By ANNE BESTON
The names of hundreds of people involved in approving animal experiments are to be kept secret after a legal fight by a high-profile research institute.
State-owned AgResearch, the science institute at the centre of a number of controversial experiments on animals including cloning and genetic modification, appealed to the Office of the Ombudsmen to stop the release of information on people belonging to its animal ethics committee.
In what is regarded as a landmark ruling, Chief Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood has effectively cast a blanket suppression order on the names of all animal ethics committee members by deciding in AgResearch's favour.
Animal ethics committees are a requirement of the 1999 Animal Welfare Act and must be set up by any organisation carrying out research involving animals.
There are more than 40 throughout the country, each with up to 10 members. They are attached to universities, state-owned research organisations and private companies.
AgResearch animal ethics committee chairman Dr John Smith expressed relief at the ruling, particularly in light of an attack on an AgResearch scientist last year.
Dr Phil L'Huillier, a leading researcher on experiments using human genes in cows, had acid poured on his car and threatening phone calls made to his home.
He has since left the institute and is working in Melbourne.
Before he left New Zealand he told the Herald he had fears for his family's safety.
Genetic modification experiments on animals have a high mortality rate and often result in placental abnormalities, high birth weights, behavioural abnormalities and premature death.
The request for the committee members' names came from Dr Michael Morris, a Wellington man connected with animal welfare groups.
Dr Morris is out of the country and could not be contacted for comment.
A spokesman for the newly formed Anti-Vivisectionist Association, Mark Eden, did not know why Dr Morris had requested the names.
But he said it was likely Dr Morris wanted to match up scientists carrying out animal research with the names on AgResearch's animal ethics committee.
"These people who sit on these committees approve their own experiments and those of their mates," he said.
Secrecy surrounded animal research in New Zealand.
"Vivisectionists always use the excuse that we are terrorists and they will be harassed but we are not particularly interested in the names," said Mr Eden.
"We just want the people who do this work to justify it."
His group supported non-violent, direct action.
Mr Eden said there were a number of experiments his association had tried or was trying to get information on.
One was hip-replacement experiments carried out on dogs at Massey University that caused the animals severe suffering. Another involved research at Otago University that removed the inner-ear of guinea pigs to carry out tests on the animals' resulting loss of balance.
The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee's 2001 annual report said more than 300,000 animals were used in research experiments in New Zealand last year.
But the number of animals in the severe and very severe suffering categories was lower than in previous years.
The committee reported severe suffering by 195 sheep, 255 mice and 96 birds, and moderate suffering by 83 cats, 112 deer, 35 dogs, 26 pigs and 320 rabbits.
Green Party MP Sue Kedgley said animal research, particularly at AgResearch, was shrouded in secrecy.
"Why is there this great veil of secrecy if there is nothing to hide?" she said.
Requests under the Official Information Act for information often failed, even though AgResearch was a state-owned science institute.
She said she would introduce a private member's bill into Parliament forcing organisations such as AgResearch to release more information.
But Dr Smith said the Ombudsman's ruling was not just protection for scientists but also lay members and SPCA representatives who must serve on each committee by law.
"The SPCA were more than supportive because they're in the position that their nominees on these committees could become targets for protesters as well," he said.
SPCA chief executive Peter Blomkamp said SPCA committee members would have been "up in arms" if their names had been available to the public.
"They could be the target of rocks through windows or any number of other things," he said.
Auckland University animal ethics chairman Dr Don Love said no scientist wanted to cause suffering in animals. The approval process, particularly where the animal would suffer severely, was extremely rigorous.
"You really have to go through the mill to get the box ticked to go ahead with those ones. You always have to justify what you are doing. It's not as if it's open slather."
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
How to tell if your preschooler is autistic
New programme for preschool children about to be trialled in New Zealand.