The NHMRC has released a new edition of their code on the welfare of animals used in scientific research. But there are few significant changes, and without any avenues for true accountability, the code works more for the benefit of research than the animals it is meant to protect, writes Monika Merkes and Rob Buttrose.

A new edition of the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes was released on July 23, 2013 by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), updating the previous 2004 version.

The code provides guidelines for the use of animals in research and teaching. Its purpose is "to promote the ethical, humane and responsible care and use of animals used for scientific purposes". The code is incorporated under animal welfare or animal research laws in all states and territories. In itself, it is part of a self-regulatory system and there are no penalties for non-compliance.

At the heart of the code, in the previous and the new edition, is the requirement to minimise harm, pain and distress to animals used in the laboratory and other research or teaching situations. All teaching and research activities "must balance whether the potential effects on the wellbeing of the animals involved is justified by the potential benefits". There is no explicit requirement that the potential benefits for humans outweigh the certain impacts (including pain and death) on animals, let alone that they greatly outweigh them.

"Balancing" is to be achieved by applying the 3Rs: replacement (not using animals where possible), reduction (reducing the number of animals used) and refinement (minimising impact). Nearly seven million animals were used in Australia in 2011 with numbers increasing here and overseas. Clearly, the 3Rs have not been taken seriously.

While the previous and the current version of the code are very similar, the new version has introduced an "obligation to respect animals". Lofty words cloud the reality of unrestrained use of animals for the purposes of potential benefits to humans, however small these benefits might be.

How could animal experiments like the following be justified: shaking lambs' heads until they die to test hypotheses about "shaken baby syndrome", breast implants in pigs, brain surgery on marmosets, and more recently, implanting false memories into mouse brains.

The new code has not addressed the secrecy surrounding animal research. Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) whose responsibility includes the ethical review, approval and monitoring of animal care and use, do not make their deliberations public. Even basic information about the research that has been approved, such as purpose, types of procedures involved or numbers and species of animals used, is not publicly available.

AECs are made up of veterinarians, scientists, people with a "demonstrable commitment to, and established experience in, furthering the welfare of animals" and community members. The latter two categories of people "must together represent at least one-third of the AEC membership", but they are usually in the minority. People responsible for the routine care of animals can also be invited on an AEC.

During the consultation period for the new code, many suggestions were made through public submission by animal welfare organisations, veterinarians and the general public that would have given animals better protection from distress, pain and ultimately death. Sadly, these did not make it into the new code.

A proposal that vets should undertake or supervise surgical and anaesthetic procedures in the lab was not adopted, no doubt as a result of vigorous lobbying by research groups. The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) also argued that a vet should be appointed by institutions to assist AECs with advice on compliance and oversee a program of veterinary care for lab animals. These measures, however, were also not accepted by the NHMRC.

In many of the submissions, there was concern about the vague wording of key ethical concepts in the code but sensible recommendations for change were ignored. So too were proposals to replace, in a number of provisions, the word "should" (strongly recommended but not obligatory) with "must" (obligatory).

Some groups involved in the consultation process criticised the NHMRC for failing to emphasise the replacement of animals where possible and to provide evidence that alternatives have been thoroughly investigated. Unfortunately, the new code continues to neglect this most crucial of the 3R's. As a result, many procedures and protocols that are cruel and unnecessary are still allowed. One wonders how genuine is the claim that "the principle of respect for animals now clearly underpins the Code of Practice."

Several submissions argued for greater transparency by institutions and more openness about what is actually happening to animals within their research laboratories. Far from mandating, however, that institutions make public annual reports of compliance and summaries of external reviews , the new code only states that they "should consider" doing so.

Community views on animal experimentation are changing. In recent years, the opposition to animal use in research has increased in Australia (and also in the UK and the USA). This is not reflected in the new code, which provides as little protection to animals as the previous version.

It is our view that self-regulation of the animal research community is too weak and not being properly complied with - otherwise we would see the number of animals used in research and teaching decline rather than increase - and that the new code still does not address the utter lack of transparency and secrecy around the use of animals in research.

The true purpose of the code is to legitimise the interests of the industry rather than the purported support and safeguard of animal wellbeing.

Dr Monika Merkes is a social researcher and policy consultant based in Melbourne. She is a member of the Humane Research Australia advisory panel. View her full profile here. Rob Buttrose has a background in philosophy and computer science. View his full profile here.

Commenters on Drum articles might have noticed that over the past several weeks we have had numerous "service unavailable" errors. We are working with our technology department to resolve this and apologise for the inconvenience.