JCU AEC - Internal Annual Review

Annual Review of the Operation of the Animal Ethics Committee – Review of Compliance

Every year JCU conducts an annual review of the operations of its Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) in order to ‘to ensure that it is effective and consistent with the Code and institutional policies.’ The AEC prepares a report that advises on matters of its operation over the previous year that includes:

  • Numbers and types of projects and activities assessed, and approved or rejected
  • The physical facilities for the care and use of animals by the institution
  • Actions that have supported the educational and training needs of AEC members and people involved in the care and use of animals
  • Administrative or other difficulties experienced
  • Any matters that may affect the institution’s ability to maintain compliance with the Code and, if appropriate, suitable recommendations.

A summary of the 2021 Annual Report is below.

In 2021, the JCU AEC:

  • Was authorised to operate in Queensland, Northern Territory, Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia;
  • Provided ethical review services to the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and Sharks and Rays Australia;
  • Had a membership that contains members of all four categories of membership;
  • Had an average membership that comprised of one-half approximately Category C and D members, exceeding the requirement for C and D members to be at least one third of the membership;
  • Invited Animal Facility Managers to attend meetings to provide advice on matters related to their facilities;
  • Met 12 times, and all meetings were quorate (had in attendance at least one member of each category with Category C and D making up at least one third of the members present);
  • Reviewed a total of 73 new applications, approving 42, providing conditional approval to 22, deferring seven and rejecting two;
  • Conducted 8 inspections of animal facilities;
  • Provided face-to-face induction and training to all new members and Animal Ethics Monitors;
  • Was provided with adequate resources by the institution to operate effectively;
  • Reviewed two complaints or allegations of non-compliance, withdrawing approval to two projects for failure to submit their mandatory annual progress reports;
  • Reviewed 31 reports of unexpected adverse events.