Appendix

1. A formal written University policy on the use of alternatives to animals in teaching be developed and implemented by the Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) in consultation with Divisions that use animals in teaching.
2. The AEC develop and implement a policy on the re-use of animals used for innocuous procedures.
3. All AEC forms to be submitted to and maintained electronically on a database by the Research Ethics Office.
4. The Research Ethics Office maintain and update an alternatives database.
5. The Research Ethics Office develop and maintain an inventory of Computer Aided Learning (CAL) materials available and/or being used by teaching staff relevant to animal studies.
6. Each Division review its ability to meet future needs in terms of computer hardware for CAL materials into practical sessions where animals could be replaced and develop a coordinated approach and policy relating to this.
7. The Research Ethics Office organise an annual meeting for teaching staff to discuss the use of alternatives.
8. The Research Ethics Office maintain a file of relevant journal articles relating to the use and evaluation of alternatives.
9. Wherever animals are used, a clear link must be made between the objectives of the teaching session and student assessment at a time and level that is compatible with the objectives of the unit.
10. Animal use must be related to objectives and changes in animal use (either increase or decrease) must be justified against these objectives.
11. The Manager – Research Ethics to provide advice and support on the use of alternative materials and methods to staff who coordinate units that involve the use of animals.
12. The AEC, through the Manager – Research Ethics work with individual Unit Coordinators to address recommendations for reduction, refinement and replacement arising from the Review.
13. The Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) be requested to provide support to allow for investigation of integrating case histories, CAL and other interactive sessions to replace ‘harmful’ teaching sessions involving invasive procedures and the killing of animals.
14. Consideration of options to develop a laboratory animal handling course that does not require euthanasia of animals.
15. A standard approach be adopted for collecting and recording animal use statistics to satisfy legal requirements and to allow meaningful comparisons to be made.

2. Introduction

This review was requested by the University’s Academic Council and was supported by the University’s Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). The Academic Council at its meeting held on 11 November 1998 resolved to:

1. request the Division of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences and the Division of Science and Engineering to establish a joint committee to review the use of animals in every teaching unit and course component that currently uses animals, with a view to ascertaining whether or not the animals are essential to achieving the teaching outcomes;
2. ask this committee to report through the Animal Ethics Committee to Academic Council by mid-1999 on whether feasible non-animal alternatives are available.

This is the first review of this kind to be conducted at Murdoch University. A similar review was conducted at the University of Adelaide within recent years and several others including the University of Melbourne, University of Western Australia and the University of Sydney intend to conduct a review in the near future.

An external consultant with considerable experience in animal ethics and the use of animals in teaching and research institutions was contracted to conduct the Review over a three month period. During this time many individuals were consulted including teaching and other Murdoch staff, as well as teaching and animal ethics staff at other Australian and overseas universities and the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Teaching (ANZCCART).

At the time of the Review, there was a total of 36 teaching units, consisting of 118 teaching sessions with 2596 animals intended to be used with current AEC approval (see Appendix 1 for details). Statistics relating to the use of animals in teaching show a decline in the total number of animals used (see Appendix 2). This has not been a consistent trend where for 1995-1997, the number remained steady at about 2,000 until 1998 when the total number declined dramatically to less than 1,000. The number of animals used in teaching that are euthanased has also declined over this period. It should be noted that the total number of animals intended to be used in 1999 is much greater than for the statistic shown for 1998. One field study involves the estimated use of 500 fish species. Also, for some teaching sessions, Unit Coordinators will request more than is often used. To make a true comparison, the end of year figures for animals actually used in 1999 would need to be obtained.

Information was gathered for all teaching units involving the use of animals including number and type of animals used, nature of use, if comments had been received regarding the use of animals and details of alternatives considered. Unit Coordinators were contacted to discuss options for reducing, refining or replacing animals used.

Sources for accessing interactive educational programs were investigated and other teaching institutions in Australia and the UK were contacted regarding current animal usage and replacement of animal based teaching sessions with non-animal based methods. In terms of use of alternative methods, universities in the USA and the UK are generally speaking about ten years in advance of the current level of use in Australia. This has occurred for two main reasons – departments have been pressured to increase student numbers and to reduce staff-student contact time and there has been an increase in the number of students who have expressed concern at the use of animals to teach known facts or principles. Several excellent articles have been written in both scientific and teaching journals on experiences relating to the use of alternatives in universities in the USA (see Appendix 11).

Murdoch University has adopted the principles and procedures outlined in the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes as its general policy in relation to the use of animals in teaching. However, at the time of the Review, the University did not have a formal written policy on the use of alternatives to animals in teaching. Such a policy would provide a clear framework for teaching staff involved in developing and coordinating units to operate within. It would also demonstrate a firm commitment by the University to engender a philosophy of reducing and replacing animal usage in teaching. A number of other Australian universities have developed such a policy. For example, the Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) of the University of Adelaide has developed and implemented a policy to reduce and replace the use of animals for undergraduate teaching, as required by the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes and by State and Territory animal welfare legislation (see Appendix 9a).

The Review identified an obstacle to reduce animal usage in terms of the re-use of animals. Currently, the perception of teaching staff is that the AEC demands that no animals are to be re-used. However, the Australian Code does permit re-use of animals under strict guidelines and with the approval of the AEC. It is believed that an opportunity exists to reduce overall animal usage and to minimise the number of animals euthanased for educational purposes by implementing a policy relating to the re-use of animals.

Options for re-use should be explored for animals that are to be used for teaching especially those used for innocuous procedures such as observational studies. Specific units where such a policy could be implemented have been identified in outcomes from discussion with Unit Coordinators. The University of New South Wales has developed a policy on the re-use of animals (see Appendix 9b).

The initial stage of the Review involved obtaining information on each Teaching Unit. To facilitate this process, an electronic copy of the AEC application form for each unit was required. However, it was apparent that the University does not maintain an electronic record of completed AEC forms, only hard copies. This resulted in reduced efficiency of the conduct of the Review.

It is believed that there would be significant benefits by maintaining an electronic database (in addition to storing hard copies), as it would greatly assist in obtaining specific information relating to animal usage. The majority of AEC forms for Teaching Units were obtained electronically from individual Unit Coordinators for the review and could be forwarded to the Animal Welfare Office to develop such a database. (Amendments could be added to the form in the same document).

3. Scope

The Terms of Reference for the Review were agreed to by the working group. The main focus of the Review was to consider the use of non-animal based alternatives in teaching. However, it was also recognised that suggestions for refinement and reduction, as well as replacement may evolve during discussions with Unit Coordinators and that these would also be documented.

Non-animal based alternatives that were considered included use of in vitro techniques (e.g. assays or cultured cell lines), alternative animal models (e.g. invertebrates, protozoa), abattoir specimens, cadaver material, plasticised models, specimens (samples, necropsy material) obtained from the Murdoch Veterinary Hospital Clinic, tissues and/or animals used for research, interactive computer programs and problem based learning approaches.

• Ensure all teaching units that use animals have clearly stated valid learning objectives relating to the use of animals.
• Ensure Unit Coordinators responsible for teaching units that use animals, have considered the use of non-animal alternatives to replace or reduce the number of animals used.
• Determine if the continued use of animals for specific teaching units is essential to achieve valid learning objectives.
• Recommend an ongoing process to assist Unit Coordinators to be aware of and consider relevant alternatives.

The Review focussed on those units that involved ‘harmful’ animal usage. ‘Harmful’ animal usage was defined as:

• pain and suffering may be involved;
• animal(s) are being used and/or euthanased specifically for the purpose of learning;
• animals are continued to be used despite suitable, effective alternatives being available;
• teaching is conducted on the basis of questionable learning outcomes;
• actual animal usage (i.e. only concepts may be assessed and these could be gained through appropriate non-animal based methods) was not assessed.

4.1 Committee Membership

A committee, consisting of members with broad experience, was formed to oversee the Review. A member of the current Animal Ethics Committee was included and an independent chair was appointed.

Committee

Prof David Lindsay (Chairman) Faculty of Agriculture, University of Western Australia

John Bolton Senior Lecturer in Large Animal Medicine

Jim Reynoldson Assoc Professor in Pharmacology

David Macey Assoc Professor in Physiology

Kate Creed Assoc Professor in Physiology

Ian Robertson (AEC member) Assoc Professor in Epidemiology

Mike Calver Senior Lecturer in Ecology

4.2 Feedback Sheet for Unit Coordinators

A feedback sheet was developed (see Appendix 3) to assist data collection. A form for each Teaching Unit was partially completed with detailed information obtained from the AEC form. This was circulated to each Unit Coordinator to check the stated information and respond to additional questions primarily relating to teaching objectives, student assessment and consideration of alternatives.

Due to limited time being available and the need to identify high priority Teaching Units, a list of criteria was developed (see Appendix 4). Three categories of Teaching Units were identified (see Appendix 5) with priority being given to Units listed in Category 1. All completed feedback sheets were checked and discussed with Unit Coordinators for Teaching Units listed in Category 1 and 2.

Unit Coordinators of Teaching Units in Category 3 were only contacted if clarification was required – generally the use of animals involved in the units in Category 3 was clearly justified and acceptable.

4.3 List of Relevant Information Sources on Alternatives

A list of sources of relevant information (see Appendix 6) was compiled including:

• Web based teaching materials
• Web databases
• Websites
• Journals and books
• Distributors/publishers of educational materials

Due to time constraints this is not considered to be a comprehensive list. This list provides a valuable resource for teaching staff and should be maintained by the University.

A list of materials available through the Humane Society’s International Alternatives Loan Program was also prepared (see Appendix 7). It was noted that the Research Ethics Office did not have a copy of the book ‘From guinea pig to computer mouse – alternative methods for humane education’ published by Euroniche and that it would be useful for this to be purchased as a resource for teaching staff.

A brief inventory of relevant computer aided learning (CAL) materials available and/or being used on campus was also prepared (Appendix 8). This is not a complete list and should be circulated to relevant teaching staff so that a comprehensive list can be developed. Also, it is apparent that there is a lack of policy or direction on the use of CAL material in terms of required hardware and the use of internet available programs.

The Review identified that there is no coordination of the evaluation or use of alternatives. Teaching staff often work in isolation and may not benefit from others who have explored non-animal based options.

To improve efficiency and the opportunity to share knowledge and information, it is recommended that annual meetings be held for teaching staff who use animals.

4.4 Identification of Relevant Alternatives Appropriate to Specific Teaching Units

Due to the availability of a vast number of possible alternatives, and the limited time available only broad recommendations were made. These were based on a limited appraisal of material listed on various databases and websites, as well as journal articles and through discussions with relevant staff at other teaching institutions.

Alternatives cited included the use of computer aided learning materials, interactive videodisc material, the introduction of project based laboratories and the use of clinical case material. Over 25 journal articles were obtained, reviewed and have been kept on file.

5. Summary of Units Reviewed and Outcomes

Teaching Units in Categories 1 and 2 were reviewed in detail and in-depth discussions were held with each Unit Coordinator. It was noted that Unit Coordinators were in general helpful and cooperative in terms of seeking non-animal based alternatives. The outcomes from those discussions are summarised.

A key aspect of justifying the use of animals is the linkage between teaching objectives and assessment. Many practical skills based teaching sessions could not demonstrate this linkage. Thus it was suggested to several Unit Coordinators that a student/task checklist be used to record students who had satisfactorily completed specific tasks. It was also noted that practical session for some clinical units that were not currently assessed were linked closely to clinical units undertaken in the following year that were assessed.

Discussions with Unit Coordinators also revealed the need for greater support in accessing and evaluating alternative methods. The amount of material available is enormous and the diversity of using different methods that do not require the use of animals is vast. If one person could act as a resource person to provide advice and information relating to the materials and methods available for reducing, refining or replacing the use of animals, this would be both efficient and effective.

The response to discussions with Unit Coordinators has been very positive with all recommendations for individual units being accepted by the relevant staff. However, to ensure that these recommendations are followed through, it is essential that a mechanism is put in place to encourage this. It was also recognised that individual Unit Coordinators may require support to address specific recommendations and that this should be provided by the Manager – Research Ethics. Perhaps a progress report could be included on the

AEC meeting agenda until the end of 1999 or when all the recommendations have been addressed.

 It was noted that staff coordinating some pre-clinical units that involve invasive procedures will require extra support to assist in evaluation and implementation of some of the review recommendations. Other ongoing teaching and research commitments do not allow extra time to be devoted to exploring alternative options.

During discussions it was noted that a special topic had been developed for final year veterinary students on clinical physiology. Unfortunately this unit was not well received by final year students and has subsequently been abandoned but some of this material could provide ideas for incorporating clinical cases into the current veterinary physiology unit. It was also noted that there is an increasing number of teaching institutions that have successfully integrated a problem based learning approach to partially or totally replace animal based physiology laboratory sessions.

Several Unit Coordinators stated that students were keen to have more animal contact as part of their training, especially in the clinical years. It was also noted that there is limited animal practical work in the biology degree and that there was a lack of basic training in animal handling and understanding of basic animal needs. This could be overcome by providing a special laboratory animal handling session that could be incorporated into the animal physiology unit.

During the course of the review it was noted that statistics on the use of animals are a useful means of examining trends in the reduction of animal use. However caution should be taken when reviewing the figures provided in Appendix 2 as the method of collecting and recording these statistics has not been consistent over the period 1995-98. Consequently these figures have limited application. To enable future comparisons to be made regarding the use of animals in teaching, it is recommended that a standard approach be adopted and maintained for collecting and reporting these statistics.

The review also highlighted that several staff had implemented changes to reduce animal usage, particularly for those sessions that involved killing animals for teaching purposes. It was also noted that Murdoch is in a position to avoid having to kill animals specifically for teaching purposes. This could be achieved by exploring the options of:

• Using non-animal based alternatives.
• Only using animals for non-invasive procedures.
• Only using animals destined for euthanasia (‘ethical’ sources).
• Re-using research or other animals for approved procedures.
• Using tissues from animals killed for other purposes (ie research/abattoir).

In particular the Unit Coordinators involved in the biochemistry units had worked hard to eliminate the need to euthanase animals for teaching with further changes planned which will eliminate the need entirely. The Committee agreed that Murdoch was in a position to and should aim to conduct teaching that does not require animals to be killed specifically for this purpose by 2005.