Ch. 16— Regulation of Animal Use in Selected Foreign Countries • 369 
the appropriate authority, and the act forbids the 
display of animals other than fish (46,47). 
The act applies to vertebrates and crustaceans; 
it provides that animals shall be treated well and 
that due regard shall be given to their natural in- 
stincts and needs so that they are not in danger 
of being caused unnecessary suffering. Adequate 
care must be provided and many procedures can 
only be performed by a veterinarian or other 
highly qualified professional. Anesthetics must be 
used when there is reason to believe that a proce- 
dure may cause considerable suffering unless it 
would interfere with the purpose of the experi- 
ment, but such an experiment would require spe- 
cial permission from the National Experimental 
Animal Board. Experiments must be planned and 
carried out to avoid any unnecessary suffering, 
sometimes necessitating pilot studies. Destruction 
without delay is required where suffering after 
recovery will occur. Animals used in painful pro- 
cedures without anesthetic may not be reused in 
further experiments. 
The provisions of the act most applicable to re- 
search are its prohibitions on the use of live ani- 
mals for educational purposes, except as a neces- 
sary part of professional training. It also requires 
permission to carry out biological tests on animals. 
The purpose must be to diagnose animal or hu- 
man disease, test a hypothesis, produce or con- 
trol a product, or test medicines or other sub- 
stances for effects. Such tests must not inflict 
greater suffering than is strictly necessary to 
achieve the purpose, and licensees are permitted 
to acquire and use local and general anesthetics 
for this purpose . Inspection authority is broad, and 
anyone “willfully or negligently” violating the act 
or authorized regulations is guilty of a misde- 
meanor, carrying penalties of a fine or imprison- 
ment up to 6 months for the first offense, and up 
to a 1 year for subsequent offenses (47). 
The Experimental Animal Board, first appointed 
under the statute by the Minister of Agriculture 
in 1976, has primary authority. Its five members 
issue and administer regulations on obtaining per- 
mission for experimentation on protected animals . 
In 1985, the regulations were amended to pro- 
vide that no experiment on a live animal can be 
I carried out without the written consent of the in- 
stitute's or organization’s license holder. Copies 
of executed consent forms must be filed with the 
Board (20). 
Sweden 
Sweden’s approach to experimental use of ani- 
mals has much in common, both in substance and 
procedure, with that of the other countries of 
Western Europe surveyed here. For example, ex- 
periments involving pain or suffering receive 
greater scrutiny, anesthesia during painful exper- 
iments is generally required, and licenses are is- 
sued to facilities in which experiments are con- 
ducted. Its more unusual features are the close 
working relationships among scientists, techni- 
cians, and lay people (most often animal welfare 
advocates) at all levels of review and the complex 
system of ethical review, which divides responsi- 
bilities among many organizations and committees. 
The review procedures, which have evolved over 
many years, are being reevaluated by the Govern- 
ment. Matters being reconsidered include the ex- 
tensive use of laypeople (who often disagree with 
other reviewers); the use of small subcommittees 
(which sometimes disagree with full committees); 
and the limited review given to experiments that 
cause little or no pain (which leaves their aim un- 
examined) (57). Sweden’s active animal welfare rep- 
resentatives can be expected to vigorously oppose 
any changes that would decrease their input in 
the review process or that might reduce the pro- 
tections provided to animals (17). 
The first law pertaining to experimental use of 
animals, passed in 1944 (58), prohibited cruel treat- 
ment and governed care and transport of classes 
of animals. Painful experiments on animals were 
generally prohibited and experiments could be per- 
formed only in licensed institutions bv persons 
with established qualifications for conducting such 
research (64). Furthermore, anesthetic was re- 
quired where more than minor pain was produced , 
except where its use would frustrate the study's 
purpose (58). 
Several ordinances and amendments were pub- 
lished between 1978 and 1982 (59,60,61). They 
added both substantive and procedural require- 
ments. Experiments involving pain, suffering, or 
anxiety now have to be licensed by the National 
