370 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
Board of Agriculture (unless conducted by the Gov- 
ernment). Vertebrates were ranked hierarchically, 
ranging from mammals to birds to reptiles to frogs 
to fish. The use of warm-blooded vertebrates in 
education at or below the secondary level became 
subject to approval, regardless of whether pain 
or suffering would occur. Animals used in labora- 
tories now must be bred for that purpose, and dogs , 
cats, and rabbits must be marked and various 
records kept showing their origin. Most responsi- 
bility for the conduct of experiments is placed on 
individual licensees and heads of licensed insti- 
tutions . 
Several changes were also made in how experi- 
ments were to be reviewed. These changes were 
based on a voluntary system that began at the 
University of Uppsala. A Laboratory Animals 
Board, established by the National Medical Re- 
search Council in 1965, was called on in 1972 to 
help the Council review grant applications. Draw- 
ing from the considerable expertise of Karl -Johan 
Obrink, a professor of physiology at the Univer- 
sity of Uppsala’s medical school, and of Lars Wass, 
a representative of the National Board of Univer- 
sities, guidelines were developed for both the orga- 
nization and operation of an ethics committee. 
In response to the Board’s request for a system 
through which the Council Administration could 
determine automatically whether a grant appli- 
cation involving the use of animals ought to be re- 
ferred for ethical review, Obrink and Wass pro- 
posed a scale of expected discomfort. Experiments 
causing little or no discomfort received little, if any, 
review, with other experiments receiving scrutiny 
in proportion to the pain they would cause. (This 
is not so different from other European systems— 
pain normally triggers review, and the reviewers 
would most likely take the degree of expected pain 
into account.) Other key provisions of the guide- 
lines include: 
• Members of the committee would be within 
easy reach of anyone planning animal work, 
even if the committee were large. 
• The committee would be composed of animal 
technicians and lay people, as well as re- 
searchers. 
• The day-to-day work of the committee would 
be performed by ad hoc subcommittees, 
formed after submission of an investigator's 
proposal to a member of the parent com- 
mittee. 
• Experimentation could begin immediately 
upon approval of an experiment by the sub- 
committee. 
• To protect an investigator's privacy, the com- 
mittee and subcommittees would be volun- 
tary only and would have no legal or adminis- 
trative authority. 
• Discussion between investigators and subcom- 
mittee members would promote increased 
awareness of research ethics. 
The prototype committee consisted of 30 indi- 
viduals, mostly investigators. Meetings were held 
frequently and applications were reviewed in full 
committee, with investigators present to discuss 
experiments and answer questions. 
With the election of a new National Government 
in 1976, the Minister of Agriculture decided that 
the Uppsala system, with minor modifications, 
should be introduced throughout the country and 
incorporated into the National 'Board of Agricul- 
ture’s regular system of experimental control. It 
was in place by 1979. 
As the laws have become more comprehensive, 
their administration has become more complex. 
The National Board of Agriculture has the broadest 
range of responsibilities . In addition to its involve- 
ment with the ethical committees and the Board 
for Laboratory Animals, it oversees government 
laboratories that use animals, approves plans for 
new facilities for animals, conducts inspections, 
oversees breeding and transportation of animals, 
provides a variety of forms needed for review and 
recordkeeping, and keeps journals of experiments 
that have been approved (59,60). 
The 1979 laws gave certain enforcement and 
administrative functions to the County Public 
Health Committee, with consultation and direc- 
tion with the National Board of Agriculture. Oper- 
ating somewhat independently of the National 
Board of Agriculture is the Swedish Laboratory 
Animals Board (referred to as CFN in Sweden). It 
has members nominated by Government (includ- 
ing the National Board of Agriculture), universi- 
ties, the Swedish Medical Research Council, and 
the Swedish Natural Science Research Council. The ! 
Board, most recently the subject of a 1982 statute 
