Normalising-the-Unthinkable-Report

8. The failure of control8.1. Despite the foregoing issues, there remain many people who believe that the best, perhaps the only, wayof securing the protection of animals in laboratories is through more legal controls and better regulations. Whilenot denying that some legal restrictions – for example, the move against cosmetic testing on animals and testingfor household products – are to be welcomed (Thew, 2013a, 2013b), we have to question whether many of theeven well-meaning controls are effective in terms of preventing suffering. We provide five examples: inspection,licensing, supervised self-regulation, the Three Rs, and care and ethics committees. To avoid the charge ofselecting the worst examples, we mainly focus on the UK, which, as we have noted, purportedly provides themost protection for animals.Inspection8.2. The first issue of questionable effectiveness concerns the inspection of experiments and compliance withregulations in the UK. To monitor compliance with the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act,(hereafter ‘ASPA’), the inspectorate of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (hereafter ‘ASRU’, formerly theAnimals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate) is required to visit establishments to ensure compliance with the termsof the licence issued. In the event of any breach of licence conditions, the inspectorate should report to and advisethe Secretary of State on the action to be taken. Since 2006, there has been a steady but noticeable decline in thenumber of inspections carried out and, conversely, a steady but noticeable increase in the number of infractionsnoted (ASRU, 2011, pp. 29–32; ASRU, 2012, pp. 35–38). This statistical anomaly aside, it might appear – whenwe consider the figures in isolation – that the system of inspection works fairly well: year on year, the inspectorsunearth (or are informed of) around thirty violations of licence conditions, and in all cases, some form of actionis taken against the licence holders (ASRU, 2011, p. 29; ASRU, 2012, p. 35) 9 . A more critical analysis of theinspectorate’s own reports, on the other hand, reveals that the ASRU must institutionalise a working definition ofwelfare that is at odds with normal practice.8.3. When dealing with violations, the inspectorate classifies infractions as falling between Category A (leastserious) and Category D (most serious). According to the most recent available data, in 2011 and 2012, there weretwenty-eight Category A infringements (fifteen in 2011 and thirteen in 2012), twenty-one Category B infringements(eleven in 2011 and ten in 2012), nine Category C infringements (six in 2011 and three in 2012) and one CategoryD infringement (in 2011). Insofar as Category A infringements are concerned, it is clear that these are deemed sominor as to be almost trivial: these cases, according to ASRU guidelines, are those which are characterised, interalia, as having ‘no animal welfare implications’ and are typically dealt with as requiring ‘no further action’ beyondnoting and recording the infraction (ASRU, 2011, p. 27; ASRU, 2012, p. 33). When the (albeit scant) reports of whathappened in these cases of Category A infringements are compared against the Home Office’s categorisation,a particularly telling picture emerges of exactly what the Home Office inspectorate’s view of ‘no animal welfareimplications’ actually means. For instance, the ‘unexpected’ exceeding of a severity band assessment – frommoderate to substantial – did not, according to the inspectors, result in any animal welfare implications (ASRU,2011, p. 11; ASRU, 2012, pp. 13–14) despite the fact that a moderate level of suffering was at the time deemed toinclude those ‘protocols that have the potential to cause greater suffering but include controls which minimiseseverity’, and a substantial level of suffering was ‘a major departure from the animal’s usual state of health orwell-being’ according to the Home Office’s own classifications (Home Office, 2000, para 5.42) 10 . Nor, accordingto the ASRU, were there any animal welfare implications resulting from ‘animals being left in a scanner overnight’(ASRU, 2011, p. 11) (presumably without any of the most basic and mandatory requirements of welfare, such asfood, water, and bedding).9Over half of all breaches of licensing conditions are incidents of ‘self-reporting’ by the licence holders themselves. In thesecircumstances, the inspectorate’s role becomes one of advising the Home Secretary of appropriate action to be taken.10This guidance has been superseded under the new ASPA. There is no equivalent definition.48 Normalising the Unthinkable: The Ethics of Using Animals in Research