Ethics of Research involving animals
Appendix 5: Consultation with the public - continuation III
What do you think about the information that is available to the public about research involving animals?
The majority of people who commented on this question felt that more information on the use of animals in research would be welcome. Some suggested that anonymised licence applications should be published and one professional body agreed, stating that the non-confidential parts of
licences should be available to the public. Alternatively, or in addition, lay summaries could prove useful for interested members of the public. In contrast to this view, some scientists took the view that simplification would distort the nature and context of animal research.
It was noted by some respondents that results of animal research were published in the scientific literature and therefore available, but concerns were expressed regarding the perceived insufficient information regarding the actual use of the animals, husbandry and the role of the Three Rs. The scientific and medical language used in such publications was also recognised as a barrier to public understanding.
It was accepted that animal rights groups have provided much information to the public regarding research involving animals. Supporters of these groups considered that they had
performed a valuable public service in exposing cruelty and bad practice. However, others took the view that the information that they provided was inaccurate, alarmist or out of date.
Charities fund a significant proportion of medical research involving animals and certain respondents remarked that they seemed reluctant to acknowledge the part that they played in the projects that they fund. They felt that charities should be more open. Others felt that it was difficult to persuade researchers to speak about their work in public, as they then become a target of extremists. Other suggestions for provision of information included education in schools and making available leaflets regarding animal research in doctors’ surgeries and hospital waiting areas.
On the question of who could be trusted in order to obtain reliable information regarding research involving animals, it was felt by some that the current official sources of information were biased towards those who carried out such research and tended to present only the positive side of the work. These respondents felt that it was therefore difficult to trust companies which made a profit from research involving animals. Conversely, other respondents felt that they would not trust any organisation which promotes unlawful direct action against researchers or institutions. Rather, there was a call for an independent body which would balance the different interests of both stakeholders and the general public.
It was suggested by a number of respondents that they would like to 'see inside' animal laboratories; perhaps through the use of CCTV camera. Others considered that a wealth of information regarding animal research already existed, which is available to anyone who is interested, especially via the Internet.
The Council asked a secondary question in its Consultation paper regarding whether medicines that have been developed using animals should be labelled as such. Many people supported this idea. There was concern by one respondent that such labelling would lead to an increase in the number of people who refuse medication tested in this way, and who therefore demand resources to provide alternatives. There was a concern that pharmaceutical companies might try to mislead the public they would use on such labels.