst the topics listed fordiscussion are:

* How scientific investiga-tions can advance animalwelfare.

* Humane managementmethods for wildlife.

* Novel non-invasive mea-sures of animal welfare

* Genetic manipulation,cloning and animal wel-fare.

For further information con-tact

Yvette.hobbs@agresearch.co.nz

Fax: 07 838 5038

Human researchethics

Readers of this newslet-ter will be interested toknow that the NHMRC

publication National State-ment on Ethical Conduct inReserch Involving Humans isavailable electronically fromthe website:

www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/p u b l i c a t i o n s / s y n o p s e s /

Assessing painin animals

Avery interesting arti-cle, "Assessing Pain inAnimals" by Kenneth

Rutherford, has appeared inthe recent issue of the JournalAnimal Welfare (2002) 11: 31-53. Rutherford reviews someapproaches to pain assess-ment including the use ofmulti-dimensional pain scales,and he points to the value ofusing these measurements inallowing informed debate on ani-mal welfare issues.

ANZCCART News is published quarterly by theAustralian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals

in Research and Teaching Limited.

It is a publication for researchers and teachers; members of ani-mal ethics committees; staff of organisations concerned with

research, teaching and funding; and parliamentarians and mem-bers of the public with interests in the conduct of animal-based

research and teaching and the welfare of animals so used.

Contributions to ANZCCART News are welcomed and should besent to:

Director, ANZCCART,Room 128, Darling Building

Department of Environmental BiologyAdelaide University

ADELAIDE, SA, 5005

Tel. 61-8- 8303 7586: Fax. 61-8- 8303 7587E-mail address: anzccart@adelaide.edu.au

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/

or

Executive Officer, ANZCCART New ZealandPO Box 598, Wellington, New Zealand

Tel. 64-4-472 7421: Fax. 64-4-473 1841E-mail address: anzccart@rsnz.govt.nz

http://anzccart.rsnz.govt.nz

ISSN 1039–9089

News