Ethics of Research involving animals
Other issues
Motivating and monitoring the reduction of animal research
15.63 In this section we consider a number of more specific issues:
- ways of motivating and monitoring the reduction of research involving animals (paragraphs 15.65–15.67);
- ways of avoiding duplication of research (paragraphs 15.68–15.70);
- issues raised by the use of GM animals in basic research (paragraphs 15.71–15.75);
- the scientific validity of animal research and the use of animals in the study of human disease (paragraphs 15.76–15.80);
- toxicity testing (paragraphs 15.81–15.83); and
- the international context of research involving animals (paragraphs 15.84–15.91).
15.64 One way of motivating and monitoring any proposed reduction of animal experiments would be to set targets. The most radical form of target would be to aim to abandon or phase out a specific area of animal experimentation. As we have said, in the UK the Home Office announced in 1998 that it would not issue any new licences for testing cosmetic products, for the testing of alcohol or tobacco products or for research involving the great apes.33 More recently, a 7th Amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive has been approved, which will impose a marketing and sales ban in the EU on cosmetics that have been tested on animals, effective from March 2005.
15.65 Members of the Working Party disagree about the setting of targets. Those who favoured the approach argued that without targets there tends to be drift and fatalism. They emphasised the following:
- Setting targets can focus the mind and encourage determined action. As a heuristic device, the explicit setting of targets can be useful in helping to decide where and how reductions might be achieved.
- The setting of targets is routine in industry, academia and public institutions. It is generally regarded as an essential mechanism to bring about change, and to measure and monitor progress.
- By establishing deadlines, targets can encourage greater and more strategic collaboration in developing alternatives.
- Ambitious targets might result in the faster development of alternatives, and could establish a country (such as the UK) as a world leader in this area.
15.66 Those who have major reservations with regard to the setting of targets question the feasibility of the approach and assert that those accountable can be unfairly held responsible for unrealistic expectations. Accordingly they consider the following:
- There may be scientific limitations on what can be achieved without using animals in specific areas of research: hence, while setting targets may be feasible in areas such as cosmetics testing, it may be far more difficult in other areas, especially in basic research.
- There may be also pragmatic difficulties, especially in areas such as basic research, and many questions would have to be addressed. For example, how would the demand for and use of animals by the many different research groups be assessed? If there were support for a gross target (such as ‘reduce the number of animal X by 70 percent by year Y’, how would such a decision be implemented? How many animals could be used by particular commercial laboratories during that period, and how many by academic researchers? How would different capacities of coping with possible higher costs of implementing Replacement methods be considered in the process?
- There can be no guarantee that targets can be met in all instances: difficulties can arise in the case of sudden emergencies, such as the BSE crisis, which might require an unexpected increase in the use of animals.
- Setting targets could lead to alternatives being introduced too rapidly, before they have been subject to rigorous scientific assessment. This could have damaging implications for progress in scientific research and the protection of human and animal health or the environment, as well as for the credibility of alternative methods.
- If targets are set unilaterally, for example in one country, the research or testing may be exported to other countries.
15.67 We make the following observations:
- We welcome the concept of targets as a useful and universally used means of measuring progress towards specific aims. But we also see problems in applying such a strategy to research involving animals, where, in many cases, the setting of specific quantitative (numerical) targets is felt by researchers using animals to be unhelpful. Instead, we suggest that reduction could be encouraged and monitored by means of a more flexible approach. One way would be to consider qualitative markers of reduction, for example, aimed at reducing research that causes substantial suffering. The Government’s Interdepartmental Group on the Three Rs should undertake or commission a feasibility study to identify which kinds of reduction markers could be set in particular areas of applied and/or basic research.
- In principle, reduction markers should only be set if they can be linked to a realistic strategy for developing the necessary Replacement methods that will not compromise the amount and quality of basic and applied biomedical research and testing that would otherwise be licensed by the Home Office. Reduction markers that ‘ration discovery’ are not compatible with the scientific approach.
- The development of any strategy should primarily be the responsibility of legislative bodies and governments, as should the task of providing the infrastructure and some of the funding to facilitate the process, in close consultation with stakeholders from academia, industry and animal protection groups.
- In implementing reduction markers it is crucial that initiatives at the national level are complemented, although not limited by, initiatives at the international level.
Footnotes
32 A(SP)A, Section 5 (a).
33 Animal Procedures Committee (1998) Press release: Government Announces End To Cosmetic Testing On Animals, available at:
http://www.apc.gov.uk/press_releases/981126b.htm. Accessed on: 1 Apr 2005.