Ethics of Research involving animals
Provided there are substantial benefits associated with animal research, why should the use of animals require special justification?
3.9 The primary reason given for using animals in research is to ensure scientific progress in basic and applied biological and medical science. Few people would deny that science is an important and powerful way of understanding the natural world. Methodical observations of evidence produced in carefully designed experiments have helped us to understand, for example, a great number of physical and chemical principles that govern biological processes. Many scientists argue that research involving animals is crucial in continuing progress.4 As several respondents to the Consultation observed:
‘If it is accepted, as it should be, that prevention of human suffering is a moral obligation, then the use of animals is unavoidable.’ Dr Chris Jackson ‘Man has the duty to treat sick people as well as save lives of people and animals. In order to do so, he must improve his knowledge of biology, and human and veterinary medicine. That is why man carries out animal research where there are no other appropriate investigational methods.’ ABPI ‘We do not feel it is ethical to subject humans…to these risks [the prolongation of disease or risk in toxicity testing] when there is a means to reduce them.’ Genetic Interest Group
3.10 On the basis of these views it might appear that animal research requires no further justification. But, there are also people who assert that the use for harmful purposes of one species by another, without consent, is fundamentally unethical, regardless of any possible benefits, and that all forms of animal research must therefore be abandoned.5 Instead, they argue that more effort should be made to find alternative ways of obtaining the required information, for example by undertaking research on human volunteers or on human tissue. Those who disagree assert that there are many significant research questions which can only be answered by using animals and that they are only used when absolutely necessary.
They also question whether an abandonment of animal research, and the implied consequences, would be acceptable to all members of society. This situation leads us to two more specific questions. First, how important is the alleviation of human and animal suffering, in view of the fact that it may cause pain, suffering and distress to animals involved in research? Secondly, why should the use of animals in research be acceptable in cases in which it would be unacceptable to use humans? We address these questions next.
Is there an obligation to alleviate suffering?
3.11 At the most fundamental level we can question why, in principle, there should be a moral obligation to undertake research to alleviate suffering in either animals or humans. Based on a particular view about the status of responsibilities that arise from things we do as opposed to things we do not do (i.e. ‘acts versus omissions’), we could assert that there is no such duty. The argument would be that the strongest moral requirements are negative, relating to things which we should not do (omissions). Weaker positive moral requirements concern obligations in relation to things which we should do (acts). So, for example, we could argue that there is a strong obligation not to harm any child, but a far weaker one, possibly even next page
Footnotes4 RDS Welcome to RDS Online, available at: http://www.rds-online.org.uk. Accessed on: 13 Apr 2005; see also Chapter 1,
footnote 5.
5 BUAV BUAV Today, available at: http://www.buav.org/aboutus/index.html. Accessed on: 13 Apr 2005.