All research involving animals in Australia (and that includes non-obtrusive observation in their natural habitat, right through to genetic manipulation and breeding in captivity with death as end result) must be reviewed and approved prior to commencement by at least one Animal Ethics Committee (if the research is being carried out by people from multiple institutes, each institute’s AEC will want to review the research). Each AEC must be comprised of at least one each of the following members: experts in medical research involving animals, veterinarians, animal rights advocates (such as someone from the RSPCA), and independent lay people (members of the public without links to the institute or to animal research or to animal welfare, e.g.: policemen, teachers, clergy).

The overriding question asked by all AECs: is the animal necessary in this research, can this research be done in any other way (i.e.: can this be avoided by using “computer modelling, tissue culture stocks, simulation technology and other alternatives”). The next question they ask: What is the bare minimum number of animals required for this research, can it be done effectively with fewer animals. As someone who has worked in medical research my whole career, and who has had much to do with research governance, these committees take their role very seriously, and they are very strict. There is legislation in Australia that means those who do animal research without the oversight of an AEC, or those not following the directions of an AEC can be prosecuted.

Animal testing of new drugs and new techniques is disgusting. It’s evil and everyone should be disgusted, and everyone should continue to question its need, and to monitor it – that’s what stops rogue “scientists” who don’t care. But please don’t be naive. Animal testing is a disgusting yet necessary evil. As a nurse you know that every single drug you’ve ever given or seen given to a patient, and every single technique you’ve ever used or seen used on a patient has been tested on animals. Drugs these days don’t get discovered growing on mouldy oranges, they’re thought up, designed and derived from their basic molecules in labs. The only way we can bring them to production is to clinically test them on animals first, then people. The initial testing can be done in vivo using cell lines, and there is certainly computer modelling involved, but the FDA and TGA won’t approve drugs without animal testing.

If people really want to effect change, get involved! I know the thought of reading about what’s done to the animals in great detail would scare the pants off most folk, but change is best effected from within a system. Get involved and fight the good fight. Keep asking the questions (of yourself and of others), and keep abreast of what’s happening, but be mindful that if you heap too much guilt on the medical researchers doing their job you’ll just scare off the “good” ones, and leave the crappy amoral ones who don’t give a shit, who will just obfuscate their intentions and not follow the rules.

So instead I will just say: death is a part of life. Few know that better than farmers and HCWs. Learning about death early, and learning to respect the dying are two things I really appreciate learning about growing up on a property. Often that’s all you can do, show some respect.

Andrew

Fortunately, it did not escape the notice of the National Library of Australia.

Ian’s blog has been duly recorded for posterity under the PANDORA (Preserving and Accessing Networked Documentary Resources of Australia) initiative.

Archives thereof can be accessed at the following link:

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/85443/20100704-0055/www.impactednurse.com/index.html

Please tell you colleagues!

By the way Ian, thank you again for your sterling efforts on that site – several medical students at TCH appreciated the blog and the insights contained therein.