Lifting the Veil on Animal Experimentation Secrecy

The starting point for the Green Party's policy on Animal Welfare is that animals have an intrinsic worth, beyond that of a human resource, or indeed human property.

Animals are fellow creatures that we share our home, the planet earth, with and, as such, we should treat them with compassion and respect.

We acknowledge that animals experience pain and pleasure, and ought to be able to live without having to endure suffering inflicted on them by humans. Indeed we believe that humans have a responsibility to ensure animals live in ways that allow them to display natural forms of behaviour and which do not cause them to suffer.

We reject utterly the view — and its been a fairly mainstream view for some time now — that we humans are entitled to use all other species for our own purposes, to turn animals into commodities or biological machines which can be manipulated in whatever way we want; experimented upon, cloned, genetically engineered and patented - providing that it makes them more efficient producers of meat and milk for humans.

More and more people, in New Zealand and around the world, are questioning that view as well, and animal welfare is becoming a major concern in New Zealand as well as with our trading partners. This means that economics, as well as ethics, requires us to adopt a more respectful and compassionate attitude to animals.

It is extraordinary, therefore, that the Green Party is the only party in New Zealand that has a comprehensive animal welfare policy or an animal welfare spokesperson. It is the only party that raises animal welfare issues that thousands of New Zealanders passionately care about in Parliament, and puts them onto the political agenda.

In the last Parliament the Green Party focussed its energies on the campaign to rid New Zealand of cruel and barbaric farming practices such as the battery hen cage and the sow crate. We agreed with the analysis of the SPCA that it is important to focus our efforts on several clear goals, and achieve some victories in these areas.

Like all of you, we are anxiously awaiting the decision of the Minister of Agriculture on whether he will phase out the sow crate and battery hen cage, and if so, in what time frame.

The Green Party believes that one of the underlying reasons for the tolerance successive governments have exhibited towards various cruel farming practices in New Zealand is because animal welfare policy in New Zealand is developed by a Ministry — the Ministry of Agriculture - which has an explicit mandate to promote the interests of producers and the farming sector in New Zealand.

Inevitably, in such a producer-oriented environment, animal welfare tends to be subordinated to short-term economic considerations and the interests of producers, and we can see this clearly in virtually every decision that has been made in New Zealand about some of our cruel farming practices.

If we are to give higher priority to animal welfare issues in New Zealand, avoid inevitable conflict of interest issues, and ensure that policy on animal welfare is developed in an independent, robust and comprehensive manner, the Greens believe we need to establish a small, independent Ministry of Animal Welfare, with an explicit mandate to promote the compassionate treatment of all animals in New Zealand.

We would like a new Ministry to report to a Minister of Animal Welfare, instead of a Minister of Agriculture, as happens at present.

We would like this Ministry to develop a comprehensive strategy for the treatment of all animals in New Zealand, including farm animals, and to have as a specific aim the protection of all animals from abuse and suffering.

But I would like to spend most of my time today discussing another issue of real concern to the Green Party, which ought to be of great concern to all New Zealanders, and especially those with concerns about animal welfare.

And that is the highly secretive experiments that are taking place on live animals around New Zealand. It is my belief that there is a culture of secrecy — excessive secrecy - surrounding animal experimentation in New Zealand, and that this culture of secrecy is stifling public debate about animal experimentation, contributing to public disquiet and indeed distrust and suspicion about animal experimentation generally.

It also means that most New Zealanders have very little knowledge or understanding of the nature and extent of experimentation on live animals that is taking place in this country, and that scientists and others involved in animal research are not seen to be held accountable,

It is my fervent belief that we need to lift the veil of secrecy that surrounds animal experimentation in New Zealand and embark upon an informed public debate about it - whether it is all really necessary, what alternatives we could use instead and how we can minimise the number of animals used in experimentation.

We also need to develop a much more open, transparent approach to experiments on live animals — an approach that will allow all New Zealanders, and not just a hand-picked few, to be involved in deciding on the critical ethical, moral and animal welfare issues surrounding animal experimentation in New Zealand.

I am working on a Private members bill — an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, which will seek to do just that.

Animal experimentation in New Zealand is regulated by Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 entitled 'The Use of Animals in Research, Testing and Teaching'. This section exempts persons who experiment on live animals from all the other requirements of the Animal Welfare Act — including the requirement to let animals express their natural forms of behaviour etc. Mostly importantly, from the point of view of animal researchers who experiment on live animals, it exempts them from being prosecuted for animal cruelty, providing that they abide by a set of rules this section of the act sets out for the conduct of animal experiments.

It stipulates that any institution which is involved in researching, testing or teaching on live animals must have a Code of Ethical Conduct which has been approved by a National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee — a national committee which provides independent advice to the Minister of Agriculture on policy and practices relating to the use of animals in research, testing and teaching.

Before a researcher can embark upon research or experimentation on a live animal, they must submit a proposal to an Animal Ethics committees for approval, and agree to abide by a Code of Ethical conduct which is like a protocol of how animals may be treated during any experimentation.

There are 46 Animal Ethics committees in New Zealand, and most are attached to institutions like Universities and Crown Research Institutes. The majority of members on each committee are appointed by the institution itself, and most of these are scientists.

But as well, each committee has two 'lay members' on it - one member appointed by the SPCA, and one member appointed by a local Regional or District Council, which ensures some community input into the committee's deliberations.

These committees consider all applications for animal experiments in New Zealand, including controversial applications to genetically engineer or clone animals, and are expected to weigh up issues such as whether the benefits of a proposed animal experiment will outweigh the pain and suffering involved, and whether there are any alternative methods to animal experimentation and testing that could be used instead.

Each institution must keep records of all the animals the institution experiments upon each year, and the broad purpose of the experiment and send all those statistics to NEAWAC each year to be reported on in an annual report.

On the surface this all sounds perfectly reasonable and quite robust. What is the problem, you may well ask?

The problem, as I see it, is that each year scientists and researchers in New Zealand carry out all manner of experiments, including cloning and genetically engineering animals, on about 300,000 animals a year. Of those 300,000 over 17,000 of these animals are subjected to severe or very severe suffering.

But we, ordinary New Zealanders, or even someone like myself who is an MP representing the public interest, have absolutely no idea what actual experiments are conducted on these 300,000 animals, or why? What happened to the 300 horses or 300 odd cats who were experimented upon last year? Did we really need to use 300 horses and 300 cats?

And was it really necessary to subject 17,265 animals to severe or very severe suffering?

We ordinary New Zealanders, have no idea because all the meetings of the Animal Ethics committees which approve experiments are conducted in secret. Despite the fact that they are supposed to be covered by the Local Government Information and Meetings Act and the Official Information Act, their meetings are not advertised, and members of the public cannot even obtain copies of the agendas or minutes of their meetings - much less the details of the experiments they approve, or the reasons for the research and experimentation.

The public cannot even find out who are members of Animal Ethics committees — even members who are appointed by Regional Councils and are supposed to be representing the public.

So we can't even find out who our representatives on these committees are.

The Chief Ombudsman recently cast a blanket suppression order on the names of all animal ethics committee members, after an appeal by a state-owned Crown Research Institute, AgResearch, to stop the release of any information on the membership of its animal ethics committee.

Even requests for official information under the Official Information Act often fail, even when the request is to a state-owned science institute. Even straightforward requests for protocols are turned down — or the information that is released deletes all the information on whether the animals suffer and why.

So trying to find out about what takes place in the 46 Animal Ethics committees around the country, in other words, is a bit like trying to discover the membership, rituals and purpose of the Masonic Lodge.

The extraordinary aspect of this culture of excessive secrecy is that almost three quarters of all experiments that take place on live animals around New Zealand are conducted by government departments and taxpayer funded institutions such as Crown Research Institutes and universities.

Equally extraordinary is the fact that the biggest increase in animal experimentation was by government departments — which made up 31 per cent of all experiments last year.

How many of you knew that government departments conducted research on x animals last year? Does anyone here know which government departments conducted that research?

I am told the experiments were conducted by DOC, MAF, Fisheries and MAF's Centre for Disease Control based in Wallaceville.

But that is all that even I, a Member of Parliament, can find out about animal experimentation taking place in publicly owned and funded institutions in New Zealand.

This raises the question. Surely, as taxpayers, we are entitled to know whether our tax dollars have been spent wisely and ethically?

Surely, as taxpayers, we are entitled to know what is going on in laboratories that are funded by taxpayers around New Zealand.

Surely, we have a right to know why AEC meetings are closed to the public and why their agendas and minutes are kept secret. And why is it impossible to find out about most animal experiments that have taken place in New Zealand?

Surely as members of Auckland University you have a right to know what experiments are taking place here, in this institution, and for what purpose.

The excessive culture of secrecy that surrounds experiments on live animals is justified by its proponents as being essential to protect the people involved in animal experimentation, and all members of Animal Ethic Committees who monitor these experiments, from potential acts of violence by animal rights extremists.

A person who said he or she was a member of two Animal Ethics committees, and was advised by police it would be unwise to put their name to the article, wrote recently in an anonymous article in the Auckland Herald that the reason for the secrecy was "not to hide the nature of our work, but to protect people who monitor the welfare of research animals from the potential actions of the few extremists who take the law into their own hands — actions that the police take seriously."

"I dislike the need for confidentiality," they went on. "But the reality is that the animal rights movement, while mostly made up of well intentioned people with a point of view which they may put forcefully but quite legitimately, has its extremists who could have been indiscriminate in their actions."

While nobody wants to expose persons involved in animal experimentation to threats of violence, the claim does not stand up to scrutiny — for the need to offer them some protection does not justify the blanket secrecy that surrounds the operation of animal research and Animal Ethics committees.

Personally, I am not so much interested in membership of Animal Ethics committees, as in finding out what they are up to, and what sort of research they are approving, and why. So I would be prepared to accept that names of members of Animal Ethics committees be kept confidential for the time being — although it does seem something of an over-reaction to a perceived threat.

There have been assaults on judges and politicians and others in public life by extremists in the past, but these attacks have not been used as an excuse to keep judges and politicians anonymous, or our meetings held in secret.

But even if there is agreement that membership of Animal Ethics committees be kept confidential, that does not justify keeping the agendas and minutes of every meeting secret. Nor does it justify keeping the nature of experiments that have taken place secret, or the reports of Animal Ethics committees approving these experiments.

In my view people should not have to turn themselves into detectives to find out simple information such as what experiments a particular research institute has conducted over the past year. Nor should they have to engage in the lengthy, time consuming and frustrating process of writing endless official information requests to find out about what animal experiments have taken place, or what was their purpose — only to have most of those requests for information turned down. As taxpayers, we should be entitled to this information.

We ought to have available to us regularly updated, good-quality information about what experiments are being carried out in New Zealand. I would like to see comprehensive information in the form of a public register on the internet which outlines all the experiments and research that have taken place in New Zealand over the past year.

This would include the purpose of the specific experiment, how many animals were used in it, where it was conducted, the purposes for which the animals were used, what non-animal methods were considered as alternatives and the reasons why none of these non-animal methods were able to be used.

To protect against potential acts of violence, this information should be published retrospectively, at the end of each year, after the experiments have been conducted.

The attitude of many in the animal experimentation community is that even such modest requests for information are unreasonable. Their attitude is that it is unnecessary to release information as there is nothing to hide, and we should just 'trust them' and other members of the committee to represent our interests.

Dr Don Love, Auckland Animal Ethics committee Chairman, says "no scientist wants to cause suffering in animals. The approval process, particularly where the animal would suffer severely, is extremely rigorous. You really have to go through the mill to get the box ticked to go ahead with these ones. You always have to justify what you are doing. It's not as if it's open slather."

But the fact is that the public are not going to trust scientists blindly any more.

And if the system is working well, and there is nothing to hide, then why hide it.

In a paper to an ANZCCART conference Rob McCaw from the Office of the Ombudsman, pointed out the inherent problems in the existing Animal Ethics Committees.

He said they are vulnerable to abuse by institutions appointing user-friendly AEC's that tend to overlook certain indiscretions. They are usually dominated by a majority of four to five internal members, including the Chair, and the balance of knowledge regarding scientific practice will be strongly in favour of the internal members.

There is no requirement that protocols be approved unanimously, with the result that an individual committee Chairperson holds considerable procedural power. And external members are easily intimidated by

1/ being a minority
2/ expertise of others
3/ being in an unfamiliar environment

This is the experience that a number of people who represent the public on these committees report. In a recent letter to the Auckland Herald Rosemary Cumming wrote about her experience as an SPCA appointed member of an Animal Ethics committee.

"I was thoroughly disillusioned by the experience… there is a reluctance to challenge colleagues. Even if the person on the committee representing the public interest joins the animal welfarist in opposing experiments, the secrecy provisions most committees insist on mean little can be revealed, too much is taken on trust and no random checks are possible... I support the view of many in the SPCA and animal rights organisations that these committees are failing in their stated aim of reducing animal experimentation and are simply rubber-stamping questionable practices."

Another woman reports being pressured and pushed by the committee into accepting reports, of not having the scientific knowledge to question experiments, of the discussion focussing narrowly on how many animals to be used.

As animal welfare researcher Michael Morris puts it, the present system is heavily biased in favour of the continuation of animal manipulation, and institutions tend to appoint members who are sympathetic to their own interests. If this is the case, then the committees could be seen to operate, in a sense, as a regulatory faēade, which protects scientists from having to reveal to the public what research they are involved in.

Michael Morris analysed a series of experiments and concluded that many experiments which had been reviewed by an AEC, were ethically questionable. Some experiments where animals had undergone severe or very severe suffering had, in his view, little or no practical purpose, duplicated already published data and so forth.

He concluded that the current system of Animal Ethics committees does not safeguard either the interests of animals or the public interest. It needs to be replaced, he says, by a system whereby the onus of proof must be on the research community to ensure that animal experiments are in the genuine interests of humankind and not merely the economic interests of agribusinesses, pharmaceutical companies and researchers.

A recent House of Lords select committee inquiry in the UK on Animals in Scientific Procedures raised similar issues and concerns. The inquiry said that the debate surrounding animal experiments in the UK had been stifled for too long, with damaging results, by the overly restrictive nature of the Animal Welfare Act and that it was vital to create an atmosphere in which the issue of animal experimentation could be discussed productively.

It said people in the UK had too little good quality information on all aspects of animal experimentation and recommended there should be a presumption in favour of complete openness on the issue of animal experimentation, and of information being publicly available, and that the justification should have to be made by the scientific community for each class of information it considers should remain confidential.

"If animal based scientists are to retain public support for their activities, there needs to be a high level of acceptance that their use of animals is both humane and responsible. Such public acceptance depends on scientists conducting themselves in a manner that generates trust."

To redress these problems, I would like to see a number of improvements to the functioning of Animal Ethic committees, many of them based on successful models from overseas. Alongside a publicly available record of all experiments that are conducted on animals, I would like to see us adopt the Swedish system in which half of the members of an Animal Ethics committee are lay members, and the Chair is an independent and impartial person who does not have a vested interest in any of the experiments that are being conducted.

I would like to see the Australian system where decisions of animal ethics committees only proceed where there is consensus. Where two or more members will not approve a proposal it cannot go ahead.

I would also like to see the criteria tightened up, so that committees would be required, for example, to reject applications to use animals for scientific purposes if such use is not deemed to be in the public interest, or applications for purposes if it is not possible to acquire equivalent information by other means.

I would like to see a requirement that committees not approve any experiment involving high levels of animal suffering unless pain relief is administered.

I would like to see random, unannounced checks of research premises undertaken by independent reviewers appointed by the Director General of MAF. (There are none at present). Their reports should be readily available to the public.

The underlying principle of the operation of Animal Ethics committees should be the same as the Local Government Information and Meetings Act and the Official Information Act — namely that information should be available unless there is an extremely good reason for withholding it.

Agendas of meetings should be publicly announced, and minutes made public.

Finally I would like to touch on animal experimentation that involves genetic engineering and cloning.

The current animal welfare legislation is not equipped to deal with significant — and controversial - ethical and welfare issues raised by gene technology.

It is totally unacceptable for individual Animal Ethics committees to decide on the animal welfare and ethical implications of genetically engineering and cloning animals.

There are substantial welfare concerns relating to the production of transgenic 'founder' animals and of clones.

Genetic engineering has the potential to fundamentally alter the nature and properties of animals, and to create animals as mechanistic creatures, or animals whose nature has been altered in unacceptable ways — headless chickens and the like.

All of these sort of animal welfare / ethical issues are highly contentious issues that society as a whole should debate and decide on. Issues such as do scientists have a right to alter the nature and properties of animals just so that they can adapt better to extreme environmental conditions, become more productive or produce cheaper meat?

Most people, when asked, have concerns about animal experimentation, but justify its use for medical research. But medical research constitutes only about five per cent of the total animal experimentation research undertaken in New Zealand — most of it focusses on agriculture. Is it acceptable to conduct so much agricultural research on live animals?

Ethical issues such as these should not be left to a small committee of eight or so people, the majority of which are scientists, and which do not even have in their membership people who are trained in ethics, to decide in secret.

Most of the impacts of GE on animals are unknown until the experiments are completed. So it is essential that any new varieties of genetically engineered animals are assessed to see whether they are 'normal' from a welfare point of view, and to ensure that they do not suffer more than ordinary animals.

It is essential too, that we have adequate monitoring of the long-term stability and welfare of cloned and genetically engineered farmed animals.

Alongside our efforts to bring open-ness and transparency into the conduct of Animal Ethics committees, we would like to shift government funding away from animal experimentation towards non-animal studies, such as clinical studies, epidemiology and other non-animal research methods that do not use animals to test the safety and efficiency of new drugs, foods or other products.