The Margaret Rose's Animal Research Panel Interview

by Claudette Vaughan

Are these governmental panels a serious attempt to explore alternatives to animal testing or do they just serve as a buffer between concerned community feelings on the matter of animal experimentation, allowing animal experimenters to continue mutilating animals from behind closed doors? There is a case to answer.

Margaret Rose is known for her own pro-animal experimentation views.  Is putting her as Chair on the Animal Research Panel NSW like putting Dracula in charge of the bloodbank? You decide.

Q.  What is it you actually do on the Animal Research Panel NSW?

A.  I chair the Animal Research Review Panel which is the State government statutory body in NSW that has oversight of all use of animals' in research and teaching.  That includes product testing for the State.  It's a committee that's been set up under the Animal Research Act.  It's quite unique in this country.  It's probably one of the few committees of its kind internationally as well because it does bring together people with expertise in animal research but also with representations from animal welfare interests.

Q.  How did this come about?

A.  I started looking at what was happening in terms of legislation overseas,  I'd been to the UK, I also had a look to see what was happening in Europe and I had also been to Canada and to North America. There seemed to be an opportunity where you could take a set of principles as you would in a Code of Practice and put over them a statuately principle to comply with those principles and in doing so that sets in place a process whereby you review those principles being followed. That process has now become a lot more widely accepted but it's now referred to as 'framework' legislation.   I saw this set of principles that we had agreed to abide by as basically a contract between the scientific community and the wider community.  So we brought in the Animal Research Act in 1985 with recognition by government that there needed to be input from the community in terms of decisions being made. It set in place a government body which brought animal welfare bodies involved which was the Animal Research Review Panel to actually monitor and have oversight over all of that. The Code of Practice has been evolving in this country since 1969. The National Code, probably up to the mid-eighties into the nineties has been evolving to the document we have today which basically sets out the principles and guidelines we set to achieve, the basis under wish we want to make decisions.  It requires committees that have community representatives and animal welfare representatives and scientists and vets on it.   I think what is important about the Animal Research Act is it is the only separate piece of legislation in research and teaching in this country. It is the only one that has a Animal Research Review Panel.  I think there has been a view that that in itself has produced significant progress in terms of what's happening in this State.  What we do is,  3 of us, go out into a very detailed audit of what's going on.  We go to animal facilities, we go through records, we meet researchers, we sit on committee meetings. We try and get a good handle on what's happening.   

That process is modeled on what I saw was happening or evolving in Canada and North America at that time.  I think what was happening in the UK where it had an inspectorate and didn't have institutional committees.  What actually happened in the UK is quite interesting because it had animal protection legislation in terms of this area since the 1870's but until the mid-1990's it was saying we don't need institutionised committees. This was at the instigation of the UK's  RSPCA I might add.  They finally got to having an institutionised ethical review process.

Q.  Wasn't that set up by Lord Sainsbury?

A.  Yeah I think so. So despite all of the regulations that have been put in place in the UK, they have actually started seeing the importance from their point of view of committees that really look at the ethical issues.

Q.   I have the Animal Research Review Panel NSW Annual Report here.   I also have the statistics for animals used in research both in NSW and Victoria and I want to know why, if there is any real concern about animals, the statistics are not differentiated in any way.  The statistics neglect to say whether it's been an invasive/lethal technique applied to the animal or whether it was for a benign enrichment program experiment. Why is that?

A.  I'm not sure. There was some discussion a while ago about trying to get another layer of information about the kinds of procedures that were being done.   I think one of things is, my reading of the community's concern is they want to know what is the impact is on the animal.  Whether or not they have experienced pain or distress and just saying you have done this procedure or that procedure doesn't necessarily give you that answer.   So I have tried to put forward a proposal in the way in which we might address this but it still up for discussion.  People are all thinking it's a bit too hard.

Q.    Isn't it hypocritical to lump animal statistics under one heading (from the most benign experiments to the most terrifying) while acknowledging that there exists a valid community concern over animal experimentation?

A. The difficulty is how much time and effort and resources you put into producing statistics and the amount of time and effort you put into actually going out there and seeing what's happening and improving things and I think that's the problem. It is certainly true there are very limited resources from government being put into these sorts of things and is in fact, if the community wants more statistical information it will be at the expense of other things not being done. 

Q.   How much do market principles intrude into academic life?

A.  What I have said about funding does not relate to market principles, it relates to where the government is putting funding in terms of collection of statistics and so forth. Again, I am not actually talking about what happens within research institutions because the cost of this is spread right across the board.  I don't see evidence that market influences are actually compromising animal welfare and I don't see that market influences are necessarily not doing the right thing and what needs to be done internally, but government resources,  sometimes the funding that might provide the in-depth analysis in the collection of statistics, is not provided.  OK?  I have to say to you that one of the concerns I actually have is that we can provide the community with more and more information but quite often we will do that to the expense of not actually doing work at cold-face, work that ensures the right thing is being done and the animals being looked after.   It's a question of where you really do put resources and effort.  If you look at our Annual Report there's a lot of information that can be sourced,  that's there.

Q.   If the Review Panel was set up to review animal experimentation, I would like you to clarify why the LD50 test is still be employed after all these years. 

A.  I am not aware that the LD50 test is being done in NSW at all. There are significant modifications to that which mean that you can get better quality answers with still some animals dying with reference to that test. What we are pushing for is to get away from doing that completely. The areas in which you do that type of toxicity testing, we refer to it now as 'Lethality Testing' and this is a much broader definition. If there's any test where there is actually a requirement, where a certain percentage of the animals have to die to test something, then we call that the Lethality Test.

Q.  How much of this data is duplicate?

A.  The main area where that is actually done in is environmental testing.   That is one of the emerging areas and I'm starting to see alternatives coming in, which is good.  There is some being done in terms of quality control, secondary vaccines is another area, and another area where we have been strongly pushing to get the companies to develop alternatives - when I say "we" I mean the Panel - we don't actually set what is the National requirements by the Regulatory authorities. We have tried to have discussions with the relevant Commonwealth authorities to try and get as much as we can there.  With alternatives, one of the problems we have is NSW is coming forward but the other State's are not necessarily following.   They are starting to change. We are getting various offices such as the Regulatory offices in each of the States talking to each other and then starting to get some pressure back on and good discussions with the Commonwealth so we can wind stuff back more and more.  I think we are making some inroads and inroads in that area.  Again that is something you probably wouldn't know because we don't tend to talk about it a lot.  We just tend to get in there and do things.

Q.  Are you for transparency in labs?

A.  Absolutely.  I think we do need this from the point of view of all parties.

Q.   What is your personal position on animal experimentation?  Is it fair to say you are adamant that animal experimentation is necessary and it provides meaningful results.

A.  Yes. That is a very fair statement. Let me put it to you the other way.  I think in fact we need to be absolutely convinced for any proposal that comes forward that we need to use animals.  To me I need to be absolutely convinced there is a need to use animals and to use animals in the way it is proposed but in knowing the situation and where we are working,  I think in this point in time, although I think we have in that process of challenging the need and justification have really made significant inroads into the numbers of used and when they are being used. I cannot see there is evidence, at this point in time, that we can actually do away with animals. If the community wants the sorts of treatments in health and animal health and so forth, you have to under-pin that with basic research which sometimes is a little bit vague about stuff so you need a body of knowledge that can take that forward.  We are not going to get that if that doesn't mean some studies with animals. I can't see that being a solution at the moment without using animals. That doesn't mean we won't continue to work towards not using animals but it does mean though that those animals that we do use, we have to manage them absolutely scrupulously.

Q.   Why so many animals being consumed?  Why is animal experimentation escalating in Australia?

A.  I think it is expanding in terms of numbers because of what's now happening with genetic engineering and genetically modified animals.

Q.   What kind of laws are in place for using these types of animals? 

A.  That comes under the 'Permission to Breed'.  Those kinds of animals are from the Gene Technology Regulator.  I suppose the ethical issues about using genetically modified animals in animal research really relates to any question whether you are using animals to actually ask the question "What's going to be the impact on these animals and is the reason you are using them legitimate?"

Q.   Does the Animal Review Research Panel  NSW make any kind of distinction between genetically modified animals and non-modified animals used in animal-based research?

A.  No I wouldn't think so other than ensuring that people are developing strains of genetically modified animals that they make sure that they have adequately assessed the risks and manage those animals appropriately.

Q.   Lastly, I have a recent article from the Bulletin called "Monkey Business" and it's about the baboon colony here in Sydney.  It said, "Society will have to deal with the dilemma on should animals have the same rights as human beings." Would you comment on that please?

A.  I think it's right [to say that].  I think society has to decide whether that is true.  I think that where society is at the moment, society is saying "No" and there are people who see varying degrees of those issues which is the reason why have got this ongoing discussion. If we don't have a consensus in the community on whether we should or should not being doing with animals, there are some people who believe very strongly that animals should have exactly the same rights as humans and we shouldn't be doing anything to them other than caring for them in a responsible way and there are those who take degrees of differences on that point of view.  I suppose where I sit is very much being cautious in terms of really challenging in terms of what we should or shouldn't be doing and I think that's a difficult place to be in sometimes because it is a situation where you've got to constantly challenge and question what you are doing. The day I stop questioning it, I'd be worried.