We don't need more gatekeepers dictating morality to us.
The abuses demand oversight, it is true. But that oversight does not require professional qualifications. Something that shocks the conscience of a Nobel laureate will likely also shock the conscience of high-school dropouts. The very same peer jury system that is capable of condemning a criminal human to state execution or awarding millions of dollars in civil restitution can certainly determine whether a method of sacrificing research animals to science is acceptable or not.
The same public concerns that led to the retrofit of commercial slaughterhouses with more humane Grandin animal handling systems can be applied to research animals. My suggestion is this: for any given experiment that involves potential harm or injury to animals, assemble a randomized, unbiased, volunteer jury of at least 12 people. Explain to them the goals of the experiment and the protocols, and the proposed animal involvement. If no more than 25% of the jury objects, the experiment may begin immediately. Otherwise, rewrite the protocols and try again. Ethics approval could take days instead of months.
My kid, who also attended, said, "I'm doing my experiment on plants."
Elementary school science fair! If you want to condition your own dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, you need to fill out additional paperwork and get your vet to approve. I can only imagine what load of crap university scientists have to wade through to get any research done.