Minutes of the meeting held on 5 May 2004
Mon, 19 July 2004
8th meeting
NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS
WORKING PARTY ON THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH INVOLVING ANIMALS
Minutes of the meeting held at the Nuffield Foundation
28 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3JS
on Tuesday 5 May 2004
PRESENT
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Chair)
Professor Kenneth Boyd
Professor Allan Bradley FRS
Professor Steve Brown
Professor Grahame Bulfield CBE
Professor Maggy Jennings
Professor Barry Keverne FRS
Dr Judy MacArthur Clark
Dr Mark Matfield
Dr Timothy Morris
Professor Martin Raff FRS
Professor John Spencer
Ms Michelle Thew
Professor Jonathan Wolff
APOLOGIES
Professor Robert Combes, Professor Ian McConnell, Mr Nick Ross, Dr Lewis Smith
SECRETARIAT
Dr Sandy Thomas, Dr Catherine Moody, Mr Harald Schmidt, Ms Nicola Perrin, Ms Caroline Rogers, Mr Mun-Keat Looi
INTRODUCTION BY THE CHAIR
1 The Chair welcomed the members of the Working Party and outlined the schedule for the meeting. In the morning, discussion would focus on Chapter 8 (ethical arguments and conclusions) and Chapter 9 (implications for policy). In the afternoon, members would view a video on primate research provided by Ms Thew. After this, the final list of peer reviewers would be discussed, as well as issues arising in relation to past and possible future fact finding meetings.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
2 Members approved the minutes of the Working Party's 7th meeting.
DRAFT REPORT
3 A brief outline of recent changes in the current draft Report was provided. It was agreed that it would be important to include case studies or examples to illustrate the welfare implications of research throughout the chapters concerning the scientific uses of animals.
4 The Chair drew attention to the draft outline of Chapter 8 which had been included as a ‘straw man’, to focus further discussion. Proponents of research then outlined the ethical arguments in favour of animal research. The idea that humans were more important than animals was a fundamental element of this position. This view was supported by current understanding in biology, according to which it was natural for every species to put itself first. Furthermore, animals were not able to make moral judgments, and to act according to moral rules. The ethical justification of animal experimentation was essentially utilitarian: The use of a relatively small number of animals could be seen as justified in light of the considerable benefits to a much larger number of humans. Utilitarian arguments were common in many other areas of bioethics, such as the provision of healthcare. Applied to research involving animals, utilitarianism might even allow the use of animals such as the Great Apes. For example, this might be justified if their use was necessary to find a cure for HIV/AIDS. However, care would be needed in considering such relatively extreme scenarios. The fact that it might be justified to use Great Apes in some cases may not mean that all other uses of animals were also acceptable. It was also important to be aware that views on the interaction of humans with animals had evolved historically and were subject to change. This was obvious, for example, from discussions about which animals should never be used for research: Whereas it had previously appeared acceptable to use the Great Apes for research, more recently there seemed to be consensus in the UK that that they should not be used.
5 In the ensuing discussion, a number of issues raised by Dr Matfield´s arguments were addressed in more detail. With regard to excluding the use of the Great Apes from research, it was important to note that the use of chimpanzees had been crucial in the development of a test to identify hepatitis C contaminated blood and blood products, which was discussed in some detail. Could such a hypothetical ban be justified, from an ethical viewpoint? The present ban on using the Great Apes in the UK might prevent the development of new interventions which required the use of animals for scientific reasons. How should countries such as the US, which permitted research on certain types of Great Apes, be viewed?
6 With regard to changes in the use of animals by humans, it was noted that human societies had evolved to be increasingly inclusive. In earlier times, humans were more reliant on animals for sustenance and attributed relatively low status to them. However, more recently, the standards of welfare enjoyed by humans in many parts of the world had risen and the dependency on animals had changed in many respects. This has led some to make the following argument. At certain stages of history, a kind of pre-philosophical species-solidarity among humans with regard to animals had been justified. This view allowed the use of animals for a wide range of purposes. However, such justification ceased during periods when a certain level of human welfare had been achieved, which had entailed time for reflection and consideration of the needs of other beings. However, others argued that the pre-philosophical view still prevailed, despite significant improvements in the conditions of human life.
7 There was brief discussion about the kinds of properties which were relevant in according moral status to different species of animals. It was correct to perceive a genetic continuum between man and mice although genetic similarities alone would be insufficient to make judgements about moral status. While it was true that there was a very high degree of genetic similarity between humans and, for example, chimpanzees, it was crucial to be aware that even very small variations in genetic differences between the two had considerable effect on the actual capacities of animals. For example, differences in single genes could contribute to substantial differences in the brains of chimpanzees and humans. There was interesting scientific evidence relating to similarities and differences in brain structures, which should be addressed in more detail in the Report.
8 There was also discussion about the usefulness of ‘hard and fast’ boundaries, which could serve as criteria in relation to deciding whether or not it was acceptable to use an animal for research. While it was clear that many people had a strong desire to define such boundaries, which were highly useful in orientating oneself in a complex environment, it was important to note that boundaries were likely to shift over time. Furthermore, it was unclear whether rigid boundaries were compatible with the more nuanced judgements which humans made in many other contexts of moral behaviour. Often, it appeared that the acceptability of actions depended on intentions and consequences, rather than merely on the moral status of those affected.
9 The view was expressed that there were many areas in which humans applied sliding scales in order to measure the moral acceptability of certain actions. With regard to discussions about animal experimentation, several kinds of such scales, which often overlapped, were identified:
(a) sliding scales with regard to the types of research which are perceived as problematic;
(b) sliding scales with regard to the acceptability of using specific members of a species for research purposes;
(c) sliding scales concerning the acceptability of pain experienced by beings involved in research.
Members then discussed these scales and issues raised by their interrelatedness in more detail. Structural and formal issues relating to the ethics chapters, and the chapter which would include conclusions and recommendations were also considered. This was followed by discussion of the content of recommendations.
PEER REVIEW
10 The Working Party considered the Council’s comments on the proposed list of peer reviewers and agreed a final list which would be resubmitted to the Council for approval.
BUAV VIDEO: CUTTING EDGE OF BRITISH MEDICAL RESEARCH
11 Members then viewed a video produced by a BUAV undercover investigator who filmed several aspects relating to research, handling and housing of marmosets used in neuroscientific research at a laboratory at the University of Cambridge. The video had been published by the BUAV as ‘cutting edge of British medical research’. Ms Thew commented that the University had not sought an injunction with respect to the video and that a Home Office investigation following BUAV’s allegations of inappropriate treatment had found no irregularities in the laboratory. The question was raised as to whether the BUAV had provided the Home Office in its investigation with the full unedited tapes, and it was clarified that these had not been made available, neither then nor subsequently. Ms Thew would circulate the Chief Inspector’s response to the video and BUAV’s response to this letter. Members then discussed the video and the claims made in the video. They drew different conclusions as to how representative it was of the circumstances under which such research was usually undertaken.
FACT FINDING MEETINGS
12 The Chair reported that a subgroup of the Working Party had undertaken a fact finding meeting at an academic laboratory undertaking research involving macaque monkeys. Because of particular preferences of the researchers it had not been possible for all members of the Working Party who wished to do so to join the fact finding meeting. There was some debate about the reasons for this decision and, among other things, it was agreed that the final Report should give an adequate descriptions of the circumstances under which this and other fact finding meetings at academic and commercial laboratories had taken place.
13 Members also considered whether further fact finding meeting should be arranged.
Last Updated Mon, 19 July 2004