The following reports from the Internet show how the ethics committee system in Australia is, like the New Zealand ethics committee system, designed to serve and protect the vivisectors:

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:33:08 +1100
From: Lynette Shanley

Today I was informed I was sacked from the Microsearch Ethics Committee as an animal welfare representative. This is the first time ever in NSW and as far as we know Australia, that an animal welfare representative has ever been sacked.

Dept of Agriculture have advised me that the terms of reference that stated I was on the committee for three years are worthless. They don't mean a thing. Dept of Agriculture have also advised me that the Microsearch Foundation and indeed any other laboratory, Uni etc using animals, can get rid of any category C member and replace them with another one.

I had received phone calls at home from Microsearch asking me to resign as I had questioned many experiments and asked for more information on many experiments. I was too effective. I was advised I had to start approving experiments. However it was my job to get more information, ask questions,etc on behalf of the animals. Microsearch advised me if they had known I was opposed to animal experimentation they would never had appointed me and would have appointed another animal welfare person. I assume one that passes experiments. However whether I am opposed to animal experiments or not should not matter for as long as the experiment meets the criteria, the animal welfare reps have to pass the experiment.

The system it appears can be legally manipulated in favour of the experimenters. The press have spoken to me this morning. Two members of Parliament are interested in raising this matter in the NSW parliament.

The Dept of Agriculture is now carrying out an enquiry into the matter.

What hope do the animals have? This demonstrates ethics committees are a waste of time as far as animal welfare is concerned.

Sun Herald 15/2/98
Activists are trying to close down one of Australia's most famous medical research centres by pressing its sponsors with allegations of its cruelty to animals.

They have demanded the Commonwealth Bank, accountants Ferrier Hodgson, Macquarie Bank and others withdraw financial support from Microsearch Foundation, pioneer of microsurgery techniques. The Foundation enjoys the support of NSW Governor Gordon Samuals, Lady Sonia McMahon, former CSR chairman Allan Coates, Macquarie Bank's David Clarke, Ferrier Hodgson senior partner Ian Ferrier and Commonwealth Bank chairman Tim Besley.

The foundation used animal experiments to pioneer the replacement of limbs and digits by microsurgery, foetal surgery, fertility problems, nerve grafts, reversal of vasectomies, and tubal ligations, regeneration and microlaser surgery.

The activists' action was prompted by the removal of the International Primate Protection league president Lynette Shanley from the foundation's animal care and ethics committee. Such committees were set up by the state government to access animal experiments.

"I rang the minister for Agriculture Richard Amery's office and they told me that Microsearch said I had leaked information to the press". Miss Shanley said. "I have only commented about allegations made public by the government".

Its founder and medical director, Professor Earl Owen, said Miss Shanley had not been sacked. The committee had been unworkable because Miss Shanley would allow no work with animals, he said.

The Commonwealth Bank spokeswoman Lyndall Fraser said the bank was delighted to support the foundation. The foundation uses rats and rabbits in experiments.

End of article.

The system in Australia allows an experiment to go through even if I disagreed. The rest only had to vote yes. I raised questions about experiments which was my job. Does this mean all other animal activists in Australia just say yes to experiments?

I am not ashamed of being sacked

From: Lynette Shanley
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:50:59 +1100

To all who have emailed me. I was sacked. I have it in writing. I questioned the experiments. The committee got angry with me at one stage because I did a medline search and came up with evidence that the research would be useless. I was harassed at home by the Chief Executive officer, I was humiliated at the meetings. I never passed an experiment. That should not matter as all the others voted yes and the experiments went through. They could not stand being questioned about experiments. This research establishment several years ago was ordered to euthanase all their primates because of the condition they were in. They have been under investigation by the Dept of Agriculture since 1994. They are still under investigation. The Dept of Agriculture did two reports on the foundation. As a member of the committee I have the right to ask for these to start implementing changes for the better. As soon as I asked for them I was sacked.

The person who has replaced is a category C on the Dept of Agriculture's own committee. I have been told by someone that knows him personally he will not make to much noise on the committee. Experiments will go through without questioning.

I was told that to remain on these committees I have to just pass experiments, not ask too many questions and not ask for too many improvements for the animals.

When I looked into the faces of the rats and rabbits, and they looked back at me I knew I could never as long as I live approve an experiment.

I feel rats and rabbits are every bit as precious as primates.

Lynette Shanley
International Primate Protection League - Australia
PO Box 60
PORTLAND NSW 2847
AUSTRALIA
Phone/Fax 02 63554026/61 2 63 554026
EMAIL ippl@lisp.com.au

In New Zealand, the law states that "A suitable lay member may be included on the ethics committee…" and that "It is sometimes difficult to find a suitable independent well-informed lay person… An ideal lay member should be a well-rounded person, respected and trusted by the community…" and "Lay members may at times feel constricted by confidentiality requirements…". As Bette Overell discusses in Animal Research Takes Lives - Humans and Animals Both Suffer, "only the brainwashed or ambitious is 'suitable' to act as a public pacifier between vivisection and the public conscience" and "Why the confidentiality? If vivisection is ethically and scientifically valid, procedures should be heralded from the rooftops." (page 321).