Letter to the Editor Animal Ethics Committees: Reassurances Rejected

The ethical and legal framework governing animal experi-mentation in Australia has changed little since 1990 despite the publication of new editions of the Code of Practice. The latest Code was published in 2012, again with minimal change. The problems which I outline apply to all editions of the Code from 1990 to the present. Allen and Halligan pick up on the frame-work for the 2004 Code suggesting that my criticisms relate to the period before 2004. My acquaintance with the workings of Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) and the various codes spans a long period pre-dating 2004 and extending to the pres-ent. I chose to direct my article to the 2004 Code given that it was current at the time of writing. I note that Allen and Hal-ligan do likewise. There are in fact no changes affecting our points of disagreement in the 2012 edition. I argued in my article that there has been uneven compliance with the appointment of independent community members to the Animal Ethics Committees. It is heartening to see that the University of Sydney does comply. My own university only re-cently changed its practice. Until 2011 the category D position was filled by a philosopher employed by the University. I do not share the optimism expressed by Allen and Halligan that if one third of the committee is made of up of either animal welfare or community members not involved in animal research then this “ensures that community values have the opportunity to emerge. ” These members may well feel intimated to questio