Comparison of the Canadian and US Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Systems of Oversight for Animals in Research

The Canadian and United States' approaches to oversight of animals in research are both based on the "3Rs" principles outlined in Russell and Burch's classic text, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Each country seeks to protect the welfare of animals, while permitting the legitimate goals of scientific research to be attained according to the legal principles, cultures, and strengths and constraints of their jurisprudential and societal traditions. Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world, and regulation of activities is based to a great extent on custom and practice. The United States is more hierarchical and, at least with respect to laws governing animal research, more centralized. Accordingly, the Canadian approach is rooted in the concepts of social contracts, with a greater emphasis on guidance and policy and less reliance on legislation. No federal (national) direct legislation of laboratory animal welfare exists, although the federal government uses its criminal and spending authorities to shape behavior. The central feature of the Canadian system is the Canadian Council on Animal Care, which was formed to support universities and government departments involved in animal-based science. Animal care committees play a central role in implementing the guidelines and policies in facilities that carry out animal research. The United States has enacted two federal (national) laws applicable to animals in research. The Animal Welfare Act is a more traditional, command-and-control law that gives authority to the US Department of Agriculture to promulgate regulations, inspect facilities, and enforce violations. The Health Research Extension Act, which amended the US Public Health Services (PHS) Act, applies to any activity conducted or supported by the PHS, including research efforts supported by the US National Institutes of Health. It is largely nonregulatory and establishes a system of assurances and policies that covered research facilities must follow. States play only a minor role in animal research protection. As in Canada, institutional animal care and use committees are tasked with self-regulation of activities that use animals for research.

Does the current regulation of assisted reproductive techniques in the UK safeguard animal welfare?

Reproductive medicine is one of the fastest-developing fields of veterinary medicine, Regulation of veterinary assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) is currently divided between the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986); the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and the Animal Welfare Act (2006). None of those pieces of legislation was purpose designed to protect the welfare of animals undergoing ARTs, either directly or by determining which veterinary ART procedures may or may not be performed. Consequently, due to the lack of reference to such procedures, the welfare protection aims of the legislation are sometimes ambiguous. It is therefore difficult to ascertain whether the aims of the legislation are being fulfilled, but, in the opinion of this author, the legislation is anyway inadequate in scope, most particularly because it fails to provide a reporting function.

It is unclear whether all or any veterinary ART procedures being undertaken on post-natal animals are associated with suffering. Some ARTs may cause discomfort, stress or pain: study or review of the welfare effects of these would be valuable. Any future review of the legislation regulating veterinary ARTs, be that an overall review or a review of one of the relevant statutes (for example the VSA), should take into account the interface between research and clinical medicine; the potentially welfare-compromising gaps between the Acts; the need to introduce reporting functions in order to build an evidence base, and the issue of veterinary specialisation and whether specialised techniques should be carried out only by those with specialist post-graduate qualifications.

Regulatory issues surrounding the use of companion animals in clinical investigations, trials, and studies

Laboratory animal veterinarians sometimes encounter animals with rare conditions and may subsequently become involved in the performance of related animal research outside the laboratory, in homes, in veterinary clinics, or in universities to which owners have donated their animals for study. Similarly, veterinarians may monitor animal companion vaccination studies, performed to optimize preventive health care or minimize physiological variability and research confounders associated with a preventive medicine program for dogs and cats utilized for research procedures. These nontraditional uses of dogs, cats, and other companion animals in research have spurred the establishment of regulations to ensure that the animals benefit from clinical veterinary products and techniques. Included and described are the 2002 Public Health Service Policy, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the regulations of the US Department of Agriculture in response to the AWA. The complexities of clinical research with companion animals outside standard biomedical research facilities are discussed.

Historical issues concerning animal experimentation in the United States

The use of animals for research and teaching has now become an issue of great concern in the United States. In contrast to the legislative systems in Britain, Scandinavia and many European countries, American scientists can pursue research projects with relative freedom. Recent activities in the United States may effect this practice and future animal experimentation may be subjected to restriction and control by legislation. Events leading to this possibility are similar in many ways to those in 19th century Britain prior to the passage of the Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876 (which licenses scientists, regulates experimentation and carries out inspections). Historically, it seemed that the immediate effect of the 1876 act was to decrease the number of scientists who could conduct experiments on live vertebrate animals in Great Britain and hence the number of experiments and animals. Yet, antivivisection activity in Britain did not decrease but continued toward its goal of abolishing all research with animals. By 1882, the medical scientific community established the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research which began to advise the Home Secretary on licensing scientists.... Although the first Humane Society in the United States was established in 1866, it was not until the end of the 19th century when scientific disciplines were necessary for the education of physicians that protests against the use of animals for experimentation became organized. Activities by American animal protection groups have increased since that time and have now culminated in proposed legislation which if passed would not only restrict the use of animals for research but would also interfere with the kinds of research that could be conducted. Legislation in Britain, Scandinavia and in many European countries appears to be efficient and effective because of the relatively small number of research institutions and scientists in those countries. Is legislation in the United States feasible considering the extremely large number of scientists and research institutions? American scientists are facing three possibilities: mandatory regulation (legislation), self-regulation, or some combination of both. Self-regulation of animal experimentation appears to be the optimal choice. It would reflect the success of animal protection groups in raising the consciousness and concerns of scientists about the humane treatment of experimental animals: (1) reducing the numbers of animals used for experimentation, (2) unnecessary duplication of experiments, and (3) minimizing pain and distress. Although scientists are proceeding toward a program(s) of self-regulation, this approach will be based on the scientific method and will not satisfy completely the differences between scientific and animal protection groups. Scientists have become concerned with "the moral and ethical responsibility for the humane treatment of animals in experimentation" whereas animal protection groups are concerned with "the moral rights of animals...."

Institutional animal care and use committees: a flawed paradigm or work in progress?

In his challenging article, Steneck (1997) criticized the creation of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) system established by the 1985 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. He saw the IACUC review and approval of biomedical and behavioral research with animals as an unnecessary "reassignment" of duties from existing animal care programs to IACUC committees. He argued that the committees are unable to do the work expected of them for basically three reasons: (a) the membership lacks the expertise in matters relevant to animal research and care, (b) there exists an inherent and disabling conflict of interest, and (c) the committee's operational base of authority is alien to academic culture and violates essential aspects of academic freedom. In addition, he found that the system is burdensome, requiring enormous expenditures of time and money that inappropriately diverts resources away from the business of scientific discovery. We dispute several aspects of Steneck's historical account and the coherence of his proposals. We believe his proposals, if followed, would be a step back into a failed past.

The injustice of excluding laboratory rats, mice, and birds from the Animal Welfare Act

A major shortcoming of the Animal Welfare Act is its exclusion of the species most-used in experimentation -- rats, mice, and birds. Considerations of justice dictate that extension of the law to these three species is the morally right thing to do. A brief history of how these species came to be excluded from the laws protecting laboratory animals is also provided, as well as discussion of the implications and significance of expanding the law.

Developing guidelines on the care and use of animals

Oversight of laboratory animal care and use in the research environment is multilayered. Federal and state regulations apply to many laboratory animal species; funding agencies frequently require adherence to additional guidelines; institutions may develop in-house policies; and an institution may choose to voluntarily participate in an accreditation program, indicating a commitment by the institution to apply the most rigorous standards to the animal care and use program. In general, regulations follow a prescriptive "engineering" approach, while guidelines applied to the care and use of research animals follow a "performance" approach, which defines the desired outcome in detail, but acknowledges that multiple methods may achieve that outcome. The performance approach relies on sound professional judgment, thereby allowing flexibility based on an institution's unique circumstances. Further, this approach should facilitate the international harmonization of animal care and use standards. The performance, or outcome, approach to developing guidelines is described, using the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC, 1996) as the model.

Are smelly animals happy animals?: competing definitions of laboratory animal cruelty and public policy

Abstract

Regulations surrounding laboratory animal care have tried to address aspects of an image of laboratory animal cruelty publicized by animal rights activists. This image of cruelty, however, is not consistent with the experiences of those charged with the day-to-day care of laboratory animals. This article examines the incongruities between the public image of cruelty to animals in laboratories as promoted by animal rights activists, and the experiences of laboratory animal care staff who apply and enforce laboratory animal care regulations. In doing so, the article illuminates why regulations surrounding laboratory animal care are difficult to comply with on the part of the policy enforcers, and are continuously contested by both animal rights activists and animal research personnel.

Improved standards for laboratory animals?

In February 1993, Judge Charles R. Richey of the United States District Court issued a summary judgment in the case of Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. The Secretary of Agriculture, et al. The decision, which was in favor of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withdraw its current regulations governing exercise for dogs and the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates used for biomedical research and to issue new regulations containing only minimum, measurable standards. Both plaintiffs and defendants contended that they were seeking the best interests of the laboratory animals. The issue at stake is whether animals are better protected if the government establishes limited minimal standards or is allowed to require institutions to provide additional standards, which will be judged on the basis of their effectiveness in maintaining healthy animals. The Court avoided this dispute, however, by placing primary emphasis on applying the Administrative Procedures Act and stating that it was merely interpreting the "plain meaning" of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended. In this article, arguments are presented for interpreting the law in a far more flexible way than Judge Richey did. The conclusion is also reached that there were no winners in the Animal Legal Defense Fund case and that the real losers are the laboratory animals.

Savages, drunks, and lab animals: the researcher's perception of pain

Abstract

Historically, treatment for pain relief has varied according to the social status of the sufferer. A similar tendency to make arbitrary distinctions affecting pain relief was found in an ethnographic study of animal research laboratories. The administration of pain-relieving drugs for animals in laboratories differed from standard practice for humans and, perhaps, for companion animals. Although anesthesia was used routinely for surgical procedures, its administration was sometimes haphazard. Analgesics, however, were rarely used. Most researchers had never thought about using analgesics and did not consider the subject worthy of serious attention. Scientists interviewed for this study agreed readily that animals are capable offeeling pain, but such assertions were muted by an overriding view of lab animals as creatures existing solely for the purposes of research. As a result, it was the exceptional scientist who was able to focus on anything about the animal's subjective experience that might lie outside the boundaries of the research protocol.

Animals, science, and ethics -- Section V. Policy issues in the use of animals in research, testing, and education

Section V examines the inadequacy of federal guidelines, regulations, and public policy in distinguishing between the uses of animals in experimental research, testing, and education, and recommends policy reforms for each realm.

Developing standards in animal research review

Thirty-two institutional animal care and use committees reviewed 4 hypothetic protocols involving experimental procedures frequently conducted on animals. Committees were in general agreement on the need to refine hypothetic protocols to minimize pain, distress, and other harm to laboratory animals. All but 2 committees sought modifications in each protocol, and in numerous instances, committees would not approve a protocol without major modifications. The committee responses delineated emerging standards governing specific areas of animal use, such as antibody production, induced disease, surgery, physical restraint, and behavioral conditioning. Committees had less consensus in their approach to assessing the justification for laboratory animal use. Apparently, this component of committee responsibilities presented the major conceptual and practical difficulties for committees engaged in animal research review.