Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) frequently asked questions

The update button is located at the top of an approval. It usually appears as a yellow bar with a blue “Update” button. This indicates that the IT team have released a new version of the form; these additions can vary from fixing spelling/grammar errors in the application to the addition/changing of questions in the form. Because of this, it is important to make sure that your approval/application is up to date.

Typically, updating the form will only invalidate any signatures that you have received on the approval. This won’t matter for an approved form, as you will need to secure new signatures for amendments. However, because these updates can involve changes to questions or the movement of specific sections, it is important to only update the form before the form is unlocked for you (e.g. before you submit an amendment, animal usage return, or end of approval).

This will ensure that all the information that you submitted is retained. Once the approval is unlocked, it is best to start from the beginning of the application and check each section of the approval, as some things may have changed or been removed due to the update. Please ensure that this information matches what was on the original/most recently approved version of the approval. An easy way to check if there are any unanswered questions is to use the “Completeness Check” feature in Ethics RM. This will let you know if any compulsory sections of the application are left unanswered.

If you are unsure of what the most recent version of any lost sections of your application is, contact the animal ethics secretariat. The Ethics team can access previous versions/submissions of your approval and will be able to provide you with a Word document containing the exact wording.

If you do need to add any information back into the approval due to an update, ensure that you make a note of this in the “Amendment Summary”, so both the Ethics team and the Animal Ethics Committee know why those sections are showing that new information has been inserted.

Signatures are essential to submit all animal ethics applications. Usually, Ethics RM will let you know which signatures you are required to secure in Section I of the application form. However, it does require that you request these signatures yourself.

For new applications, several signatures are required. Each person listed in the “Personnel” section must have signed off on the application. For University of Auckland staff and PhD students, these signatures can be requested digitally. This will send the signee a link to access the application and approve the sign-off. For non-PhD students and external (non-University of Auckland personnel), these signatures need to be collected manually. A template for manual signatures can be found in the “Templates” section of Ethics RM (found under the “Help” drop-down menu at the top of the screen).

You are also required to collect the signature of your head of department and the facility managers of any animal facilities that your project will be using. All of these signatures should be obtainable electronically. If you encounter any issues securing these signatures, email the animal ethics secretariat.

Once signatures are requested, the application will be locked as the system waits for the signatures to be obtained. You will receive an automated email confirming the successful submission of the application once all signatures have been received. It is best practice to assume your application hasn’t been submitted until you receive this automated email.

The time required to process an extension request depends on the reason for the request. Most extensions will need to be considered at an Animal Ethics Committee meeting. Because of this, it is recommended that you submit an extension request at least two to three months before the expiry of your approval to avoid any complications.

After the Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) meeting, the AEC manager will be in touch to indicate the outcome of your application and when you can expect to receive your outcome letter. Generally, this is within 10-15 working days, depending on the number of applications at the meeting and the complexity of the application. This is also due to the post-meeting processes that all applications need to go through to finalise their outcome and provisions (if necessary).

The provisions agreed upon during the meeting will be collected by the animal ethics manager and first sent to the Animal Ethics Committee chair. Those provisions will then be circulated amongst the wider committee for further comments. These collective comments will then be collated, if required, re-checked by the chair, and then a conditional outcome letter will be sent out.

If, for any reason, you require a formal outcome letter before the completion of the above process, contact the animal ethics secretariat with an explanation of why you need the outcome letter early so we can determine how best to assist you.

In Section I of the AEC application (“Submission and Sign-Off"), you will be presented with six different options for “Application Type”; these are as follows:

• Initial Application
• Response To Pre-Screen
• Conditionally Approved
• Not Approved
• Amendment Request (Initial Submission)
• Amendment Request (Response)

It is important that you select the correct option based on what you are trying to submit, as selecting an incorrect application type may result in your application being lost within the system. While applications can still be accessed by the Ethics team in this situation, they will not be visible to them.

Application types

Initial Application: This is used only when you are submitting your application for the first time, and it has not yet been reviewed by the Animal Ethics Committee.

Response To Pre-Screen: This is selected only when your application has been pre-screened by a member of the Ethics team or the animal welfare officer, but has not yet been reviewed by the Animal Ethics Committee. This could be to make minor administrative changes to your application or more comprehensive changes to the content of your application to make it more ethically acceptable.

Conditionally Approved: This is selected when you are resubmitting an application that has been considered at an AEC meeting and was sent back with provisions. Note that this only applies to initial applications and should not be used for conditionally approved amendments.

Not Approved: This is selected if you are resubmitting an application that has already been considered at an AEC meeting and was given the “Not Approved” outcome with provisions. Note that this only applies to initial applications and should not be used for "Not Approved" amendments.

Amendment Request (Initial Submission): This should only be used when submitting an amendment for the first time. This will ensure that the “Amendment Summary” text boxes are made available to you. The “Amendment Summary” should be dated and contain a brief summary/explanation of what you are requesting. Make sure that you do not overwrite or delete old amendment summaries. There will be an “Add Another” button to provide you with a new amendment summary section to fill out. Note that you should select this application type each time you are submitting a new amendment.

Amendment Request (Response): This application type should be selected whenever you are resubmitting an amendment request (e.g., the amendment was sent back following pre-screening or conditionally approved/not approved at an AEC meeting). This application type will bypass the need for signatures to be collected, so you only need to make the requested changes.

If you are submitting an amendment request, please also ensure that you make the appropriate changes to the “Application Type” part of the “Introduction” section of the application. You will be presented with three options:

New AEC Application in Ethics RM: This should only be used when submitting an initial application.

New amendment request for an application previously approved in Ethics RM: This application type should be used for amendment requests for an approval that was submitted and approved entirely in the Ethics RM system.

New amendment request for an application previously approved in InfoEd: This should ONLY be used for amendment requests being submitted for an approval that was migrated from the old InfoEd system. This will close off some sections of the approval where viewers should refer to the original InfoEd approval.

Amendment questions

On selecting one of the two amendment request application types in the “Introduction” section, two new questions will appear underneath. These are used to determine what kind of amendment you are requesting. These questions are as follows:

Do you want to add personnel to the study: Yes/No

Does this amendment request include a change in animal numbers, addition or change of species, strain, sex, weight, or age: Yes/No

If you select “No” to the change in animal numbers question, you will be presented with a follow-up question:

Please tick the Yes button below to carry forward any changes in animal numbers, sex, species, etc. previously approved

This is just to confirm that you intend to carry forward any animal numbers from the most recent version of the form.

Animal usage return (AUR) reports are used by the Ethics team to collect relevant data that is annually reported to MPI regarding the use of animals in research. This report only contains animal numbers, and the categories filled out should match those that were originally approved by the AEC. The numbers in these reports should account only for the animals used throughout the project; each animal should only be counted once. AURs are pre-screened by the animal ethics administrator and only approved once an end-of-approval report has been submitted to confirm the overall animal numbers.

End-of-approval (EOA) reports are used for the University records. This report contains similar information found in the animal usage return, such as the number of animals used and their welfare grading. However, this report should also contain discussion regarding animal deaths, the outcomes of the project, and how the research was disseminated. EOAs are pre-screened by the animal ethics administrator for any errors and are then sent to an AEC meeting for consideration. You may receive a conditional approval outcome letter if the committee decides that changes are required.

Both of these reports generally only need to be submitted once and should be submitted to the AEC a maximum of three months after the approval’s expiry date or when the project comes to an end (whichever comes first). 

If your approval is extended into another calendar year, you are required to submit an animal usage return to account for the three calendar years that were initially approved (e.g. 2022-2025). This will be the Final Animal Usage Return report. Another animal usage return should be submitted to account only for the animals used during the extension calendar year (e.g. January 2026-March 2026). Use the Additional Year Animal Usage Return report for the extension. Both the AUR and EOA can be found under "subforms" in Ethics RM.

If you have any other questions, contact the animal ethics secretariat via the "Correspondence" tab in Ethics RM or email: animalethics@auckland.ac.nz.