Comments on the Sub-group Reports of the EU Technical Expert Working Group on the Revision of Directive 86/609/EEC on the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes
Restricted accessOtherFirst published online March, 2007
Comments on the Sub-group Reports of the EU Technical Expert Working Group on the Revision of Directive 86/609/EEC on the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes
A critical analysis is presented of the reports produced by four Technical Expert Working Group Sub-groups (SGs) on Ethical Review, Cost–Benefit, Authorisation and Scope, which were published on the EC website (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/ia_info_en.htm), as part of the European Commission (EC)'s review of EU Directive 86/609 EEC. This is in addition to our official response to the internet consultation questionnaire, submitted to the Commission on behalf of FRAME. Whilst the respective SG reports were extensive and detailed, we have identified several shortcomings, and in particular, a frequent lack of consensus among the SG members, resulting in a lack of clear guidance for the EC on what the revised Directive should contain, with reference to a number of crucial issues. Such indecisiveness could lead to wide discrepancies in the approaches of the EC, the European Parliament and the EU Member States concerning many issues of importance to animal welfare and the implementation of alternatives to animal experiments. These concerns range from logistical issues, such as requirements for named officers in authorised establishments, and the recording and publishing of statistics on animal use, to ethical and scientific problems, including the use of non-human primates, local ethical review, and education and training on the essential link between the Three Rs concept and best scientific practice. In each case, the basis for our concerns is explained, and suggestions for improvements to be incorporated into the revised Directive are made, in the hope that the harmonisation of approaches to laboratory animal experimentation and the use of alternative methods in the Member States can be maximised.
Anon. (1986). Council Directive of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL358, 1–29.
Anon. (2006). Laboratory Animals. Public Consultation on the Revision of Directive 86/609/EEC on the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, 16 June–18 August 2006. Website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/questionnaire2.htm (Accessed 26.10.06).
4.
BallsM., & CombesR. (2000). Promoting the Three Rs: actions speak louder than words. ATLA28, 741–742.
5.
BallsM. (2004). The need for recommitment to the Three Rs and to serving together in the middle ground. ATLA32, 1–3.
6.
BallsM. (2006). The Three Rs: Looking Back… and Forward. ALTEX23 Special Issue, 29–32.
7.
BallsM. (2006). Animal Experimentation: should the Three Rs be abandoned?ATLA34, 139–141.
8.
BallsM., & CombesR. (2006). Applying the Three Rs to animal experimentation and animal testing: are we merely drifting or lying at anchor?ATLA34, 1–2.
9.
de VisserL., van den BosR., KuurmanW.W., KasM.J.H., & SpruijtB.M. (2006). Novel approach to the behavioural characterization of inbred mice: automated home cage observations. Genes, Brain and Behaviour5, 458–466.
10.
CloseB., BanisterK., BaumansV., BernothEM., BromageN., BunyanJ., ErhardtW., FlecknellP., GregoryN., HackbarthH., MortonD., & WarwickC. (1997). Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals. Part 2. Laboratory Animals31, 1–32.
CombesR.D. (2004). The use of human cells in biomedical research and testing. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 43–49.
13.
Anon. (1986). European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes.51 pp. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
14.
GrindonC., & BhogalN. (2005). The fourth EC report on the statistics of laboratory animal use: trends, recommendations and future prospects. ATLA33, 417–426.
15.
BhogalN., GrindonC., CombesR., & BallsM. (2005). Toxicity testing: creating a revolution based on new technologies. Trends in Biotechnology23, 299–307.
16.
JochemsC.E.A., van der ValkJ.B.F., StafleuF.R., & BaumansV. (2002). The use of fetal bovine serum: ethical or scientific problem?ATLA30, 219–227.
PazosP., BoveriM., GennariA., CasadoJ., FernandezF., & PrietoP. (2004). Culturing cells without serum: lessons learnt using molecules of plant origin. ALTEX21, 67–72.
19.
WilkinsonP.J., & ClothierR.H. (2005). Comparison of an animal product free medium and normal growth supplement on growth and barrier integrity of a human corneal epithelial cell line. ATLA33, 509–518.
20.
DolanK. (2000). Laboratory Animal Law.232 pp. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
21.
GraysonL. (2000). Animals in Research — For and Against.320 pp. London, UK: The British Library.
22.
FioritoG., & ScottoP. (1992). Observational learning in Octopus vulgaris.Science, New York256, 545–547.
MellorD.J., DieschT.J., GunnA.J., & BennetL. (2005). The importance of ‘awareness’ for understanding fetal pain. Brain Research Reviews49, 455–471.
25.
MellorD.J., & DieschT.J. (2006). Onset of sentience: the potential for suffering in fetal and newborn farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science100, 48–57.
26.
MellorD.J., & GregoryN.G. (2003). Responsiveness, behavioural arousal and awareness in fetal and newborn lambs: experimental, practical and therapeutic implications. New Zealand Veterinary Journal51, 2–13.
27.
LeeS.J., RalstonH.J.P., DreyE.A., PartridgeJ.C., & RosenM. A. (2005). Fetal pain. A systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association294, 947–954.
Anon. (2006). Guidelines for the Humane Transportation of Research Animals.141 pp. Washington, DC, USA: Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR). Website http://orsted.nap.edu/open-book.php?record_id=11557&page=R1 (Accessed 26.10.06).
30.
BhogalN., HudsonM., BallsM., & CombesR.D. (2005). The use of non-human primates in biological and medical research: Evidence submitted by FRAME to the Academy of Medical Sciences/Medical Research Council/Royal Society/Wellcome Trust Working Group. ATLA33, 519–527.
Anon. (2002). The Use of Primates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986): Analysis of Current Trends with Particular Reference to Regulatory Toxicology. APC Primates Sub-Committee Report. 39 pp. Website www.apc.gov.uk/reference/primates.pdf (Accessed 26.10.04).
33.
HowardB.R. (2002). The control of variability. ILAR Journal43, 194–201.
34.
FestingM.F.W. (1990). Contemporary issues in toxicology: Use of genetically heterogeneous rats and mice in toxicological research: A personal perspective. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology102, 197–204.
35.
StandelP.R. (1988). The effect of transportation stress on splenic natural killer cell activity in C57BL/6J mice. Laboratory Animal Science38, 557.
36.
Anon. (2005). Guidelines for the Transport of Laboratory Animals. Supplementary Information for Those Transporting Animals Within or Through the UK. 5 pp. Produced by the Transport Working Group established by the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA). Tamworth, Staffs., UK: LASA.
37.
BallsM. (1995). Chimpanzee medical experiments: moral, legal and scientific concerns. ATLA23, 607–614.
38.
HudsonM., BhogalN., & BallsM. (2005). The use of non-human primates in regulatory toxicology: Comments submitted by FRAME to the Home Office. ATLA33, 529–540.
39.
Anon. (2002). The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research and Testing.59 pp. Southsea, Hants., UK: The Boyd Group. Website www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/ (Accessed 26.10.04).
40.
MartinM.J., RaynerJ.C., GagneuxP., BarnwellJ.W., & VarkiA. (2005). Evolution of human-chimpanzee differences in malaria susceptibility: Relationship to human genetic loss of N-glycolylneuraminic acid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA102, 12819–12824.
41.
BallsM. (2006). Primates in medical research: the plot thickens. ATLA34, 271–272.
42.
Anon. (2003). Animal Procedures Committee — Review of the Cost–Benefit Assessment in the Use of Animals in Research.106 pp. London, UK: Home Office.
43.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique.238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.
44.
BallsM., GoldbergA.M., FentemJ.H., BroadheadC.L., BurchR.L., FestingM.F.W., FrazierJ.M., HendriksenC.F.M., JenningsM., van der KampM.D.O., MortonD.B., RowanA.N., RussellC., RussellW.M.S., SpielmannH., StephensM.L., StokesW.S., StraughanD.W., YagerJ.D., ZurloJ., & van ZutphenB.F.M. (1995). The Three Rs: The way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 11. ATLA23, 838–866.
45.
FestingM.F.W. (1994). Reduction of animal use: experimental design and quality of experiments. Laboratory Animals28, 212–221.
46.
FestingM.F.W., BaumansV., CombesR.D., HalderM., HendriksenC.F.M., HowardB.R., LovellD.P., MooreG.J., OverendP., & WilsonM.S. (1998). Reducing the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research: problems and possible solutions. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 29. ATLA26, 283–301.
47.
FlecknallP.A. (1994). Refinement of animal use — assessment and alleviation of pain and distress. Laboratory Animals28, 222–231.
CombesR.D. (1999). New measures on animal experimentation in the UK will improve animal welfare and scientific research. ATLA27, 309–316.
50.
PooleT. (1997). Happy animals make good science. Laboratory Animals31, 116–124.
51.
Buchanan-SmithH.M., RennieA.E., VitaleA., PolloS., PrescottM.J., & MortonD.B. (2005). Harmonising the definition of refinement. Animal Welfare14, 379–384.
52.
BalcombeJ.P., BarnardN.D., & SanduskyC. (2004). Laboratory routines cause animal stress. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science43, 42–51.
53.
AugustssonH., van de WeerdH.A., KruitwagenC.L.J.J., & BaumansV. (2003). Effect of enrichment on variation and results in the light/dark test. Laboratory Animals37328–340.
54.
DamonE.G., EidsonA.F., HobbsC.H., & HahnF.F. (1986). Effect of acclimatisation to caging on nephrotoxic response of rats to uranium. Laboratory Animal Science36, 24–27.
55.
HocklyE., CorderyP.M., WoodmanB., MahalA., Van DellenA., BlakemoreC., LewisC.M., HannanA.J., & BatesG.P. (2002). Environmental enrichment slows disease progression in R6/2 Huntington's disease mice. Annals of Neurology51, 235–242.
56.
KuhnenG. (1999). The effect of cage size and enrichment on core temperature and febrile response of the golden hamster. Laboratory Animals33, 221–227.
57.
MoonsC.P., Van WieleP., & OdbergF.O. (2004). To enrich or not to enrich: providing shelter does not complicate handling of laboratory mice. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science43, 18–21.
58.
TsaiP.P., StelzerH.D., HedrichH.J., & HackbarthH. (2003). Are the effects of different enrichment designs on the physiology and behaviour of DBA/2 mice consistent?Laboratory Animals37, 314–327.
59.
Van de WeerdH.A., AarsenE.L., MulderA., KruitwagenC.L.J.J., HendriksenC.F.M., & BaumansV. (2002). Effects of environmental enrichment for mice on variation in experimental results. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science5, 87–108.
60.
WurbelH. (2001). Ideal homes? Housing effects on rodent brain and behaviour. Trends in Neurosciences24, 207–211.
FestingM.F.W. (2004). Good experimental design and statistics can save animals, but how can it be promoted?ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 133–135.
63.
FestingM.F.W., & LovellD.P. (1996). Reducing the use of laboratory animals in toxicological research and testing by better experimental design. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society68, 127–140.
64.
FestingM.F.W. (1996). Are animal experiments in toxicological research the “right” size? In: Statistics in Toxicology, (ed. MorganB.J.T.), pp. 3–11. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
65.
CombesR., SchechtmanL., StokesW.S., & BlakeyD. (2002). The international symposium on regulatory testing and animal welfare: recommendations on best scientific practices for subchronic/chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity testing. ILAR Journal43, Suppl., S112–S117.
66.
MorrisT., GouletS., & MortonD. (2002). The international symposium on regulatory testing and animal welfare: recommendations on best scientific practices for animal care in regulatory toxicology. ILAR Journal43, Suppl., S123–S125.
67.
BottrillK. (2002). Information: Needs for the future. ATLA30, Suppl. 2, 145–149.
68.
Janusch-RoiA. (2002). The ECVAM Scientific Information Service (SIS). ATLA30, Suppl. 2, 141–143.
69.
JanuschA., van der KampM.D.O., BottrillK., GruneB., AndersonD.C., EkwallB., HowaldM., KolarR., KuiperH.J.D., LarsonJ., LoprienoG., SauerU.G., SmithA.J., & van der ValkJ.B.F. (1997). Current status and future developments of databases on alternative methods. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 25. ATLA25, 411–422.
70.
LibowitzL. (2004). Information providers, resources, tools and databases. Proposal for International Recognition, Support and Cooperation with the Internet Clearinghouse on the Three Rs. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 583–584.
71.
HakkinenP.J., & GreenD.K. (2002). Alternatives to animal testing: information resources via the internet and world wide web. Toxicology173, 3–11.
72.
BottrillK. (2004). Search strategies on the internet: general and specific. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 585–589.
73.
BottrillK. (1999). Seeking information on the Three Rs — more than just a legal burden. ATLA27, 215–218.
74.
LangleyG., BroadheadC., BottrillK., CombesR., EwbankR., HawkinsP., HubrechtR., JenningsM., NewmanC., RoweS., SoutheeJ., ToddM., & WardL. (1999). Accessing information on the reduction, refinement and replacement of animal experiments. The report and recommendations of a Focus on Alternatives workshop. ATLA27, 239–245.
75.
BottrillK., & HugginsJ. (2000). Keywords for use with alternatives. In Developments in Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 31B: Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.), pp. 1737–1739. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
76.
StraughanD.W. (1994). First European Commission report on statistics of animal use. ATLA22, 289–292.
77.
SauerU.G., & KolarR. (2000). Developments in the collection of statistical information on the number of animals used in experiments and other scientific purposes in the European Union. ATLA28, 133–145.
78.
GrindonC. (2005). The fourth EU report on laboratory animal use — is it sufficiently revealing?ATLA33, 1–2.
79.
CombesR.D. (2001). Why the US Department of Agriculture should be allowed to insist on inclusion of rodents and birds in the animal welfare act. ATLA29, 85–88.
80.
SmithJ.A., & BoydK.M. (eds.) (1991). Lives In The Balance — The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research.352 pp. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
81.
Anon. (2005). The Ethics of Research Involving Animals: The Report of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. XXVI + 335 pp. London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
82.
JenkinsE.S., & CombesR.D. (2000). FRAME's response to an APC questionnaire on emerging biotechnologies and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.ATLA28, 333–338.
83.
JenkinsE.S., & CombesR.D. (2002). A critique of the Animal Procedures Committee report on biotechnology. ATLA30, 131–134.
84.
Anon. (1995). Ethical Review of Research Involving Animals: A Role for Institutional Ethics Committees?7 pp. Southsea, Hants., UK: Boyd Group. Website www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/ethicscomms.htm (Accessed 26.10.04).
85.
DelpireV., ShawD., CrillyR.E., MephamT.B., CombesR.D., & BallsM. (1998). A comprehensive evaluation of procedures involving the use of transgenic animals within the European Union. In The Ethics of Animal Experimentation: Proceedings of the European Congress held on 17–18 December 1996 at the Palais des Congres, Brussels (ed. O'DonoghueP.N.), pp. 223–228. London, UK: EBRA.
86.
JenkinsE.S., & FrancisR.F. (1999). New guidance notes for projects generating or maintaining genetically modified animals. ATLA27, Suppl. 1, 883–902.
87.
RobinsonV., MortonD.B., AndersonD., CarverJ.F.A., FrancisR.J., HubrechtR., JenkinsE., MathersK.E., RaymondR., RoswellI., WallaceJ., & WellsD.J. (2003). Refinement and reduction in production of genetically modified mice. Laboratory Animals37, Suppl. 1, 1–51.
88.
BhogalN., & CombesR. (2006). The relevance of genetically altered mouse models of human disease. ATLA34, 429–454.
89.
CombesR.D. (2003). The mouse bioassay for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. A gross misuse of laboratory animals and of scientific methodology. ATLA31, 595–610.
90.
HudsonM. (2004). Home Office project licence information goes online: increased transparency about animal experiments or a mere attempt to silence critics. ATLA32, 537–538.
91.
HudsonM. (2006). Recommendations for improving the Home Office Project Licence Abstracts. ATLA34, 241–254.
92.
BottrillK., BonassiS., & LenazG. (2000). The use of biomarkers. In Developments in Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 31B: Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation, (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.), pp. 1621–1623. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
93.
BottrillK. (1998). The use of biomarkers as alternatives to current animal tests on food chemicals. ATLA26, 421–480.
94.
HudsonM., & BhogalN. (2006). An analysis of the Home Office Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2004. ATLA34, 85–103.
95.
HudsonM., & BhogalN. (2004). Scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain in 2003: the facts, figures and consequences. ATLA32, 473–485.
96.
CombesR.D. (2000). Endocrine disruptors — a critical review of in vitro and in vivo testing strategies for assessing their toxic hazard to humans. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals28, 81–118.
97.
JenningsM., & HowardB. (eds.) (2004). Guidance Notes on Retrospective Review. A Discussion Document Prepared by the LASA Ethics and Training Group.10 pp. Tamworth, Staffs., UK: LASA. Website www.lasa.co.uk/downloads/Guidance%20notes%20RR%20(2004).pdf (Accessed 26.10.04).
98.
MortonD. (2006). The Importance of Non-statistical Design in Refining Animal Experiments. ANZCCART News Facts Sheet, 18 pp. Adelaide, SA, Australia: ANZCCART. Website www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/publications/fs17.pdf (Accessed 26.10.06).
99.
StraughanD.W. (1994). The UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act — implications for the future of alternative toxicity tests. Toxicology in Vitro8, 841–843.
100.
WolfensohnS., & LloydM. (1998). Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare, Second Edition.194 pp. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
101.
CombesR.D., GauntI., & BallsM. (2004). A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD health effects test guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system. ATLA32, 163–208.
102.
CombesR.D. (2006). The OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for REACH need updating. ALTEX23, Special Issue, 124–130.
103.
BallsM., & CombesR.D. (2006). The OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines: a challenge to the sincerity of commitment to the Three Rs. ATLA34, 105–108.
104.
FentemJ., ChamberlainM., & SangsterB. (2004). The feasibility of replacing animal testing for assessing consumer safety: A suggested future direction. ATLA32, 617–623.
105.
JenkinsE.S., BroadheadC., & CombesR.D. (2002). The implications of microarray technology for animal use in scientific research. ATLA30, 459–465.
106.
HudsonM. (2005). The welfare and scientific advantages of non-invasive imaging of animals used in biomedical research. Animal Welfare14, 303–317.
107.
KramerK., & KinterL.B. (2003). Evaluation and applications of radio-telemetry in small laboratory animals. Physiological Genomics13, 197–205.
108.
MortonD.B., HawkinsP., BevanR., HeathK., KirkwoodJ., PearceP., ScottL., WhelanG., & WebbA. (2003). Refinements in telemetry procedures. Seventh report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement, Part A. Laboratory Animals37, 2261–2299.
109.
MortonD.B., JenningsM., BuckwellA., EwbankR., GodfreyC., HolgateB., InglisI., JamesR., PageC., SharmanI., VerschoyleR., WestallL., & WilsonA.B. (2001). Refining procedures for the administration of substances. Fourth Report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Laboratory Animals35, 1–41.
110.
HawkinsP., MortonD.B., BevanR., HeathK., KirkwoodJ., PearceP., ScottL., WhelanG., & WebbA. (2004). Husbandry refinements for rats, mice, dogs and non-human primates used in telemetry procedures. Seventh report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Party on Refinement, Part B. Laboratory Animals38, 1–10.
111.
DeanS.W. (1999). Environmental enrichment of laboratory animals used in toxicity studies. Laboratory Animals33, 309–327.
112.
Anon. (1994). Animal Procedures Committee. Report to the Home Secretary on Regulatory Toxicity.20 pp. London, UK: Home Office Publications.
113.
FentemJ.H. (1994). The APC report on regulatory toxicity testing. ATLA22, 285–288.
114.
CombesR., BallsM., BansilL., BarrattM., BellD., BothamP., BroadheadC., ClothierR., GeorgeE., FentemJ., JacksonM., IndansI., LaozouG., NavaratnamV., PentreathV., PhillipsB., StemplewskiH., & StewartJ. (2002). An assessment of progress in the use of alternatives in toxicity testing since the publication of the report of the Second FRAME Toxicity Committee (1991). ATLA30, 365–406.
115.
FentemJ. (2006). Working together to respond to the challenges of EU policy to replace animal testing. ATLA34, 11–18.
116.
MephamT.B., CombesR.D., BallsM., BarvieriO., BlokhuisH.J., CostaP., CrillyR.E., de Cock-BuningT., DelpireV.C., O'HareM.J., HoudebineL-M., van KreijlC.F., van der MeerM., ReinhardtC.A., WolfE., & van ZellerA-M. (1998). The use of transgenic animals in the European Union: The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 28. ATLA26, 21–43.
117.
FestingM.F.W., OverendP., DasR.G., BorjaM.C., & BerdoyM. (2002). The Design of Animal Experiments. Reducing the Use of Animals in Research through Better Experimental Design. Published for Laboratory Animals Ltd by Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd. 112 pp. London, UK: RSM Press.
118.
FestingM.F.W., & AltmanD.G. (2002). Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR Journal43, 233–243.
119.
StraughanD.W. (1995). The role of the Home Office Inspector. ATLA23, 39–49.
120.
MortonD.B., & GriffithsP.H.M. (1985). Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress, and discomfort in experimental animals and a hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record116, 431–436.
121.
Van der MeerM., RollsA., BaumansV., OliverB., & van ZutphenL.F.M. (2001). Use of score sheets for welfare assessment of transgenic mice. Laboratory Animals35, 379–389.
122.
NevalainenT., BlomH.J.M., GuaitaniA., HardyP., HowardB.R., & VergaraP. (2002). FELASA Recommendations for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Science Education and Training. Report of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations Working Group on Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Science Education and Training. Laboratory Animals36, 373–377.
123.
BroadheadC.L., & WatsonJ. (2001). Communication of the Three Rs within establishments: Some problems and solutions: Report of a LASA Alternatives Section meeting. ATLA29, 193–197.
124.
HauJ., CostaP., HowardB., KasermannH., NebendahlK., & VergaraP. (2004). FELASA accreditation of education and training programmes. In Proceedings of 9th FELASA Symposium, Nantes, 4–17 June, 191 pp. Website www.lal.org.uk/pdffiles/FELASA/Felasa-09.pdf (Accessed 26.10.04).
