Ethics of Research involving animals
The context of the debate
1.13 Debate about the value of research on animals and the degree of suffering involved is often influenced by the media. Some people take a positive view, believing that reporting by the media has contributed to a more focused and factual debate about the costs and benefits of animal research. For example, the role of animal research in the development of new treatments for diseases has been explained in a wide range of newspaper reports. Others think that publication of the findings of undercover investigations in animal research laboratories have been a useful complement to the public debate, by showing how animals are affected (see paragraphs 2.19–2.21). However, the media are also occasionally responsible for sensationalist items of news that either exaggerate the likely medical benefits of animal research or the suffering caused to animals. There are fears that such reporting could lead to further unhelpful radicalisation and polarisation of the debate.
1.14 Assessing the views of the public about research on animals is difficult. The evidence from surveys of public opinion is inconsistent. According to an opinion poll commissioned by The Guardian newspaper in 2001 that asked 1,004 adults their views on a range of issues, 46 percent of respondents supported the use of animals in the scientific testing of new medicines for humans, 36 percent were opposed and 18 percent were undecided.11 By contrast, in 2003, a poll commissioned by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), carried out by TNS, found that 76 percent of respondents said that, as a matter of principle, they opposed experiments on any animals which caused pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.12 A Market & Opinion poll Research International (MORI) poll commissioned by the Coalition for Medical Progress in 2002 suggested that 90 percent of the UK population were willing to accept animal research, provided that certain criteria relating to the research objectives and the degree of animal suffering were met. This poll also found that 35 percent of the UK population did not support any kind of animal research because of implications for welfare, that 21 percent wished for a government ban on all kinds of animal research and that 61 percent of all respondents wanted to know more about research involving animals before forming a firm opinion.13
1.15 Inconsistent views about animal research that are revealed in opinion polls may illustrate that people often hold conflicting views simultaneously. Surveys are also relatively superficial in their attempts to evaluate what are often complex ways of reasoning. It is therefore important to distinguish between opinion polls, which commonly fulfil the role of market research, and academic research, which is usually better suited to analysing the subtleties of peoples’ views and opinions. Methodology and findings of opinion polls are not normally subject to academic peer review, and the results of polls frequently appear to correlate with the views of the organisations that commission them.14 Despite their limitations, results from opinion polls are widely cited and treated authoritatively. For example, MORI’s finding that 90 percent of people in the UK accept animal research under certain conditions has been quoted extensively in the media. It has also been referred to by several organisations, and the UK Government, without further qualification.15
1.16 Opinion polls should in general be treated with caution.16 There is little recent peer-reviewed research that would allow a reliable assessment to be made of public opinion on animal research. One recent study, based on focus groups, indicated that participants were caught in a moral dilemma by wishing to maximise both animal welfare and human benefits in research on animals. Most people preferred not to confront the issue, although there appeared to be acceptance of animal suffering when there was a genuine human need, typically expressed in developing cures for life-threatening diseases.17
1.17 This Report does not seek to summarise public opinion or derive conclusions from it. While we have conducted a wider Consultation (see Appendix 5) and have additionally considered facts and opinions from a range of external experts (see Appendix 4), our primary aim has been to undertake a thorough qualitative analysis of the scientific and ethical issues. The value of this examination does not depend on support from particular professional, political or social groups, but on the clarity and force of the arguments.
Footnotes11 ICM (2001) The Guardian/ICM Monthly Poll, available at: http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2001/guardian-poll-jan-
2001.htm. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005.
12 BUAV (2005) Press release Government in ruse to thwart Freedom of Information Act, available at:
http://www.buav.org/press/2005/01-01.html. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005.
13 MORI (2002) The Use of Animals in Medical Research, Research Study Conducted for The Coalition for Medical Progress, p24,
available at: http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/pdf/cmp.pdf. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005. See also MORI (1999) Attitudes Towards
Experimentation on Live Animals, commissioned for New Scientist, available at:
http://www.mori.com/polls/1999/ns99038t.shtml. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005; MORI (1999) Animals in Medicine and Science,
General Public Research conducted for Medical Research Council, available at:
http://www.mori.com/polls/1999/pdf/mrc99.pdf. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005.