Laboratory Animals
Increasing the welfare of animals used in
experiments
Results of our expert questionnaire on
the revision of Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of
animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes
16 June - 18 August 2006
We would like to thank the experts for their valuable contributions,
which will help us further in the preparation for the revision
of the existing legislation for the protection of animals
used in experiments (Directive 86/609/EEC). We especially
acknowledge your efforts, given the length of the document
presented for the consultation and certain technical limitations
concerning the data input.
A total of 283 replies, providing over 12.000 detailed
comments, were received to some 200 questions in relation
to the preliminary findings and conclusions from the on-going
impact assessment.
The main aim of the expert consultation was to receive
additional quantitative data to improve the impact assessment.
However, it is clear that, in addition to very useful factual
data, a number of respondents have used the opportunity
to convey political messages.
The results are currently being analysed by DG Environment
in collaboration with the contractor carrying out the impact
assessment which will then be completed, taking into account
the results of the expert consultation. Some of the replies
to this consultation will also help the Commission in its
legal drafting regarding the revision of Directive 86/609/EEC,
with the aim of improving animal welfare and the functioning
of the internal market in the field of animal experimentation.
Respondents had three options for their reply: they could
either state that they support the preliminary analysis,
they have no opinion in relation to the question or that
they do not support the preliminary analysis or components
of it. In case of non-support they were asked to justify
this disagreement by providing arguments, facts and figures
and, if possible, indicate the source of information. However,
a number of respondents opted for the "No" reply
also to supply additional arguments in support of the preliminary
analysis, or in cases where they agreed with the conclusions
but not with the analysis leading to the conclusions. This
will, of course be taken into account in our analysis, but
will slightly misrepresent the statistics showing support/non-support
for each question.
The preliminary analysis of the potential impacts on issues
such as scope, ethical evaluation of projects, ethical review
process at establishments, EU inspections, requirements
for training and competence and statistical reporting was
met with most agreement. The least agreement could be found
with the potential impacts and links between high animal
welfare and decreased risk of violent extremist activity,
on the prohibition to use CO2 and the basis of impact calculations
for the second generation purpose-bred non-human primates.
Results
The answers to the questionnaire are presented according
to the twelve subsections of the original expert questionnaire.
Each section contains all expert replies for individual
questions, sorted according to the type of organisation
(user, breeder, public authority, etc.). Within each of
these categories, responses are listed in alphabetical order
by the names of respondents and continuing with those wishing
to remain confidential.
The anonymous respondents have been allocated an individual
number which will help the reader to trace back in case
any cross-references were made. |