TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ethical reviews are now a standard requirement during the assessment of scientific proposals in many countries. Guidelines and legislation regulating the use of animals in scientific experimentation have been adopted in many countries including New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, US, European countries conforming to the EU Directive 86/609 on the protection of animals used for experimental purposes, and others (see examples in Gillespie 2000, Bradshaw 2002). The laws in these various countries have in common a stipulation that procedures carried out on animals must be carried out with the minimum of pain and suffering and that during treatment, animal welfare must be optimised. In the US, a review process equivalent in many ways to the ethical review, is carried out by an Animal Care and Use committee. The ethical review process usually covers any procedure likely to cause pain, distress or lasting harm to animals and, in a number of countries, such reviews cover even the smallest procedures, for example tagging a wild animal. By incorporating an ethical review into their assessment of the validity of scientific proposals, many countries have acknowledged the legitimacy of animal welfare in science. The objective of an ethical review process An ethical review (or an animal care and use review – the term ethical review will be used to cover both) aims to critically assess the justification for animal use in situations likely to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to the animal. This process includes review of procedures likely to alter the normal behaviour of a wild animal (e.g. altering its foraging or ranging behaviour) as well as invasive procedures likely to cause tissue damage or the individual’s death. The ethical review ensures that the scientific proposal is subject to close scrutiny, both in terms of its scientific validity, and its moral acceptability. Ultimately, the research must be justified in terms of a benefit to man, to other animals, or to the environment. The basis of an ethical review is an acknowledgement that unregulated exploitation of animals in the name of scientific endeavour is not acceptable and ethical reviews now usually aim to assess the scientific proposal using the concept of the 3 Rs: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (see Table 1). The concept of the 3Rs is widely accepted and promoted in the field of animal experimentation, as best practice (ANZCCART 2003). Research proposals must demonstrate that all efforts have been made to find alternatives to the use of animals; that numbers required are placed at a minimum; and that techniques to be applied are those least likely to cause pain or suffering or lasting harm. Such reviews are carried out by a committee with a mix of scientific or technical expertise (to assess the validity of the scientific proposal), scientific, veterinary and animal welfare expertise, as well as lay public representation, to promote a balanced assessment of the worth of the science when weighed against the costs to the animals concerned. The ethical review must ensure that all adverse effects on the animals are recognised, and that the experimenters are sufficiently competent to ensure that the research is effective and achieves valuable results while optimising animal welfare and minimising suffering. Use of ethical review in science (institutions, governments and scientific literature) The UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) came into force in early 1987, and, ten years later, ETHICS AND WHALING UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT 105
106 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIES Table 1. Consideration of the 3Rs in the ethical review process Replacement Alternatives to the use of animals must be sought, and efforts to find alternatives documented. If no alternatives are found, and non-animal based experiments are deemed inappropriate, then explanation must be provided for the need for animal use and the reasons that alternative approaches are inappropriate. Reduction Research must use the minimum number of animals necessary to gain meaningful results. Expert consultation and advice must be sought to ensure appropriate statistical power and biological relevance from all sampling and experimental procedures. On-going research should be subject to regular review to assess the potential for a downward revision of number of the animals originally proposed. Refinement Animal suffering may be reduced by considering the precise techniques to be applied, whether there are alternative, less invasive techniques, and whether use of alternative pecies may permit use of alternative procedures. Researchers should justify the need for specific experimental procedures and strive to reduce pain to an absolute minimum and to relieve suffering wherever possible. the government carried out a review of its effects on the use of animals in scientific establishments. The review identified a number of problems that led to compromised animal welfare, including: a lack of awareness within institutions of the potential to improve animal welfare; a conflict between optimising animal welfare and optimising use of resources; and the existence of entrenched attitudes, incompetence or insensitivity to animals (see Jennings et al.1997 for summary). Subsequent to this review, the UK Home Office (Home Office 2000) identified ethical review as one of the key requirements for improving animal welfare in scientific research establishments, combined with developing initiatives to promote the widest possible application of the Three Rs. The establishment of an ethical review process by research institutions has now been made mandatory in the UK. Similarly, in Australia, Animal Ethics Committees (Bradshaw 2000) associated with individual research institutions carry out ethical reviews and issue permits to scientists within the institution. Ethical review is not only carried out at the level of a government or institution. Many scientific journals now acknowledge the importance of ethical considerations and scientific papers submitted for publication frequently require that researchers confirm that ethical approval was granted for the study. Some journals go further and have their own ethical review committees, publishing guidelines to which submitted research must conform (e.g. Anon 2003).
Page 1 and 2:
TROUBLED WATERS A REVIEW OF THE WEL
Page 3 and 4:
II A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 5 and 6:
IV A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 7 and 8:
2 A REVIEW REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IM
Page 9 and 10:
4 A REVIEW REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IM
Page 11 and 12:
6 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATI
Page 13 and 14:
8 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATI
Page 15 and 16:
10 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60: 54 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 105 and 106: 100 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICA
Page 109: 104 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICA
Page 145 and 146: Appendix II Colour plates ©Mark Vo
Page 149 and 150: Figure 13. Processing minke whales
show all

TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?