|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of Meetings - February 2003 |
|
ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE APC (2003) 1st Meeting MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 12 February 2003 Present Professor Banner (Chairman) Home Office (AP&CU) Home Office (Inspectorate) Secretariat Item 1 Welcome / Apologies for Absence 1.1 The Chairman opened the meeting at 10.35 and welcomed members. Apologies for absence from the meeting were received from the following APC members: Dr Langley, Professor Bulfield, Professor Martin and Professor McNeilly. The Chairman noted that this was the last APC meeting that Dr Anderson would attend before his retirement from the Inspectorate and he thanked Dr Anderson for his invaluable support to the Committee. The Chairman welcomed Mr Evans from the Home Office AP&CU who was observing the meeting, and welcomed Ms Littin who had recently joined the Secretariat on a temporary attachment from New Zealand. 1.2 The Chairman reported that Professor Dawn Oliver had accepted an invitation to join the APC from 1 March 2003. A Ministerial statement to that effect would be issued in due course. 1.3 The Chairman expressed congratulations on behalf of the Committee to Professor David Clark on his award in the New Year's honours list of an OBE for services to scientific research. Item 2 :Minutes of the meeting held on 11 December 2002 2.1 The minutes from the meeting of 11 December were ratified and the Secretariat was asked to post them on APC's web-site. Action: Secretariat to post December minutes on the APC website Item 3: Matters arising Item 1: Meeting at UCL: Item 2: Minutes of the October meeting: Item 3.3: Home Office response to the Biotechnology
report INF(03)5: Item 3.4: Publication of Primates report: Item 3.8: Lessons learned from an infringement: Item 3.9: APC report on cost-benefit assessment under A(SP)A, and letter from the Minister on severity limit and band labels (INF(03)6): 3.6 It was noted that the report of the Chief Inspector on 'Aspects of Non-human Primate Research at Cambridge University' recommended that the use of severity limit and band labels be reviewed [Secretary's note: see <www.homeoffice.gov.uk/animalsinsp/reference/publications/cambridge.htm>]. The Minister asked in his letter that the Committee consider this in its review of the cost-benefit assessment. The Chairman explained that he wanted the report to be published as soon as possible, but agreed that final drafting changes needed to be made to the report by the Cost-Benefit Working Group, which would then be circulated back to members of the Committee. If necessary, the Minister's request would be explicitly addressed by an addition to the report. Action: Secretariat to finalise report with the Cost-Benefit Working Group, and arrange for publication. Item 4: Microsurgery application: Item 5: House of Lords Select Committee: Item 6: Schedule 1 Working Group: Item 7: APC strategy on applications: Action: Applications Working Group Item 10: "Uncaged" issues: 3.12 [Secretary's note: APC(02)47 misused the term majority. It stated: "By a majority decision in both cases, the Committee has agreed:
In fact, the word "majority" should apply to only the first bullet point. A correct account is in the public domain (in the ratified minutes of the meetings of October 2001 and February 2002 on the website, and reproduced in the 2001 Annual report), as follows: "Most but not all members agreed that the (Chief Inspector's) examination had satisfactorily addressed its remit - the compliance issue. Most members were concerned that the remit had not been wide enough." (October 2001 minutes, paragraph 4.7) "Some but not all members agreed that the Home Office's decision not to involve the Committee had been reasonable. Other members considered that the examination should not have been treated as routine." February 2002 minutes, paragraph 5.1) APC(02)47 will be amended accordingly and re-named
APC(02)47A.] Item 11: Members appraisal system: Item 12.1: Any other business: 3.14 The Secretary reported that he had sent the agreed NACWO training syllabus to the Home Office on 18 December. Item 12.5: BUAV allegations INF(03)6: Item 4: Government's response to Select Committee report (APC(03)1) 4.1 The Chairman introduced paper APC(03)1 which summarised the responses previously made by the APC to the Home Office and then sought to identify further areas for consideration by the Committee. 4.2 Regular fora and APC-sponsored events In its
response to Recommendation 29 of the House of Lords Select Committee
report, the Home Office had stated that it would ask the APC to take
forward the hosting of regular fora to discuss specific scientific
and welfare issues related to the use of animals in experiments. Dr
Hubrecht suggested that the Housing and Husbandry Sub-Committee
should host a meeting with ethologists and laboratory animal
scientists on implementing best practice in housing and husbandry.
It was agreed that those attending should reflect a broad range of
views, but that the meeting would be more effective if numbers were
restricted. 4.3 Applications for surgical training other than
microsurgery It was agreed that the Applications Working Group would
review whether non-microsurgery surgical training applications
should be referred to the APC. 4.4 Revision of EU Directive Mr Walsh reported that formal proposals for the review and revision of Directive 86/609/EEC were still awaited from the Commission so no decisions had yet been taken as to the form of any consultation with stakeholders. This would depend to some extent on the timetable for the review. He confirmed that the Committee would be informed of any decisions on this issue, in due course. 4.5 Review of statistics on animal use Mr Wood mentioned that the Committee might shortly be commissioned by the Minister to conduct a comprehensive review of the published annual statistics, involving a pilot study to see if capture of more precise data about animal suffering would be feasible. 4.6 Centre for research on the 3R's Professor David Clark, the Chairman of the Research and Alternatives Sub-Committee (RASC) reported the Sub-Committee's views about the House of Lords Select Committee recommendation for the 3R's. He suggested that it would not be possible for the APC to comment on whether its £280,000 budget, should be given to a national Centre for the 3R's until there was more information about the format of a UK Centre. He suggested that the Centre would be more effective if it were devised on a European rather than a UK basis. He added that RASC had committed all of its budget to grant applicants until April 2004 and that projects were being funded up to and including the financial year 2005-6. He was concerned that any money given to a national Centre would be used up in administrative and staffing costs rather than on funding research on alternatives, and developing and promoting the awareness of alternatives and of the Act, as was currently done by RASC. The Committee agreed that there was a general lack of awareness of the research that RASC supported. 4.7 Mr Walsh reported that the Government response had indicated that the Select Committee's recommendation regarding a UK Centre for the 3R's would be explored further. This work had been devolved to the Inter-Departmental Data Sharing group [Secretary's note: see Item 13 and APC(03)10]. The Data Sharing Group was due to meet to discuss this for the first time on 25 February. No decisions had, therefore, yet been taken as to how to take the issue forward. However, the Government response had indicated that it was intended to consult further with a view to inviting proposals from interested parties in due course. He considered it likely that written views would be invited and that stakeholder meetings might form part of the consultation. These might replicate the Minister's forum (held in 1999), or involve a series of meetings with different stakeholder groups. He confirmed that APC input to this process would be welcomed. 4.8 Professor Broom stated that the proposal for establishment of a Centre for 3R's needed wider discussion, and that there should be full consideration for the welfare of animals, (particularly housing and husbandry) rather than such a tight focus only on the 3R's. Professor Holland agreed that a remit which solely concentrated on the 3R's was too narrow and that the £280,000 budget going exclusively to a Centre was not the best option. Mr Walsh confirmed that the Inter-Departmental Data Sharing group was considering the application of the 3R's to all research, not just toxicological research and that finance would be included in a consideration of a UK Centre. Item 5: Schedule 1 Working Group update (APC(03)2 5.1 Mr Gregory noted ongoing discussions by the Schedule 1 Working Group, and emphasised that decapitation of neonatal (newborn) animals was already used as a method of euthanasia, but was a procedure that had to be licensed if done at a designated establishment for an experimental or other scientific purpose. Effectively, the proposal that the Schedule 1 Working Group was discussing was therefore only whether to remove the requirement for the procedure to be specifically licensed. Item 6: Urgent primates application: procedure (APC(03)3) 6.1 The Chairman and Professor Dunbar, the Chairman of
the Primates Sub-Committee, had met at the Heads of Sub-Committees
meeting to discuss a strategy for considering an urgent application
to conduct an experiment involving substantial severity on non-human
primates. Due to the urgency of the application, the Chairman and
Professor Dunbar considered that it would be inappropriate to wait
until April for the next main Committee meeting to consider the
application. Consequently, they supported the idea that the licence
application should be considered at an extraordinary meeting of the
Primates Sub-Committee. The meeting had provisionally been scheduled
for 28 February. It was further suggested that it would be of
benefit if the Chairman were to attend that meeting. The Chairman
invited views from the Committee about the suggested method of
considering this special application. Members agreed that it was
important to deal with the application expeditiously, but thought it
important to proceed in a way which protected as much as possible
normal procedures. It was agreed, therefore, that the Secretariat
would distribute copies of the licence application to every
Committee member when it was received by the Home Office, and they
would be asked to report back any views to the Secretariat. These
views would be considered at the special Primates Sub-Committee
meeting. The draft recommendation of the Sub-Committee would then be
sent to the rest of the membership for their comments and
ratification. Item 7: Appraisal system for members (APC(03)4) 7.1 An earlier draft appraisal system, APC(02)48, had been
considered at the December meeting. Following that meeting a revised paper
had been brought back to the Committee for comments. After a brief
discussion the Committee gave its support to the new system for a one year
trial. The Secretariat undertook to prepare an appraisal outline of each
member for the Chairman. Item 8: Publication Scheme (APC(03)5) 8.1 The Secretary explained that the first paragraph of this paper had to be corrected to reflect that the Committee was required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to have its Publication Scheme ratified by the Information Commissioner by February and not June 2004. 8.2 The Committee agreed that draft material would not be
disclosed under the terms of the Publication Scheme; however, there
was additional information that could be publicised on the APC
web-site. It was suggested that the agenda and actions agreed at the
annual weekend conference could be disclosed. It was also noted that
the release of the APC's briefing papers and ratified minutes of
Sub-Committee and Working Group meetings would aid a reader's
understanding of the minutes. The Secretariat agreed to revise the
paper taking into account the stated views of the Committee. 8.3 The Committee agreed that the release of information through the Publication Scheme should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and the Publication Scheme itself would be subject to periodic review. There was some concern expressed about bullet point 2 in paragraph 36 (whether information shared with the Committee such as an infringement case should be disclosed). The Committee noted that the Freedom of Information Act made a provision for withholding information that might impede any on-going investigation or subsequent disciplinary action. Item 9: "Uncaged" update (APC(03)6) 9.1 The Secretary explained that this update provided
members with a summary of actions taken by the APC since receipt of
the first set of Uncaged allegations. He added that this could
provide the basis of a definitive reply to Uncaged. It was noted
that there were drafting issues that needed to be made to the paper,
APC(03)6, and the Secretariat and Dr Jennings undertook to re-draft
sections of the paper. The Committee agreed that the reply to
Uncaged should record all of the related work that had been taken
forward by the APC's Sub-Committees and Working Groups since the
receipt of the original allegations. 9.2 On the issue of xenotransplantation, the Chairman explained that there had been an initial meeting on 17 January between FAWC, CAWC and the APC, to consider whether there was a role for an over-arching body as envisaged by the AEBC report on Biotechnology. The Chairman proposed to consult with the full Committee as the discussion developed. Dr Anderson explained that it was agreed at that meeting that the term "overarching body" had been considered inappropriate by those present, but in all probability the new body would be introduced as an additional advisory body for FAWC on xenotransplantation issues. Item 10: Publicising the APC (APC(03)7) 10.1 The origin of this document was a discussion at the annual weekend conference in 2002 about the paper "Views Held of the APC". The Chairman invited comments from the Committee on the suggested content and the following suggestions and amendments were received.
The Chairman asked members to send any other views to the
Secretariat and a revised paper would then be circulated for discussion at
the next meeting. Item 11: Miscellaneous issues (APC(03)8) 11.1 Expansion of A(SP)A to cover all cephalopods Professor
Broom stated that the supporting documents presented had been revised
and broadened since they were last presented to the Committee and the
Minister. It was agreed that the new documents (with one clarification
on the use of death as evidence of poor welfare at Appendix 2, para.
4.1) would be presented in a letter to the Minister requesting for the
expansion of A(SP)A to cover all cephalopods, and not just Octopus
vulgaris. It was noted that this issue was likely to be considered by
an EU Working Group examining the revision of the EU Directive. 11.2 The use of endangered animals, and the use of wild-caught animals for research Professor Broom introduced his paper on the use under A(SP)A of endangered species, noting that it would currently be possible for any endangered species to be used for research in certain situations. This could be a concern to the public, and the Committee could take a lead on this issue by recommending such a precautionary approach, in order to avoid any potential risk to endangered animals. Mr Gregory considered that endangered animals were adequately protected by A(SP)A, and that Professor Broom's proposals could be encompassed within the existing cost-benefit assessment that already occurs as part of the licensing process. 11.3 It was agreed that the issue would be discussed more
fully in a future meeting. 11.4 Professor Broom introduced his second paper on the use of wild-caught animals in research. He noted that wild animals are allowed to be caught for use as pets and for research. He suggested that the use of the cost-benefit assessment process was not alone sufficient to protect the welfare of wild-caught animals used for research under A(SP)A. The guidance notes on A(SP)A, and the Act itself ought to be altered to better do this. 11.5Mr Gregory considered that wild-caught animals were adequately protected under current legislation, and that Professor Broom's proposals could be encompassed within the existing cost-benefit assessment that already occurs as part of the licensing process, supported by changes to the guidance on A(SP)A. 11.6 Following discussion, the Chairman asked that this
paper also be discussed at greater length at a future meeting. Item 12: APC workplan for 2003 (APC(03)9) 12.1 The Chairman asked members to put forward their
comments in writing to the Secretariat. Item 13: AP&CU/ ASPI current issues (APC(03)10) Item 14: Some of these had been discussed under Item 4 above. Any other business 14.1 Letter from the Minister on APC Recommendations on
Biotechnology (INF(03)5) A further response to the Committee's
Biotechnology report had been received from the Minister on 4
February. The Chairman asked members to send any comments to Professor
Richardson (Chair of the Biotechnology Working Group) who would
collate the Committee's comments on the letter. 14.2 Meeting on implementation of better housing and husbandry for research animals The Committee agreed to Dr Hubrecht's suggestion that the Housing and Husbandry Sub-Committee organise a meeting to encourage the wider implementation of best practice in housing and husbandry of research animals, as discussed earlier under Item 4. 14.3 Report by the Chief Inspector on Aspects of Non-human Primate Research at Cambridge University As had been discussed earlier [reported at 3.15 above], it was confirmed that the APC Working Group would consider this report and identify any issues which the main Committee might wish to take forward. A member asked whether he could discuss the Chief Inspector's Report outside the Committee. [Secretary's note: Members can discuss the report, as it is in the public domain. But they would be advised to make clear that they are speaking as individuals, and not representing the APC's views.] 14.4 Visit from the Home Office Minister, Bob Ainsworth The Chairman welcomed the Minister and introduced the members of the Committee. The Minister said that he greatly appreciated the work of the Committee. He then spoke briefly about the House of Lords Select Committee report and the Government's response, which welcomed much of the report, particularly the recognition by the Select Committee that the use of animals is currently necessary to develop human and veterinary medicines and to protect humans and the environment. He said that the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be a UK Centre for the 3R's would be explored further. He also said that greater openness would be in the interest of all concerned with the use of animals in scientific procedures and that the publication of project licence summaries would be helpful, subject to safeguards for personal and confidential information. He added that it was important to make information available, particularly when there was public scepticism about the regulatory system. The Chairman replied that the APC cherished their independence and wished to continue to work with the Home Office in a co-operative way. The Minister replied that he valued the Committee for its independent views. 14.5 The meeting broke at 12:48 for lunch, during which Mr Ainsworth spoke informally with Members. Item 15: Date of next meeting: 9 April 2003 (INF(03)3) APC Secretariat 24 February 2003
|
© Crown Copyright
2000-2003 |