ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
APC (2003) 3rd Meeting
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 JUNE 2003
At the Home Office, Queen Anne’s Gate, London
Present:
Professor Banner (Chairman)
Professor Atterwill arrived during item 3
Professor Broom
Professor Bulfield
Professor S Clark
Professor Dunbar
Dr Festing
Mr Gregory
Professor Holland
Dr Hubrecht
Dr Jennings
Dr Langley
Professor Martin arrived during item 7
Mr McCracken left during item 4
Professor McNeilly
Mr Moore
Dr Morris
Professor Oliver left during item 7
Professor Richardson
Home Office (AP&CU)
Mr Cobley
Mr Walsh
Mr Vallender
Home Office (Inspectorate)
Dr Richmond (Chief Inspector)
Mr Anderson
Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for Northern Ireland
Mr Collins
Secretariat
Mr West (Secretary)
Mr Earle
Ms Littin
Mr Brenner
[Secretary’s note: The order of discussion of items was changed
to accommodate some members’ arrival, so item 5 (APC Publication
Scheme) was discussed before item 4 (Equine Application). The items appear
in these minutes in their original agenda order.]
Item 1: Welcome / Apologies for Absence
1.1 The Chairman welcomed members to the meeting at 10.35. Apologies for
absence had been received from Professor David Clark and from Professor
Martin for his anticipated late arrival. Professor Banner noted that this
was the last APC meeting that Ms Littin would attend, as her secondment
to the Secretariat from New Zealand was soon to end. The Committee recorded
its gratitude to Ms Littin for her work and wished her well for the future.
The Chairman informed the Committee that this was Mr Cobley’s last
meeting before he took retirement after nearly 40 years of Home Office
service. The Committee expressed thanks to him and also wished him well
for the future. Professor Banner offered congratulations on behalf of
the Committee to Mr McCracken, following his appointment as a QC.
1.2 Professor Banner informed the Committee that Ms Hilary Jackson, the
Director of the Home Office’s Community Policy Directorate, had
left to take up a post at the Treasury Solicitors. He also advised members
that as part of the recent Ministerial changes Caroline Flint had been
appointed as the Home Office Minister with responsibility for animal experimentation,
in succession to Bob Ainsworth.
Item 2: Minutes of the meetings held on 9 April 2003
2.1 Dr Langley and the project licence applicant had put forward amendments
to paragraph 6 of the draft minutes. The Committee accepted these changes,
and the minutes were ratified.
Action: Secretariat to update the April minutes and post them on the APC
website.
Item 3: Matters arising from the April minutes
Item 2: Minutes of 12 February
3.1 The minutes from the February meeting were published on the APC website
on 14 May.
Item 3.5: BUAV allegations about Cambridge
3.2 Michelle Thew, the Chief Executive of the BUAV, had written to the
Chairman on 15 May. This letter and earlier related correspondence was
attached as Annex A to the April minutes.
Item 3.10: Publication scheme
3.3 This was discussed as a later agenda item (item 5).
Item 3.11 to 3.15: Uncaged allegations
3.4 The Chairman had written to Dan Lyons of Uncaged Campaigns on 28 April
and this letter with earlier related correspondence was attached as Annex
B to the April minutes.
Item 4: The APC’s policy on applications.
3.5 This was scheduled to be a later agenda item (Item 9) but the Chairman
said that he wished to withdraw it so that the Applications Working Group
could consider the paper further.
Item 5: Annual report
3.6 Comments about the draft annual report had been received by the Secretariat
since the last meeting. The Secretary advised that a revised report would
be circulated to members for their final approval.
Action: Secretariat
Item 6: Special primates application
3.7 The Chairman had written to the Minister on 30 April offering the
Committee’s advice. [Secretary’s note: The Minister replied
to the Chairman on 11 June, explaining that the Committee’s concerns
had been discussed with the applicants and that their application had
been revised to take these into account. This letter is attached as Annex
A to the minutes.]
Item 7: Miscellaneous issues
3.8 This was discussed as a later agenda item (Item 7).
Item 8.4 to 8.5: Home Office response to the Biotechnology report
3.9 This was discussed as a later agenda item (Item 10).
Item 9: Publicising the APC INF(03)12
3.10 The text of the leaflet explaining the work of the APC had been finalised
between the Chairman and the Secretariat, in preparation for the reports
launch event on 1 July. This was issued to members as an information paper.
Item 10: APC response to Home Office letter inviting views on research
into alternatives
3.11 The Chairman wrote to the Home Office on 28 April and this was attached
to the April minutes as Annex D.
Item 12: November weekend conference
3.12 The Secretariat had booked a hotel for the annual weekend conference.
Some members had indicated that they would arrive at the hotel on Thursday
evening, so it was noted that there was an opportunity for them to visit
a local research establishment on Friday morning.
Action: Secretariat to arrange a visit at the weekend conference.
Item 4: Equine application (APC(03)30)
4.1 The Chairman noted that this application had been circulated to all
members on 9 June. Two members declared an interest with one member leaving
the room and the other member not taking part in further discussion.
4.2 The Chairman reported that the applicant met the Working Group which
had initially examined the application on Monday 23 June. The application
involved two experiments: experiment 2 involved cross-embryo transfer
to examine placental development, and experiment 3 involved the use of
cloning as a production method for sport horses (those used in eventing,
show-jumping etc) as well as to examine some scientific questions.
4.3 There was some discussion about the aims, benefits and costs of the
research, alternatives to the proposed research, and permissible purposes
under the Act. It was noted that the Home Secretary was not constrained
by the cost-benefit assessment and could choose not to grant a licence
on other grounds. Some members expressed concern that the main stated
purpose for cloning animals in Experiment 3 was trivial and therefore
unacceptable.
4.4 The Committee reached the following consensus. Experiment 2 should
be licensed, as it seemed likely that it would achieve worthwhile scientific
results and that the costs of the research in terms of animal welfare
were acceptable if the Committee’s advice on minimising these costs
were followed. The main reason for recommending that Experiment 3 ought
not to proceed was that its benefits seem uncertain to be realised and
that there was, in any case, an alternative means of achieving some of
them.
Action: Action: Secretariat to draft reply to Minister and circulate to
members.
Item 5: APC Publication Scheme (APC(03)22)
5.1 The Secretary reported that the APC, as a Non-Department Public Body,
was required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to have an approved
publication scheme in place by February 2004. A paper had originally been
brought to the Committee at the February 2003 meeting and then re-drafted
to take into account comments made by members. The Secretary explained
that the APC would have to define which categories of document would be
released under its Publication Scheme. It was not acceptable to publish
material on a case by case basis as members had requested at the February
meeting.
5.2 There followed a discussion about what classification of information
should be included within the publication scheme. Dr Langley asked that
information about infringements be included and noted that they were published
in the February 2003 minutes. Mr McCracken said that licence applications
referred by the Home Office should be included, suitably anonymised. Professor
Oliver asked whether the Home Office’s publication scheme would
include the same classification of information as listed in the APC’s
draft publication scheme. Mr Cobley said that project licence summaries
would be published in 2004, but due to commercial and safety considerations
there would be a limit on the type of information that the Home Office
released. Professor Broom said that an informed observer would be able
to identify an applicant if there was too much detail. Professor Richardson
agreed that licence applications referred to the APC should be anonymised,
but was concerned that an applicant's identity could be inadvertently
disclosed by the publication of information within the APC’s minutes.
Professor Bulfield said that to aid a reader’s understanding, a
paragraph could be inserted before each minuted item to explain what was
about to be discussed. Some members expressed reservations about the publication
of draft papers brought to the main Committee and documents produced by
the APC’s Working Groups and Sub-Committees. The Chairman asked
the Secretary to take further advice on these issues before re-drafting
the paper for discussion at the September meeting.
Action: Secretariat to re-draft Publication Scheme paper.
Item 6: Overbreeding report (APC(03)23)
6.1 The Chairman invited Professor McNeilly to introduce this report and
noted essential input from Mr Gregory and Mr Anderson. Professor McNeilly
explained that the Working Group had had several meetings over the last
few years and had met several times with the Laboratory Animal Science
Association.
6.2 Dr Hubrecht commended the report. Commenting on paragraphs 23 and
26 of the report, Dr Langley said that the fact that, at a national level,
some animals are imported from abroad does not rule out the possibility
that they are overbred at some individual facilities. Dr Morris responded
that this rarely happened in practice with dogs and primates. Moreover,
although some research institutes might not be able to manage their own
animals in order to prevent a surplus, many companies were moving to external
suppliers that could better control overbreeding because of the larger
scale of their operations. One member noted that the contract with his
company’s animal supplier specified that surplus animals must be
reallocated to other facilities rather than being euthanased. Dr Jennings
noted that the Primates Sub-Committee could examine the issue of the possible
overbreeding of marmosets.
6.3 The Chairman asked that Professor McNeilly consider amending the
report along the lines suggested by the comments, and that the amended
report be circulated to the main Committee with amendments prior to sending
it to the Minister.
Action: Professor McNeilly and Secretariat.
Item 7: Miscellaneous issues (cephalopods, wild-caught and endangered
species) (APC(03)24)
7.1 Professor Broom introduced this paper, a revised version of an earlier
paper. It had been revised in light of comments from an external expert
on cephalopods so that the proposal was now to extend the protection of
the Act to only octopus, squid and cuttlefish.
7.2 Mr Moore noted that work on the revision of the EC Directive covering
the use of animals in research was starting the following week and one
issue that had been raised as a possibility for discussion was the inclusion
of some invertebrates, particularly cephalopods.
7.3 The Chief Inspector commented that as a previous Minister had asked
for further compelling scientific evidence before the case for extension
would be reconsidered, the Committee would need to consider whether there
was indeed sufficient new evidence to advance the case. The Committee’s
view was that recent evidence confirmed that there were no relevant differences
between Octopus vulgaris (the only cephalopod currently protected by the
Act) and most other cephalopods, and that the Act should be expanded to
protect all octopus, squid and cuttlefish.
7.4 The Committee agreed with the Chairman's suggestion that he have
a discussion with the Chief Inspector and then write to the Minister recommending
changes to the regulations.
Action: Secretariat to arrange meeting with Chief Inspector.
Endangered and wild-caught species
7.5 Professor Broom noted that he thought that endangered or wild-caught
animals should never be used in scientific procedures. With regard to
birds, mammals and fish caught from the wild and brought into the laboratory,
this was due to the distress imposed on the animal. While the Wildlife
and Countryside Act regulated the use of wild animals to a certain extent,
it did not protect animal welfare.
7.6 It was agreed that the Committee wished to see all licence applications
proposing the use of endangered species before they were granted.
Action: Applications Sub-Committee to note.
7.7 There was some discussion as to the extent of the problem with wild-caught
animals. The Chief Inspector noted that national statistics were not collected
for wild-caught or endangered animals specifically. He provided two examples
of work where the use of wild-caught or endangered animals was essential.
The first was research to determine whether a programme which rehabilitated
injured animals and returned them to their natural habitat was welfare-friendly.
The second was where an endangered species had been used for research
into a specific medical condition because exceptionally it was the only
species which could be used. Most work on wild-caught animals was on fish,
amphibia, and rodent species, including rodenticide studies. There was
some work on rabbits and squirrels. The scientific studies required that
animals in captivity were unstressed or the results would be scientifically
invalid.
7.8 It was agreed that the Committee should seek to confirm that the cost-benefit
assessment performed by the Secretary of State took capture from the wild
into consideration, and that the Committee needed further information
on the scope of the problem with wild-caught animals. In this regard,
it was agreed as a first step that the Committee would ask the Inspectorate
for a short written statement about the use of wild-caught animals (including
information about species, numbers and purposes of the research). The
Statistics Working Group could consider whether annual statistics on endangered
and wild-caught animals should be collected nationally.
Action: (a) Statistics working group to note; (b) Secretariat to seek
information from the Home Office.
Item 8: Schedule 1 working group: progress report (APC(03)25)
8.1 Mr Gregory reminded the Committee that a proposal to allow decapitation
of neonatal rodents in Schedule 1 had been presented previously, but that
the Committee had asked for more information before offering advice to
the Minister. The Schedule 1 Working Group had uncovered more scientific
evidence in support of this recommendation. On this basis, they would
soon invite the Committee’s comment on the same proposal in the
light of this new evidence. With regard to carbon dioxide, discussion
was ongoing. The Working Group would wait for more information on carbon
dioxide before returning to the main Committee. The Working Group was
also considering the euthanasia of pre-hatch reptiles and birds, and turtles
and tortoises, and changes to the Code of Practice.
8.2 Dr Hubrecht asked whether the aversiveness of carbon dioxide for rodents
had been considered. Dr Morris noted that scientific articles such as
that by Leach et al. had been discussed but that the group had not wanted
to make a final decision on the basis of this paper alone. Dr Hubrecht
asked whether the group had considered a precautionary approach and Dr
Morris replied that it was difficult to recommend a change when there
was little or no evidence about the humaneness of alternative gases.
8.3 Mr Gregory explained that when the Working Group did finally report
to the Minister, it would suggest that the Home Office undertake consultation
on any recommendations where appropriate. He also noted that they would
come back to the main Committee with a final proposal on neonatal decapitation.
Item 9: Applications – proposed approach to the Minister (APC(03)26)
9.1 The Chairman reported that the paper would be brought back to the
Committee after a further discussion by the Working Group.
Action: Applications working group.
Item 10: Biotechnology report (APC(03)21)
10.1 Professor Richardson introduced the paper on the publication of the
Biotechnology Report, which identified lessons learnt that would assist
the APC in its future publication strategy. It was agreed that there would
be little value to continue in correspondence with the Home Office on
the matter. The Committee agreed that in future, it would be important
to ensure that input from the Home Office and the Inspectorate was utilised
during the preparation of reports, while ensuring that the APC maintained
its independence. [Secretary’s note: The group met after the main
meeting and listed outstanding areas of their concern, which is attached
with other related correspondence at Annex B.]
10.2 As a further lesson learnt, Professor Broom said that the publicity
for the Biotechnology report had been sparse and that this had been a
key factor in the lack of public awareness. He suggested that the APC’s
report could be referred to at the launch event on 1 July. [Secretary’s
note: An APC publication list, with a reference to the Biotechnology Report,
was inserted into the delegates’ pack at the reports launch].
Item 11: BUAV/Cambridge Marmosets Working Group update – oral report
11.1 Professor Holland, the Chairman of the Working Group, introduced
this item. He reported that at its first meeting on 29 April, it had been
agreed that the Working Group’s members should meet with the key
stakeholders involved. On 6 June, the members had visited Cambridge University,
toured the research facility and met with key members of staff. Following
that meeting the members had met with Professor David Morton of Birmingham
University. Professor Holland reported that the meetings had been very
productive and would assist the group for the remainder of their meetings
and discussions. The Secretariat would arrange meetings with the BUAV
and with the Chief Inspector, and it was anticipated that Professor Holland
would provide a further update at the September APC meeting.
11.2 It had been decided to invite Dr Hubrecht on the visit to Cambridge
University for the benefit of his experience of primate housing and husbandry
issues. The members agreed that Dr Hubrecht should join the Working Group.
Action: Dr Hubrecht to join BUAV/Cambridge Marmosets Working Group.
Item 12: Infringements: Home Office Annual Report (APC(03)27)
12.1. A member's offer to withdraw from this discussion was accepted by
the Committee. Mr Anderson presented the summaries on class three infringements
on which action had been completed in 2002. He noted that infringements
raising welfare concerns had already been seen and discussed at earlier
Committee meetings. Some members expressed concern at the apparent lightness
of penalties awarded. Mr Anderson stated that if there were no criminal
proceedings, the sanctions available to the Home Office were limited.
However, he noted that organisations might take additional internal disciplinary
action against members of staff who had been involved in an infringement.
Members raised concerns about the way in which two particular infringements
had been reported: they suggested that in both cases a clearer explanation
would ease unwarranted concerns. The Home Office agreed to redraft the
paper.
Action: The Home Office agreed to provide additional information about
each case in future infringement reports.
Item 13: 1 July “launch” (APC(03)28)
13.1 The Chairman reminded members that the launch event was to be held
at the Institute of Biology on 1 July.
Item 14: Minister’s letter about statistics (APC(03)29)
14.1 The Committee agreed to the Chairman's suggestion that the Working
Group’s membership comprise Professor Bulfield (Chairman), Dr Festing,
Dr Langley, Mr Moore and Professor Oliver. The Chairman advised that he
had asked the Secretary to enquire whether a consultant and Home Office
Inspector could assist the working group. Professor Dunbar noted that
the Primates Sub Committee had already extensively reviewed statistics
involving primates in scientific procedures during 1990-2000 within their
recently published report.
Action: (a) Professor Bulfield to chair the Statistics Working Group;
(b) Secretariat to enquire about assistance, and arrange meeting.
Item 15: Any other business (including HO update) (APC(03)31)
15.1 Mr Walsh reported that the group tasked to review and revise the
EU directive 86/609/EEC would meet for the first time on 30 June &
1 July.
15.2 Dr Langley asked whether information from the Interdepartmental Group
on the 3 R’s would be put into the public domain. Mr Walsh replied
that the ratified minutes and parliamentary questions would be published
on the Home Office website. Professor Broom was concerned that the group
had insufficient discussion about refinement. Mr Walsh said that all of
the 3 Rs were within the group’s remit for discussion.
15.3 The meeting ended at 14.33.
Date of next meeting: 10 September 2003
APC Secretariat
July 2003
Annex A
Letter to Revd Professor Michael Banner from Bob Ainsworth Primates
Application 30/2033 Efficacy of vaccines and therapies for anthrax
Annex B
Letter to Revd Professor Michael Banner from Bob Ainsworth Animap
Procedures Committee recommendations on biotechnology
|
Back to Top