Ch. 16— Regulation of Animal Use in Selected Foreign Countries • 371 
is now charged with promoting cooperation be- 
tween scientists, technicians, and animal welfare 
organizations; planning for long-term improve- 
ments in conditions for laboratory animals; pro- 
moting the development of alternatives, which it 
also funds; reviewing the work of ethical commit- 
tees; and working toward the efficient use of ani- 
mals by promoting cooperation among animal 
users (58). 
The 1982 statute also required the establishment 
of six ethical committees, one in each university 
region. The requirements were based on the pro- 
totype committee developed in Uppsala. These 
committees, overseen by the National Board of 
Agriculture, advise and consult on individual ex- 
periments and report to their County’s Public 
Health Committee. They have equal numbers of 
scientists, animal technicians, and lay people. 
The Central Veterinary Board of the National 
Board of Agriculture solicits nominees for review 
committees from each of six Regional Boards of 
Higher Education (that consist of university and 
political officials) and major animal welfare groups. 
Nominees are of three kinds: researchers, techni- 
cians, and laypeople. The animal welfare organi- 
zations nominate laypeople only. From the nomi- 
nations submitted, the Board appoints six regional 
ethical committees, designating a chair and vice 
chair; six regional subcommittees for secret proj- 
ects; and one special committee for military re- 
search. The special military -research group and 
the regional subcommittees for secret research 
were created to protect national defense interests 
and pharmaceutical trade secrets. 
Although full committees meet at least twice an- 
i nually, day-to-day application review is conducted 
by subcommittees, consisting of equal numbers 
of researchers, technicians, and laypeople. The 
technicians and laypeople are chosen from man- 
datory rotation lists, to avoid exclusion of any rep- 
resented interest, and each subcommittee must 
have at least three members. 
The applicant completes a one-page form, stat- 
ing the objective of the research project; describ- 
ing the experiment, with an emphasis on the use 
and disposition of the animals and the number of 
I animals of different species that will be used; and 
describing what the investigator plans to do to al- 
leviate and abbreviate suffering. When the sub- 
committee meets with the applicant, it may sug- 
gest improvements in the description of the pro- 
cedure, modifications to the procedure itself, or 
a reduction in the number of animals used. If the 
subcommittee agrees to the applicant’s proposal, 
it forwards a signed form to the central au- 
thority. 
If an applicant or a subcommittee member dis- 
agrees with the decision of a subcommittee, the 
application is referred to the full committee, which 
can call a session to review appeals. All subcom- 
mittee decisions are discussed by the full commit- 
tee at its regular meetings. A permit, valid for up 
to 3 years, is all that is needed to begin work. Re- 
review is required only if an investigator plans to 
conduct experiments more severe than those for 
which approval was granted. 
Precise data on numbers of animals used for vari- 
ous kinds of procedures are not available. Report- 
ing is only done in conjunction with the applica- 
tion process, although certain records must be 
submitted and others must be kept. 
The time required to obtain a decision varies 
from region to region. Two contributing factors 
have been identified: difficulty in scheduling meet- 
ings, and some applicants’ inability to use simple 
language, thus requiring extra time for clarifica- 
tion. To help remedy the lag problem, the 1982 
ordinance required a subcommittee to reach a de- 
cision within 3 weeks of receipt of the application. 
The 1982 ordinance also abolished the require- 
ment that experiments be grouped into the tra- 
ditional discomfort categories, thus eliminating 
needless discussion. Obrink, the architect of the 
voluntary review mechanisms, has expressed worry 
over the system’s potential, with increasing regu- 
latory emphasis, to become bureaucratized to the 
point where it sacrifices the objectives of ethical 
review for the sake of control (5,48,49). 
Switzerland 
Switzerland has probably gone further to pro- 
tect animals than any other country and recently 
came to the brink of going even further. In 1985, 
Swiss voters were presented with a constitutional 
amendment that read: "The vivisection of verte- 
brates as well as all cruel animal experimentation 
shall be forbidden in Switzerland.’’ The proposal 
