 |
|
| A new proposal in the U.K. would require scientists there to assess and report the pain and distress felt by animals used in research. ©istock.com |
|
All animal experiments are not created equal. Some cause a high degree of physical pain and/or emotional distress to the animals involved. Some cause much less.
Currently, though, there is no way to calculate how much the animals used in research suffer because scientists in the United States and the United Kingdom are not obligated to assess or document the level of pain or distress animals experience when they are used in experiments.
But, if it becomes law, a recent proposal by the UK's Animal Procedures Committee and Laboratory Animal Science Association would require British scientists to do just that. Under the current system, when scientists apply for a license they must estimate whether their proposed experiment would likely cause "mild, moderate or substantial" pain and distress to the animals involved, but they are not required to report the actual level of suffering that the animals experienced.
United States researchers are also not required to record the level of suffering of the animals in their care during any phase of an experiment. They only need to report whether or not the animals received anesthetics, analgesics or tranquilizing drugs, medications which largely address pain but do not acknowledge distress that is not caused by pain.
Since the 1990's, The HSUS has repeatedly called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to implement a reporting system to document pain and distress experienced by animals in research, similar to the one proposed in the U.K and already in use in other countries, such as Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The categories in the HSUS-proposed system—mild, moderate, and severe—would reflect the intensity and duration of pain and distress, the effectiveness of the relief, and the timeliness of the relief. The current U.S. system misleads the public to believe that animals used in research experience far less pain and distress then they actually do.
The USDA (under its authority to enforce the Animal Welfare Act) responded to The HSUS's 2000 proposal with a similar proposal to modify its own widely criticized pain and distress categorization system. The agency seized on the initiative, describing as an important project, but in the last eight years, the USDA has failed to act. This, despite HSUS documentation of a near consensus from the research community on the need for a changed system.
"We need a better reporting system on animal suffering not only for greater transparency on this fundamental issue, but also for the research and animal protection communities to determine which procedures cause the most pain and distress and then to refine those procedures for the sake of animal welfare and good science" says Kathleen Conlee, director of program management for animal research issues at The HSUS.
