Corporate report

Animals in Science Committee and Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body hub chairs workshop report

Published 10 March 2022

The Hub Chairs workshop was convened and held under the aegis of the ASC’s AWERB Subgroup. The views summarised in this report are those expressed by attendees of the workshop, and do not necessarily represent the views of the ASC. This report is not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, a policy statement or a work plan.

1. Introduction

1.1 The seventh Animals in Science Committee (ASC) and Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) Hubs Workshop was convened on 05th October 2021 via a virtual platform.

1.2 The aim of the day was to enable attendees to share and discuss key aspects of The Hub Network, 3Rs and the role of AWERBs, and projects which may involve Severe Suffering.

1.3 Workshop attendees included the Chairs of regional UK AWERB Hubs, or their nominated representatives, lay members of the regional UK AWERB Hubs along with several Named Veterinary Surgeons, together with members of the ASC AWERB Subgroup (SG) and the ASC Secretariat. The workshop was Chaired by Dr Sally Robinson (ASC AWERB SG) with presentations from Dr Jessica Eddy, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and Dr Penny Hawkins, RSPCA. The Agenda for the day can be found at Annex A.

1.4 This report sets out the key points and findings from the day. Presentations provided at the workshop had been made available to attendees to allow circulation within their Hubs.

2. The hubs – benefits, challenges and moving forward.

2.1 The aim of this first session was to provide a setting to facilitate open discussion about the Hub Network and how useful it had been over the past few years.

2.2 Ahead of the workshop the ASC AWERB SG had prepared a set of four questions for the Hub Chairs. These questions were then circulated ahead of the workshop in order to allow attendees time to consider their answers.

• i. What have been the benefits of the AWERB Hub during the COVID pandemic?
• ii. Have there been any challenges during the pandemic?
• iii. How do you see your Hub operating moving forwards?
• iv. Generally, how would you describe the value of the AWERB Hub Mechanism?

2.3 This session was restricted to AWERB Hub Chairs only and they were provided with an online tool to make comments as well as being invited to answer the questions verbally. The main themes that emerged from each question were as follows:

2.3.1 What have been the benefits of the AWERB Hub during the COVID pandemic?

• The primary benefit was that the network enabled communication lines to be kept open amongst AWERBs in the hub region. This facilitated the sharing of best practice and AWERB experiences during lockdown, from initial lockdown through to re-opening, being able to share ideas on new processes and provide support to other AWERBs. An additional benefit for widely dispersed hubs was that the use of online meetings enabled a much wider attendance at hub meetings than was normally possible. This pointed to a potential use of online or hybrid meetings as a future pattern.

2.3.2 Have there been any challenges during the pandemic?

• Planning – Several Hubs reported that scheduling time for meetings, proved difficult during a period of uncertainty and continuous changes. This also inhibited the AWERBs’ ability to look at future steps/plans, instead forcing them to focus on the present and short term. Revision of Hub membership was also found to be challenging during this time.
• Changes – The pandemic required a lot of procedural changes in many areas such as animal breeding, staff welfare and operations of facilities. These proved challenging to design and implement in the short amount of time available.
• One of the biggest factors during the pandemic was the availability of staff and resources to care for animals, when colleagues were absent due to sick leave.

2.3.3 How do you see your Hub operating moving forwards?

• The Hub Chairs’ future plans were focused on two areas: Meeting formats and Communication methods, grouped into the following ideas:

1. Moving away from just traditional meetings to shared platforms and exchange programmes.

2. Due to the variation in size of Hubs and distance between establishments, future meeting formats would vary from Hub to Hub. Some had chosen to remain with virtual meetings, and some were considering hybrid meetings. It was also suggested that the majority of meetings could be kept online with an annual in-person meeting in order to encourage networking.

2.3.4 Generally, how would you describe the value of the AWERB Hub mechanism? * The overall feedback from the Hub Chairs was of a positive nature. Hub Chairs felt that the network facilitated excellent communication between establishments within a Hub. * It was agreed that sharing of best practice was one of the main benefits, providing opportunities for Inter-institutional learning and providing mutual support.

3. 3Rs and the role of AWERBs

3.1 The ASC AWERB SG welcomed Dr Jessica Eddy from the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) to present on 3Rs and the role of AWERBs.

3.2 The presentation aimed to provide an overview of the NC3Rs self-assessment tools, which could assist AWERBs wanting to track, evaluate and benchmark their institutional 3Rs activities. A link to the presentation can be found in Annex B.

3.3 Presentation outline:

• Who are the NC3Rs Regional Programme Managers (RPMs) and what do they do?
• Putting the 3Rs into practice.
• The role of the AWERB in supporting the 3Rs.
• Assessing your institution’s 3Rs landscape.
• Why should AWERBs be encouraging the use of tools at their institutions?
• NC3Rs resources to support AWERB members.
• Points for further discussion.

3.4 At the end of the presentation attendees were invited to ask any questions, the following questions and discussion points were raised by Hub members.

3.4.1 When it comes to encouraging people to use the new self-assessment tools, some establishments had noted a reluctance to engage with the process. Opinions were sought on whether others had encountered similar difficulties.

3.4.2 NC3Rs had noted difficulties, including the issue of the time commitment needed to complete the self-assessment, which could initially prove hard to resolve There were also logistics issues if multiple people have to complete the assessment. NC3Rs were always working on improving the user experience, which results in regular updates (the last batch of changes were implemented in July).

3.4.3 Some establishments have attempted to address this with a 3Rs focus group, made up of key people including researchers and named people (NVS, NIO etc). The Lead User of the group leads the discussion, members then complete the self-assessment tool as individuals which are then submitted by the Lead User.

3.4.4 Regional program managers have recommended that the lead user would ideally have a senior role who could co-ordinate and encourage sub-users. However due to the busy nature of senior roles, this could also be a challenge.

3.4.5 Attendees were keen to receive any tips on how to familiarise others with the 3Rs and/or keeping up to date with resources.

3.4.6 One of the top tips recommended was the NC3Rs newsletters. Emailed out each month, they include the latest 3Rs updates and new developments. It would also be useful to look at the N3Rs website (see Annex B)

3.4.7 Attendees were curious as to how the Experimental Design Assistant (EDA) was being applied within other institutes. Regional Programme Managers hadn’t seen many EDA diagrams included in a PPL application, but where they had been included, they had been really useful, which was fed back by the AWERB. It could be useful as an example experiment to work out sample sizes and its use is encouraged for grant applications and project licence reviews.

3.5 It was noted that as the self-assessment tools were relatively new, there was not yet a large enough data set to allow for metrics to be recorded and reviewed. Neither could individuals be viewable by the NC3Rs, only simpler metrics.

3.6 The ASC AWERB Chair informed the attendees that the NC3Rs self-assessment tool could be useful when looking at how an establishment was fulfilling their licence condition around applying 3Rs. It would also be a good way for an institution to identify potential gaps that might be raised during an audit.

3.7 In summing up, Dr Eddy sought feedback on what more the NC3Rs could do to provide further resources and/or support the implementation of this resource. One suggestion was a newsletter directed at AWERBs, as a means to provide specific targeted information and reduce information overload from multiple sources. This could be further enhanced by having an area on the NC3Rs website dedicated to AWERB resources.

4. Severe suffering

4.1 The ASC AWERB Chair introduced Dr Penny Hawkins from the RSPCA who would be running the session on severe suffering.

4.2 The aim of the session was to provide Hub Chairs with guidance on how AWERBs can:

• Refine models to bring them to a lower severity limit where possible (Applies to other levels of suffering too)
• Were severe limits were required, ensure there had been robust discussion and a rationale that justifies their need.

4.3 The presentation covered ‘What AWERBs need’; Refinement; Commitments to address severe suffering; Roadmaps to reducing suffering; Causes of severe suffering; and Cumulative effects. A link to the presentation can be found in Annex B.

4.4 Attendees were invited to comment on the following questions:

• How could you encourage AWERBs in your region to develop initiatives to reduce severe (or moderate) suffering?
• Is anyone doing this already?
• Do you foresee any obstacles or issues?

4.4.1 One Hub Chair noted that their Hub had few AWERBs that deal with severe procedures but they would encourage AWERBs to develop initiatives to reduce ‘high moderate’ suffering, initially starting off by raising awareness of the resources and suggestions made by the RSPCA.

4.4.2 Other Hubs had successfully reduced some severe procedures to moderate through the sharing of information and only regarding a severe procedure as justified when every other moderate option had been explored.

4.4.3 It was noted that an issue that could be encountered was suffering reaching a higher level of severity than the anticipated level, leading to higher mortality rates. It could often be difficult to search and/or share findings in relation to unexpected mortality and suffering, even within a Hub. The RSPCA have completed some work on avoiding mortality (link in Annex B) which involves data-mining and looking back at welfare assessment records and protocols when unanticipated mortality happens. The aim of this being to potentially identify warning signs retrospectively.

4.4.4 Other AWERBs request that PPL holders submit a diagram that showed the full profile of an animal’s experience throughout a project; this could help the PPL holder articulate aspects they need to consider.

4.5 The last discussion was focused on issues affecting AWERBs and detracting from tackling severe suffering such as:

• Scientist/AWERB engagement
• Time and resources
• Facilitation of open discussion

5. Other comments

5.1.1 It was noted that AWERBs quite often run out of time in regular meetings due to the large volume of project licences to be reviewed. One way to try and combat this was to have ‘away days’ set aside for discussing topics not linked to specific project licences.

5.1.2 The RSPCA had noted some scientists were positive about their interactions with their AWERB, seeing it as a chance to improve their research integrity and address any ethical concerns, whilst others commented they felt that they were on trial, seeing it as a hurdle to jump (or hoop to jump through).

5.1.3 A suggestion to improve relationships between AWERBs and PPL applicants was to hold a pre-meeting between scientists and named persons within the AWERB members. This would help scientists better understand the role of named persons as well as the AWERB licence review process and give an opportunity to support the scientist in their application process.

6. Next steps

6.1 The ASC AWERB Subgroup would publish the workshop report and presentations from the day on the gov.uk website and AWERB Knowledge Hub.

6.2 The Subgroup would organise another workshop in 2022 and seek input from the Hub Chairs on the topics they would like to discuss.

Annex A

Animals in Science Committee AWERB Hubs Workshop

5 October 2021, 13:00 to 16:30

13.00 - 13.05: Welcome, introductions and workshop protocol (Sally Robinson)

13.05 - 14.00: Hubs – benefits, challenges and moving forward (Sally Robinson)

14:00 - 14:10: Break

14:10 - 15:05: 3Rs and the role of AWERBs (Vicky Robinson and Jessica Eddy)

15:05 - 15:15: Break

15:15 - 16:10: Severe suffering (Penny Hawkins)

16:10 - 16:30: Final thoughts and feedback (Sally Robinson)

Annex B

ASC Website

NC3Rs Website

RSPCA Website

NC3Rs Presentation

Severe Suffering Presentation

RSPCA – Avoiding mortality report