Ethics of Research involving animals
What role does the unavailability of alternatives play in the justification of research involving animals?
3.63 We have said that one of the important aspects in the ethical evaluation of research involving animals is whether the research goal could be achieved by other means, and, if not, what the reasons might be. One respondent to the Consultation remarked: ‘"By law in the UK, animals can only be used for research if there is no other way of obtaining the information" … If research on alternatives is not meaningfully supported by the Government, how is it possible to follow the law? How can an investigator know whether there is an alternative way of obtaining the relevant information if the study of alternatives is so poorly funded?’
Professor David DéGrazia
3.64 We discuss the potential of alternatives in more detail in Chapters 11 and 12. For now, we note that this comment raises at least two important issues. First, alternatives are developed primarily by industry, academia and relevant charities. Although the UK Government also provides some funding for the development of alternatives (see Box 11.3), it may be especially important to be clear about its responsibilities concerning the development of alternatives as it is the authority that grants licences for the conduct of animal research, much of which is publicly funded. The Government also contributes significantly to the demand for animal research, for example, through regulatory requirements established by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and other departments (see also paragraphs 13.48-13.52)
3.65 Secondly, in undertaking an ethical review of a research proposal in the light of available alternative methods, it can be useful to consider the reasons why other alternative methods are not yet available. Although from a regulatory and practical perspective it may be reasonable to take into account only those options that are currently available, this may be less acceptable for an ethical evaluation. It could be argued that a proposal for which alternative methods exist in principle (but have not yet been sufficiently developed for use because of, for example, financial or other constraints) should be deferred until the alternative method becomes available, in order to allow a comparison. The question of opportunity costs is then raised: how much does it matter that research is delayed? It would seem that the answer to this question would depend primarily on the value of the research goal and the welfare implications for the animal. There is also the more general question about the value of scientific enquiry per se, and some people would argue that, in principle, no delays are ever acceptable.
3.66 A related question concerning the possibility of delaying research to prevent the use of animals for some types of experiment is raised by the efficiency of alternatives. It may be the case that there are alternatives to specific research procedures, which refine or reduce the use of animals significantly, or replace it altogether, but which imply slower scientific progress. How should such options be balanced in an analysis of the costs incurred for animals and the benefits offered to humans? We examine these questions in Chapters 11, 12, 14 and 15.
Footnotes26 See Animal Procedures Committee (2003) Review of Cost-Benefit Assessment in the Use of Animals in Research (London:
Home Office).