(CN - HKG) Animals experiment law attacked as outdated

[Guest guest]

South China Morning Post

http://hongkong.scmp.com/hknews/ZZZAC8F8GZC.html

http://hongkong.scmp.com/hknews/ZZZ5YTG8GZC.html

Monday, April 8, 2002

by VICTORIA BUTTON

 

Hong Kong's " outdated " animal experimentation law has been attacked

for failing to regulate research such as genetic manipulation, behavioural

studies and killing of animals to obtain tissue samples.

 

The Hong Kong Veterinary Association, the Society for Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Animals Asia and Laboratory Animal Defenders have

called on the Government to change the law, which was enacted in 1963.

 

Only experiments by " academic institutions " that are " calculated to

give pain " must be conducted under licence from the Government, generally

with the use of anaesthetic.

 

But the law fails to regulate animal experimentation by biotechnology

companies and the Government, or to cover procedures causing animals

distress or suffering, rather than pain.

 

Procedures researchers do not consider painful enough to warrant

anaesthesia are also effectively unregulated, according to opponents of the

status quo.

 

A sub-committee of the Government's Animal Welfare Advisory Group

issued a report in May 2000 advocating the law be re-written, but no changes

have been made.

 

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health, which oversees the

legislation, said it was discussing the way forward with the Agriculture,

Fisheries and Conservation Department.

 

The secretary of the Hong Kong Veterinary Association and chairman of

the sub-committee, Dr Anthony James, said the Hong Kong law was based on an

1870s British law designed to prevent vivisection.

 

" It is in effect 39 years old, but 126 years out of date, " he said.

Animal research had changed significantly since the Hong Kong law was

introduced.

 

Examples of procedures that vets say could cause animals distress but

are not covered by Hong Kong laws include:

 

 

a.. Drug dependency studies, including withdrawal from illicit

drugs;

 

b.. Genetic manipulation;

 

c.. Using animals to produce disease antibodies; and

 

d.. Testing new drugs or traditional Chinese medicines.

The law arguably does not regulate a situation where animals are

humanely killed to harvest their tissues.

 

The veterinary director of animal welfare group Animals Asia, Dr Gail

Cochrane, said the Government had been " a little slow on the uptake " on the

issue.

 

Hong Kong universities went beyond the minimum legal standard to use

ethics committees to approve animal research as a condition of receiving

government funding, she said.

 

But this system was insufficient because there was no control over the

make-up of the committees, which could be manipulated to isolate

non-scientific voices.

 

The deputy executive director of the SPCA, Dr Pauline Taylor, said law

reform should be a priority for the Government.

 

The chairman of the University of Hong Kong's committee on the use of

live animals in teaching and research, Professor Chan Ying-shing, said all

research in the university using animals had to be approved by the

committee.

 

In deciding whether to approve the research, the group considered

issues including possible benefits to society, the number of animals to be

used, the effect on them and drug doses.

 

A spokesman for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department

said its animal research projects were reviewed under the supervision of an

assistant director and senior veterinarian, with reference to an Australian

code of practice.

 

Hong Kong should adopt an animal experimentation law modelled on that of

Australia, according to a report to the Government by the Animal Welfare

Advisory Group. The Australian system is based on a code of practice,

enforceable by law, in

which ethics committees have to approve proposed use of animals for

scientific purposes.

 

Under this system, ethics committees must include a vet, an animal welfare

organisation member, an independent person and an animal researcher.

 

Unlike the Hong Kong law - which covers only experiments calculated to cause

pain - the Australian code covers animals for " teaching, field trials,

environmental studies, research, diagnosis, product testing and the

production of biological products " .

 

The Australian code says the use of animals should be replaced by other

methods where possible, the number used should be minimised and techniques

should be refined to minimise their impact.

 

As a second-choice option, the May 2000 report said the law in Hong Kong

could be amended instead of a new law being adopted. If amended, the law

should include the concepts of animal distress and suffering, as well as

pain