Animal rights campaigners have won the right to check academics' proposals for experiments before they can take place. But a row is brewing over exactly how much information they will be able to access.

Researchers must submit a form to the ÍøÆØÃÅ Office to get a licence to experiment on animals. The form asks for a complete description of the plan of work and information on the severity limit of the procedure: substantial, moderate, mild or unclassified.

A description of possible adverse effects, their likely incidence and proposed methods of prevention or control are catalogued, along with the researcher's experience in the field. The forms are treated in absolute confidence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986.

Last week, the National Anti-Vivisection Society was granted a judicial review of this policy of blanket confidentiality. "We don't want the names and addresses of researchers," said a spokesperson. "But we do want to know what the researchers propose to do, so that we can suggest alternatives and avoid duplication."

ÍøÆØÃÅ

To avoid the review, the ÍøÆØÃÅ Office immediately paid the society's legal costs of Pounds 10,000 and entered negotiations. The judicial review will no longer take place.

The National Anti-Vivisection Society instead intends to enter talks with the ÍøÆØÃÅ Office over what information will be available. It will then pass this information to its researchers.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

The ÍøÆØÃÅ Office insisted this week that the forms will not routinely be made public but will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Just weeks before the judicial review was granted, the ÍøÆØÃÅ Office had written to all researchers who conduct experiments on animals, warning them that it was removing the clauses that guarantee the researchers' confidentiality, with immediate effect.

However, it said that despite removing the clause, the content of these forms will still be treated as confidential under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986.

The section that deals with this secrecy is likely to be amended under the proposed Freedom of Information legislation, according to Mark Matfield of the Research Defence Society.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Until then, he said, the ÍøÆØÃÅ Office will abide by this section. "Under the Freedom of Information legislation, it seems likely that this information will be in the public domain," he said. "So long as the security of individuals is protected, as is commercially sensitive information, I can't see that there is a problem."