Science examines animal suffering

[Guest guest]

Scientists are carrying out a study to see if it is possible to

report actual levels of suffering experienced by animals during

scientific procedures.

The Home Office only issues statistics based on how severe a

procedure is expected to be when it is licensed.

 

The study aims to see if suffering can be assessed after the

procedure has taken place.

 

A report setting out the preliminary findings of the investigation is

due to be published.

 

The work is a collaboration between the Laboratory Animal Science

Association (Lasa) and the Animal Procedures Committee (APC).

 

Levels of severity

 

Both the House of Lords select committee on animals in scientific

procedures and the Nuffield Council for Bioethics have called for

greater information to be provided on animal suffering during

research.

 

At present, the Home Office annual statistics on animal research

detail the number of project licences that have been granted. In

addition, each licence is categorised as mild, moderate, substantial,

or unclassified (meaning the animal is under anaesthetic). This is

based on the likely experience of the " average " animal in the

experiment.

 

But critics say this information is not specific enough, and because

each licence is classified before the experiments have taken place,

offers no detail about the actual suffering of the animals used.

 

A working party from Lasa and APC, involving nine research

institutions, looked at the feasibility of collecting and reporting

information about the level of the severity of animal procedures.

 

" We looked at whether this data was readily available, if it could be

collected easily, put together and then reported, " said Dr David

Smith, president of Lasa.

 

They surveyed the current practices used in animal experiments in the

nine establishments. An analysis of the responses found the majority

of those asked already keep a record of the suffering and severity

experienced by individual animals.

 

The working party then examined ways this data could be usefully

organised.

 

" We looked at a range of different systems to report this

information, and concluded that to cover the full range of animal

experiments, we need to report both the severity of the procedure and

how long the animal spent in the experimental process, " explained Dr

Dominic Wells, a member of the working party from Imperial College

London.

 

" It became very clear to us that in many cases the severity would not

be consistent for the whole of the experiment but, rather, would vary

over time. "

 

The scientists proposed a " two-grid " system, looking at the intensity

of the adverse effects together with their duration.

 

" For example, a mouse that has undergone a vasectomy would experience

a brief period of moderate severity followed by a long period of very

mild severity, " said Dr Wells.

 

'Bureaucratic burden'

 

The report did concede that providing this extra information could

increase the bureaucratic burden upon scientists involved in animal

research, but suggested there may be ways of reorganising the current

system to offset this.

 

But it also suggested this would increase openness in animal

research.

 

Dr Vicky Robinson, chief executive of the National Centre for the

Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs),

commented:

 

" The potential for increased administrative burden is a concern and

we would like to see this minimised wherever possible. However,

scientists have a scientific, ethical and social responsibility to be

as open about their work as possible. "

 

Alistair Currie, Campaigns Director for the British Union for the

Abolition of Vivisection (Buav) said he welcomed bringing more

information into the public domain, but warned: " This is only of

value if such assessments are conducted accurately and fairly and

both experts and the public are allowed to scrutinise and test it. "

 

The scientists involved in the study plan to further refine the

proposals and test them on a wider range of organisations.