Minutes of Meetings - May 1999
Animal Procedures Committee APC (99) 3rd Meeting
Minutes of the meeting held on 12 May 1999
| Present |
Professor Banner (Chairman)
Professor Anderson
Mr Baker
Professor Bulfield
Dr Clark
Professor Clark
Professor Dunbar
Professor Flecknell
Mr Gregory
Mr Holland
Dr Jennings
Dr Langley
Professor Martin
Professor McNeilly
Dr Purchase
Dr Richardson
Dr Southee
Professor Turner
Mr Ward |
Home Office
Mr Wilkes
Inspectorate
Dr Richmond
Dr Anderson
Secretariat
Mr Bone
Mr Hartley
|
1. Apologies for absence
1.1 Apologies had been received from Professor Atterwill, Professor Broom,
Professor Johnston, Dr Suckling and Mr Evans.
1.2 Staff changes on the Secretariat were noted. Phillip Brenner would
be joining as an administrative officer. Roger Hartley was leaving shortly,
and this was his last meeting. The Committee thanked him for his contribution
to their work.
2. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 April
2.1 The minutes were agreed.
3. Matters arising
3.1 Minister's forum (para 3.2) Mr Howarth had written
to the Chairman about the Minister's forum and his letter and the Chairman's
reply were tabled at the meeting. The aim of the Forum was to allow the
Minister to hear a range of views, to start (or continue) dialogue between
the various participants, and to identify areas of common ground. The
Home Office acknowledged the Committee's status at the Forum - it was
set up by law to give Ministers independent advice and was not a pressure
or interest group.
3.2 The Chairman would attend on that basis to represent the Committee.
There was an open invitation to other members to attend also (though some
had been or would be invited separately).
3.3 The size of the audience at the form was likely to be between 60
? 100. No invitation would be extended to groups who supported the use
of violence. Action: members 3.4 Code of Conduct
(para 3.3) The Secretariat planned to have a draft ready for the next
meeting.
Action: Secretariat 3.5 Residential meeting
(para 3.7) The June plans were off. Possible new dates were 17/18th and
24/25th September. The Secretariat would circulate members for availability
on these dates. Action: Secretariat 3.6 The agenda
of the meeting was discussed. It was proposed there should be a report
from the working groups and from the sub-committees and discussion of
the future work programme of the committee. Possible invited talks were
on humane end points and endocrine disruptors. An outline agenda proposal
would be presented to the next meeting. Action: Secretariat
3.7 (Para 3.8) The Office of Science and Technology (OST) Biotechnology
Review was due to be published later in May.
3.8 Primates (para 4.2 - 4.7). Following the Committee's
agreeing advice and conditions at the last meeting, the Home Office had
licensed the kidney pig to primate application. The Secretariat would
circulate the documentation to members. Action: Secretariat
3.9 Hillgrove campaign (para 7.1). Some members took
the view that the material on the Committee being published by the Hillgrove
support campaign should be rebutted, as it was seriously misleading. The
Committee thought it was probably true that the minds of those who produced
such material could not be influenced. But it was still necessary to engage
with those who might read it.
3.10 Members concerned about their security should consult their local
crime prevention officer.
4. Work programme - APC(99)13
4.1 The Committee discussed the paper outlining its future work programme.
There needed to be greater precision about the detailed work and timetables
for it. The Chairman and Secretariat would set about convening groups
to discuss openness and the miscellaneous issues identified in the review
of the legislation - these issues too should figure in the work programme.
4.2 The fact that members of the Committee had met with other organisations
in the past year and intended to do so in the future should be included,
making clear that these were groups across the range of interests. In
1998 the Chairman had met with the British Union for the Abolition of
Vivisection, and had also spoken at the conference for Certificate Holders
organised by the ABPI (Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry).
4.3 Paragraph 12 should note that the Research and Alternatives Sub-Committee
was funding a project concerned with investigating environmental conditions
of primates during transit.
4.4 In future years, this note of the work programme should be made available
on the Committee's website.
4.5 The Secretariat would work up a revised version of the paper for
the next meeting. Action: Secretariat
5. Primate application - APC(99)14
5.1 The applicant and his research colleague had been invited to attend
the meeting so that they could answer a series of questions which had
been sent to them by the Committee. There was a lengthy and wide-ranging
discussion with them.
5.2 Among the issues discussed were:
the plan to deprive the animals of food for 22-hour periods
at the start of the training period. The experimenters said that the animals
would be able to feed to satiation once a day during this period ? any
which lost significant weight, or did not respond to training, would be
returned to stock and replaced;
the possibility of pain and infection as a result of
fitting the head chamber. The experimenters gave assurances that the
animals would be properly anaesthetised and infection (which they said
was unlikely) dealt with promptly;
the substantial periods during the work when the monkeys would
be akinetic due to the administration of MPTP (drug mimicking
the effect of Parkinsons Disease). The applicants expanded on the systems
of care they would have in place. The monkeys would be badly affected
? 3 to 4 on a 5-point scale where 5 is bed-ridden in human terms. But
they would continue to be able to groom and feed themselves and the
applicants would have control of the degree of akinesia. The monkeys
could be restored to virtually normal functioning by suitable drug treatment;
the transferability or non-transferability of any results from
the experiment to human beings, given differences in the brain
architecture. The applicants acknowledged that there were important
differences. It would be impossible to use results from monkeys to target
particular neurones or ganglia in a human brain, but the applicants
took the view that the fundamental anatomical information is transferable.
5.3 The researchers said it would be unethical to try obtain the information
they sought from work on human patients, especially given that the relevant
parts of the human brain are very close to the brain stem and the respiratory
centres. The applicants also argued that the record of success with this
kind of work in human patients improved on the success rate of rival techniques
performed in North America involving electrical stimulation of ganglia
rather than removing them. The American techniques produce far higher
rates of haemorrhage and other unintended damage and require repeated
follow-up.
5.4 After this discussion the applicants left the meeting. The Committee
then reached a conclusion. Members noted that the applicants had, within
the limits of the procedures they planned, shown concern for animal welfare
and had outlined a strategy for minimising suffering. The Committee had
been satisfied on a number of important points, and that the original
application had been refined. The Committee regards any proposal to use
primates in experimental work as deserving of careful scrutiny. On balance
it agreed that this application satisfied the tests set out in the legislation
and that the Chairman should advise the Minister that the licence be granted.
5.5 The Chairman would write to Mr Howarth accordingly. The Committee
thought this was the right procedure to follow when giving advice on applications.
Action: Chairman
6. Personal licence system - APC (99) 15
6.1 The Home Office asked for the Committee's views on the responses
received to the proposed alterations, and for any further advice it might
want to give about drawing up more detailed proposals.
6.2 Some of the points ? those raised by the BUAV and National Anti-Vivisection
Society were mentioned ? needed to be examined further. But it was also
suggested that many of the concerns raised revealed that the Act was imperfectly
understood, and that the concerns would disappear after more detail was
added to the proposals.
6.3 It was agreed that the Home Office would let the Committee see the
detailed proposals when they were formulated. Action: Home Office
7. Housing and care of gerbils and ferrets - APC (99) 16
7.1 There was a lengthy and detailed discussion of the draft addition
to the Code of Practice for the housing and care of animals in designated
breeding and supplying establishments. Doubt was expressed that the cage
size identified for the singly-housed 600g ferret was adequate.
7.2 In discussion members made the following points
- a team of experts had drawn up the requirements and that the size
indicated was a minimum;
- higher minimum standards were desirable since keepers would naturally
tend to go for the minimum permissible cage sizes;
- all cage standards were fairly arbitrary, and were only best guesses
as to what was adequate. Better information on animal requirements was
only just beginning to be acquired. Ferrets kept in the specified conditions
did not develop behavioural abnormalities;
- the draft Code was internally inconsistent, so that the minimum cage
size requirements were not consistent with other information provided
about ferret behaviour and requirements.
7.3 The Secretariat would seek any other expert advice that was available.
The style used for this supplement and the way that an expert group
had been established to produce it would be used when the existing codes
were revised.
7.4 The code for gerbils seemed more satisfactory than the code for ferrets.
Action: Secretariat
8. Sub-Committee Reports - APC (99) 17
8.1 The Chairman of the Education and Training sub-Committee reported
on the recent meeting of the sub-committee, and outlined the work programme
which had been discussed and taken forward in important respects. The
Chairman of the Research and Alternatives sub-Committee similarly reported
on the recent meeting of that sub-Committee.
8.2 The Research and Alternatives sub-Committee had agreed that it was
necessary to refer to the main committee the decision which it had reached
on a funding application made to it by a member of the APC. The sub-Committee
had not examined the merits of this application, but had drawn up a general
formula that "Applications from members of the APC would not normally
be considered in view of the need to maintain public confidence in the
openness and fairness of the award process".
8.3 The Committee discussed this (in the member's absence). Members pointed
out that the sub-Committee's formulation was not the standard policy of
most grant awarding bodies. The sub-Committee had been aware of this,
but believed that the APC was different, being a government appointed
body. The Minister was likely to be directly questioned on its activities.
The funds available were very limited, and an APC member would probably
receive a large percentage of them. In addition, many of the scientists
in the relevant field were likely to be on a Research Council. This was
not the case with the APC.
8.4 The Committee agreed to accept the sub-Committee's form of words.
It did not completely rule out an application being made by a member of
the Committee. But the Committee took the view that it is important that
any such application from a member be considered alongside others submitted
in response to a publicly advertised programme.
9. Draft 1998 Annual Report - APC (99) 18
9.1 Various substantive amendments were suggested and noted for incorporation.
Members were asked to send points about stylistic and other lesser matters
to the secretariat. Action: members, Secretariat
10. Revision of the standard licence conditions for designated establishments
- APC (99) 19
10.1 The paper was introduced and the significant revisions identified.
It was thought that the words 'wherever possible' in IV 6B were unnecessary.
It was agreed that the Home Office should reconsider this clause.
11. Any other business
11.1 Articles from the Sunday People had been circulated as an information
paper. If members had any significant concerns about the issues they raised
they should inform the Chairman and he would take them up with the Home
Office.
12. Date of the next meeting
12.1 The next meeting would be held on June 30th.
Secretariat
May 1999
|
Back
to Top