Nuffield Council on Bioethics / Home

All research licensed in the UK under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (A(SP)A) has the potential to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to the animals used. Most animals are killed at the end of experiments. A world in which the important benefits of such research could be achieved without causing pain, suffering, distress, lasting harm or death to animals involved in research must be the ultimate goal.

We have considered the different arguments advanced in favour and against continuing specific types of animal research in Chapters 3 and 14. Some believe the imperative to protect animal welfare should be overriding, whereas others believe that the moral arguments favour the continuation of research on animals. All members of the Working Party acknowledged that these viewpoints arise from moral convictions that should be given serious consideration. This approach requires open-mindedness in trying to understand the reasons and arguments of others. Genuine willingness is also required to test and, where necessary, revise one’s own moral framework.

While we trust that more progress in the moral debate can be made, we are aware that, for the near future, further moral argument alone cannot provide a universal answer as to whether or not research on animals is justified. But practical advances in scientific methods can reduce areas of conflict. For this reason, the importance of the Three Rs (Refinement, Reduction and Replacement), and especially of the need to find Replacements, cannot be overstated.

The Working Party therefore concludes that it is crucial that the Three Rs are, and continue to be, enshrined in UK regulation on research involving animals. The principle that animals may only be used for research if there is no other way of obtaining the results anticipated from an experiment is also fundamental. Furthermore, we observe that for moral justification of animal research it is insufficient to consider only those alternatives which are practicably available at the time of assessing a licence application. The question of why alternatives are not available and what is required to make them available must also be asked. The potential of the Three Rs is far from being exhausted. The Working Party therefore agrees that there is a moral imperative to develop as a priority scientifically rigorous and validated alternative methods for those areas in which Replacements do not currently exist. It is equally important to devise mechanisms that help in the practical implementation of available validated methods.

In applying the Three Rs it is crucial to consider not only the context of the experiments themselves but also the many other factors that can affect animal welfare, including breeding, transportation, feeding, housing, and handling. The quality of these factors and especially the ability of animals to satisfy their species-specific needs can usually be improved.

We acknowledge that the UK has the most detailed legislative framework concerning research on animals in the world. But proper attention to the welfare of animals involved in research and the accountability of scientists who conduct research on animals cannot be achieved merely by having detailed regulations. Regulation can act as an emotional screen between the researcher and an animal, possibly encouraging researchers to believe that simply to conform to regulations is to act in a moral way. It is therefore crucial to promote best practice more actively and to improve the culture of care in establishments licensed to conduct experiments on animals.

When considering the replacement of specific types of research by alternative methods, it is important to take account of the international context in which research involving animals takes place. Many chemical and pharmaceutical compounds that have been developed are being marketed in countries or regions that have different regulatory frameworks for animal research and testing. There is a range of alternatives that have been internationally accepted for safety testing. Nonetheless, many Replacements are not universally accepted, and the process of validation is lengthy.
These processes need to be optimised and initiatives aimed at abandoning and replacing specific types of animal testing at national levels complemented by initiatives at the international level. This is not to say that initiatives in the UK can only be taken once there is consensus at an international level. In the past, the UK has been a leader in working towards change in international policies related to research involving animals. This leadership should be encouraged.

Scientific experiments involving animals are sometimes repeated by the same or other research groups. In considering whether the repetition of such experiments should take place, it is important to distinguish between duplication and replication of experiments:*

• Duplication of harmful animal experiments is in principle unacceptable. We use the term to describe cases where there is insufficient scientific justification for the repetition. It occurs primarily when the scientist either does not know that another has carried out the experiment or test in question, or when he does know, but is unable to attain reasonable access to the information.

• Replication refers to repetition of experiments or tests where this is necessary for sound progress in scientific enquiries. The scientific method demands that research findings need to be corroborated by the same and other
  research groups, in order to establish the validity of the results.

The majority of researchers who use animals consider that despite progress in the implementation of the Three Rs, animal research will remain an essential part of their work. Furthermore, certain provisions in the current regulatory framework for approval of chemical products and medicines require tests involving animals. We conclude that it is unrealistic to assume that all animal experimentation will end in the short term. It is crucial, therefore, to create a climate in which the necessity and justification for using animals is assessed and discussed fairly and with due respect for all views.

Constructive debate would be facilitated by the provision of clear information about the full implications of research involving animals in terms of the kind, numbers and species of animals used, as well as the pain, suffering and distress to which they can be subjected. It is equally important that society should be informed about the scientific, medical and other benefits of research involving animals. Information about selected aspects of research without provision of any further context can be misleading.
All members of the Working Party agree that the use of violence and intimidation against members of the research community, research institutions, their business partners, family and neighbours, or against organisations and people representing animal welfare groups, is morally wrong and politically insidious. The freedom to promote or oppose research involving animals peacefully and democratically, however, must be maintained.