Ethics of Research involving animals
Ethical issues raised by animal research
Introduction
3.1 As we have said, the debate about research involving animals ranges broadly over two distinct questions. The first asks whether animal research yields useful knowledge that could not be gained from other sources. The second concerns whether it is morally acceptable for humans to use animals in ways that can cause them harm. These two questions are clearly related: if it were the case that we learn nothing useful and distinctive from research that may harm animals, it would be difficult to see how, on any reasonable view, it could be morally justified. The question of scientific justification is therefore fundamental to the question of moral justification and we explore it in detail in Chapters 5–10.
3.2 However, a positive answer to the scientific question does not settle the moral question, for it may be the case that an experiment that yields useful and relevant information is not ethically acceptable. We need therefore to consider from first principles the arguments in support of, and against, research involving animals. For the purpose of our discussion, we take the principal ethical questions to be the following:
- Provided there are substantial benefits associated with animal research, why should the use of animals require special justification?
- Can any use of animals by humans be justified? Which specific issues need to be considered in the case of research?
- What role does the unavailability of alternatives play in the justification of research involving animals?
- How does the justification of such research relate to the justification of other uses, such as food production?
- What is the appropriate role of regulation for research involving animals?
3.3 For each of these questions, we consider commonly encountered arguments to bring clarity to the debate; to identify agreement where it exists; and to understand what lies behind remaining disagreement. We hope that this approach will be useful in enabling readers to make informed judgements about whether or not specific types of research, as described in Chapters 5–9, can be justified. We would also like to encourage them to reflect upon the assumptions behind their own positions and those of others.
Facts, values and the reflective equilibrium
3.4 Historically, a number of apparently rigid and irreconcilable implicit and explicit ethical positions on animal research have arisen. Often, holders of these views think that their ethical judgement is irrefutably right, while that of others is simply wrong. Consequently, they consider truths about animal research to be self-evident, and suspect those who do not share these views of some sort of ‘moral astigmatism’ or intentional malevolence.
3.5 This state of affairs raises complex philosophical issues that are usually debated under the title of moral epistemology. The term refers to the study of, among other things, whether and how we can come to know moral truths; what we mean when we make moral judgements; and under what conditions we can change the moral judgements of others.1 Although this Report is not suited to a detailed exploration of the many subtleties that next page
Footnotes1 See Campbell R (2003) Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: Moral epistemology, available at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology. Accessed on: 11 Apr 2005.