No scientist could endeavour research with personal beliefs and sentiments but only with facts and ethics and in addition, of course, with hypothesis. The scientific community throughout the world does not repudiate the responsibility of treating laboratory animals in the most humane way. It is highly humanistic for any scientist who works with laboratory animals purported for science and development to comply with the ethical aspects of handling of laboratory animals.
Therefore, there is no grumbling over the procedures implemented by the CPCSEA (Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals) because they are deemed to be essentially workable and verily necessary. The problem is more with the functional aspects of the CPCSEA. For example, there is no consensus among the nominees with regard to complying with the terms of the CPCSEA and also there is no uniformity and consistency in guiding or instructing the laboratories for which they have been nominated as CPCSEA representatives. One could very well be astonished to note that a same kind of protocol that was made unacceptable and considered to be against the norms are approved in a different institution by the same nominee or different nominee. In some occasions nominees have been suddenly replaced by somebody else for the same laboratory without reason or notice. There is no one locally to turn to if one seeks guidance in decision making with regard to laboratory animal use.
Besides, not all nominees are uniformly well informed about the different aspects of laboratory animal use, starting from the classification of small and large animals, source and procedure for procurement, handling methodologies adopted for clearance of protocols, justifications and standard procedures during the conduct of the studies. There is inordinate delay due to the internal processes in importing of laboratory animals from the date of clearance by the IAEC. It is also glaringly obvious that there is lack of fund and coordination, especially at the local level. It is apparent by the fact that the position for CPCSEA-expert at the Chennai office has not been filled for more than ten months.
Take for example the need for skill enhancement and training in the area of laboratory animal handling. It is possible that a scientist who is an expert in a particular subject of science may lack concern (leave alone compassion) over animals. Lack of concern for laboratory animals is prevalent in many laboratories in spite of their technical and scientific excellence. It is a fact though unfortunate and that scientist should be educated on the ethical and humane aspects of laboratory animal use. Considering the fact that there are no local or national institutions to impart awareness and skill to an upcoming scientist on these issues it is the responsibility of the CPCSEA to fill this gap by identifying local resource centres or urging the industries to offer support. This eventually necessitates focusing on capacity building, not only for the scientists but for the representatives of the Committee as well.
Need for capacity building
Capacity building is a process that involves value added instruction, the training of trainers, activities with multiplier effects, and networking. It involves both institutional capacity building, as well as human capacity building (Capacity Building - Agenda 21, Chapter 37, UNCED, 1992).
Considering the prevailing condition of the office of CPCSEA, the issue of capacity building is critical and the scale of need is enormous, but at the same time appreciation of the problem is low. There are other perceived issues that additionally make the scenario difficult. The linkage between need and supply is found weak and also there is a lack of realistic funding. There is need for support for change that is basically dependent on political commitment. Further, training institutions that could extend support are isolated or estranged. Communication linkages are poor. Development of resource materials is inefficient or poor.
But capacity building does mean much more than training and includes the following:
" With regard to the human resource development aspects of the nominees the process of equipping nominees with the understanding, skills and access to information, knowledge and training that enables the nominees to perform effectively.
" Organizational development, the elaboration of management structures, processes and procedures, not only within organization of CPCSEA but also the management of relationships between the different organizations such as academia, industries and research institutions including animal welfare organizations.
" Institutional and legal framework development, making timely legal and regulatory changes to enable organizations, institutions, industries and agencies at all levels and in all sectors to enhance their capacities.
Emphasis could be made once again that it is not the terms but the conditions prevailing in the functionality of the CPCSEA that needs complete change as mentioned above under capacity building. While striving for implementing the ethical aspects of laboratory animal use is commendable the way in which it needs to be disseminated, made aware to the scientific community and gathering support from the stakeholders requires far-reaching vision and planning. It is disheartening to note that an initiative for the good cause of protecting laboratory animals gets stuck due to constraints of fund and political will and commitment as well as improper planning and administration. Should the changes happen as or beyond what has been suggested here let it happen by taking science and professionalism in to consideration through capacity building.
(The author is Sr. Research Scientist, Orchid Research Laboratories Limited, Chennai 600 119)
Email: amalanstanleyv@orchidpharma.com