A recurrent responsibility of the President of the Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists is to respond to AVA members complaining of ‘‘transgressions’’ against animals appearing in the biomedical literature. These transgressions take various forms, for example: the misuse of anaesthetics and, or analgesics in laboratory animal species; the unethical use of client-owned animals in clinical veterinary research; the inappropriate use of control groups and placebos in pain trials, etc. That veterinary anaesthetists appear to be particularly sensitive to these transgressions is hardly surprising given their background, training and motivation. That they are likely to identify them is similarly unsurprising given their inclination to review both veterinary and medical journals on subjects ranging from the physiological and pharmacological sciences to clinical medicine and surgery.
What is surprising is that despite clear recommendations from the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) and other authorities, such transgressions continue to occur and continue to be published. There are at least two reasons for this. First, unless they have received appropriate animal training, which is mandatory for anyone wishing to obtain a personal license and conduct animal experiments in the UK, the editors of many biomedical journals, being non-veterinarians, do not have an inkling as to what constitutes appropriate standards of animal care. This unpalatable truth is readily confirmed by reviewing the ‘‘Guidelines to Contributors’’ of sufficient biomedical journals to encounter the inference in several that the welfare requirement of laboratory animals will be overlooked if the scientific importance of the study justifies it.
A second reason for the problem is the increasingly international identity of prestigious medical journals coupled with an increasing submission rate from countries whose cultures allow a different perspective on animal welfare than those of ‘‘developed’’ nations. In the past, it was easy for a journal with a clear national association to cite that country’s legislation in rejecting material describing animal abuse. This becomes less straightforward when the publishing house has offices in the capital city of a developing nation which has no animal protection legislation on its statute books. At the 2008 (London) meeting of the International Association of Veterinary Editors (IAVE) a presentation that I gave (REC) prompted a demand for a consensually formed, compulsory animal welfare element to be added to the ‘‘Guidelines to Contributors’’ of journals subscribing to the IAVE.
It was envisioned that this element would state unequivocally that any article describing animal abuse would not be published. It was also anticipated that all member journals of the IAVE would adopt these recommendations as a means of identifying and limiting the problem. In addition to continuing to emphasize the need to optimize laboratory animal welfare, it was hoped the guidelines would extend to the welfare of production animals, client-owned animals and those in public ownership, i.e. wild animals. (A more detailed description of the development of this project can be seen at http://www.veteditors.org/ethicsconsen susguidelines.html). The first draft of the consensual document was based on an amalgamation of the welfare sections of the ‘‘Guidelines for Contributors’’ from journals represented at the 2008 IAVE Congress. In addition, the Guidelines for Contributors from journals with a clear commitment to animal welfare were also studied and some of their requirements incorporated. The first draft report was circulated for approval by IAVE members in November 2008 and whilst it received widespread support, several editors felt it to be too prescriptive and strident in its demands for high standards of animal care in published material. An amended version was reviewed at the 2009 Seattle IAVE meeting and was amended once again.
