Canadians for the Advancement of Health Research::. alternatives to animal research

Canadian Council on Animal Care

"The idea, as I understand it is that fundamental truths are revealed in laboratory experimentation upon lower animals and are then applied to the problems of the sick patient...It is plain nonsense." --- Sir George Pickering, University of Oxford, in British Medical Journal [26/12/64 p1615]

There are fewer restrictions to the use of animals, no regulations, and few stringent guidelines. The CCAC has written a very friendly set of voluntary guidelines that publicly-funded researchers should comply with, although it provides no real restraint to animal research. Animal protocols have to go through an external review board before acceptance. Researchers rarely embarrass each other by opposing their veto and as long that they do not harm animals unnecessarily researchers have their way. An institutional animal care committee puts the rubber-stamp on their application giving the impression that there is a honourable organization in Canada that protects laboratory animals from abuse; as it says, the CCAC contributes to the "ethical" use of laboratory animals and ensure that "scientific standards" are met. Under the labels "ethical" and "standards," abusive and unnecessary practices continue.

In theory, the CCAC can press the funding agencies to freeze research money but no scientist or institute has ever been penalized since its creation in the 1960s. Obviously, the CCAC members have vested interests in animal research and strikingly they are those who supervise and self-regulate it. CCAC members, include the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, which regroup companies accounting for 42% of the total medical research in Canada and spending more than $900 million dollars a year, Agriculture Environment and Fisheries Canada, Health Canada, the associations of dentists, physicians, veterinarians, the manufacturers of laboratory equipment, the suppliers of laboratory animals, the societies of sciences, the National Defence, the federal granting agencies and health charities are also represented.

One serious flaw of the CCAC assessment program is the confidentiality of information: No one let alone the members of the animal care committees (ACC) and the CCAC is supposed to know the research intended to be carried out in one particular institution. Members are supposed to respect this confidentiality.

According to the CCAC, confidential means that assessment information is private and not for general use. Despite its public funding, the CCAC is not covered by the federal Information Act and claims to act on behalf of all Canadians.

According to a former member of ACCs, in private laboratories, animal care committees amounts to mere "sops" as the priority is to push forward a new drug on the market, which has to go through a series of animal tests that the government requires.

In addition to the assessment of the protocols involving animals, the CCAC establishes a panel to inspect laboratories every three years, at least those of the facilities authorizing such an announced inspection. Once it has the information pertaining to the facilities, its on-going protocols and the data regarding the number of animals used, the CCAC schedules an announced inspection, and then discuss concerns and make suggestion to correct irregularities and non-compliance. From there, the institution has three months to be in compliance if the problems are important, six months if not, or otherwise granting agencies such as the CIHR can freeze research dollars. However, in three decades, the granting agencies have never frozen money because of non-compliance. The lack of transparency within the CCAC, in terms of accountability for the supervision of animal experimentation, shows a real concern that information could be criticized by the public. However, critic is a fundamental lever of democracy and the palpable paranoia affecting the animal research community is evidence that its position is not secured. In fact, they do not want the public to know so that no question is asked.

The CCAC and the government actively support animal experimentation and so far they have no intention to push for constraining regulations that would restrict the use of laboratory animals.

Make no mistake, the CCAC is the voice of the animal-based research lobby groups of Canada, as such it claims that a reasonable expectation to increase knowledge justify the use of millions of laboratory animals. As Canadian philosopher, David Sztybel explains "Reasonable expectation" is the lowest standard of justification and means absolutely nothing. It's well known that most animal data is useless and irrelevant to medical science.