372 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
was rejected by a two-to-one margin. This law 
would have had a major impact on the three large 
pharmaceutical firms with facilities in Switzerland. 
Another, less restrictive referendum is being read- 
ied for Swiss voters, but may be 4 years away from 
a vote (74). 
The Swiss antivivisection movement has become 
particularly active, if not violent in recent years. 
Research facilities have been broken into, scien- 
tists sued, and untrue or overstated stories publi- 
cized (for example, that vaccines had no part in 
fighting infectious diseases) (72). 
Swiss scientists have not fought controls, and 
some have pointed out the benefits to good sci- 
ence-more attention is given to planning and 
scientists have greater incentives to keep abreast. 
Of course, there are also disadvantages to sci- 
ence-senior scientists must spend time answer- 
ing simple questions and there can be delays of 
4 to 6 weeks for licensing an experiment. 
An indication of the importance of animal wel- 
fare to the Swiss is the fact that animal protection 
is addressed in the Constitution, which recognizes 
the necessity for and utility of humane treatment 
of animals. Controls on animal experimentation 
in Switzerland are found in the Federal Law of 
1978 Regarding the Protection of Animals (as 
amended by the Ordinance of 1981 Regarding the 
Protection of Animals). 
In response to antivivisectionist pressures, ad- 
ditional guidelines were developed in 1981 by the 
Swiss Academies of Medical Sciences and of 
Sciences. These have been adopted by government, 
industry, and academia. Under the guidelines, a 
permanent committee was set up to review ani- 
mal experiments, and stringent requirements were 
set up for experiments involving severe pain— if 
the experiment cannot be modified to reduce pain, 
it must be forgone. Under the statute, any experi- 
ment that could cause pain to a protected animal 
or that would adversely affect its well-being must 
be licensed, whether conducted by government 
or by private institutions. Even where pain is not 
significant, licensing authorities must be satisfied 
that the expected benefits of the proposed experi- 
ment outweigh the adverse effects on experimental 
animals. Furthermore, animals that have suffered 
more than minor pain or anxiety may not be re- 
used (62). 
Licenses are issued to individual investigators 
for each experiment or series of related experi- 
ments. Licenses to perform experiments are issued 
by the cantons, or Swiss States. Special commis- 
sions must determine whether all legal require- 
ments and qualifications are met before a license 
is issued. Thus, the commission must verify, in each 
instance, whether the proposed experiment: 
• is essential in order to achieve the objective 
of the experiment, or whether alternative ap- 
proaches are possible; 
• is sound from a methodological point of view; 
• can be performed with a lower order of spe- 
cies than the one proposed; and 
• can be modified to reduce the number of ani- 
mals to be used. 
The conditions under which experimental animals 
are to be kept and used are specified in the law, 
setting standards for accommodations of differ- 
ing species, by size and weight, and prescribing 
care. Animal caretakers must demonstrate their 
competency by passing a Federal examination. 
Records of licensed experiments must be kept for 
a minimum of 2 years after the experiment ends, 
and they must be available for inspection by local 
authorities (77). 
Most licensed experiments in Switzerland are 
conducted by large pharmaceutical companies (74), 
with some work done by Government and univer- 
sities. In addition, a few private institutes do test- 
ing and research. The experiments' purposes fall 
into four major categories : research and develop- 
ment (87 percent); production and quality assur- 
ance (12 percent); teaching (1 percent); and diag- 
nostics (less than 1 percent). 
According to the Swiss Government, the three 
pharmaceutical companies used 36 percent fewer ; 
animals in 1983 than in 1976; the decrease between 
1981 and 1983 averaged 23 percent for all spe 
cies, with the largest categorical decreases occur 
ring in the use of mice (26 percent) and rabbits 
(25 percent). The authorities believe this indicates 
a general trend toward reduced animal use, since 
the firms involved account for about two-thirds 
of all experimental-animal use; one governmenta 
representative has said the decline was hastenec 
by the implementation of the 1981 ordinance (77) 
