Ethics of Research involving animals
The Context of the debate
Statistical information about the number of animals used and the suffering involved
The Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Animals, published by the Home Office, have an important role in providing information about animal experimentation. At the same time, there is wide agreement that the data are presented in ways that are not readily accessible to lay people, and that the presentation could be improved. In particular, the Statistics have been criticised for not providing clear answers to the following questions: (i) what is the nature, level and duration of pain, suffering and distress actually experienced by animals used in the different kinds of procedures? and (ii) how many animals are used in procedures and related activities?
The terminology used to describe the severity of projects and individual protocols and procedures is not straightforward and therefore difficult for members of the public to understand. We recommend that the annual Statistics should provide case studies of projects and procedures that were categorised as unclassified, mild, moderate or substantial. Case studies should also include examples of animals used over extended periods of time and should describe not only their immediate involvement in research but also the range of factors that influenced their life experiences, such as the conditions of breeding, housing and handling (paragraph 15.29).
Information about the suffering that animals involved in procedures experience in practice is unsatisfactory. We recommend that the Home Office should make retrospective information about the level of suffering involved during procedures publicly available. In gathering this information the Home Office should also obtain and make available, retrospectively, information about the extent to which the scientific objectives set out in applications have been achieved (paragraph 15.28).
The current system of severity banding for project licences and the severity limits for procedures should be reviewed, particularly the use of the moderate category which covers a wide range of different implications for animal welfare. For the general public, the category unclassified, which refers to protocols and procedures involving terminally anaesthetised animals, is too vague to be informative, and should be clarified (paragraph 15.30).3
We realise that the system of collecting data about the numbers of animals used in research is very complex and that care needs to be taken to avoid making existing administrative processes more onerous. Nevertheless, we think it highly desirable to present clearer information about how many animals of a particular species experience pain, suffering and distress, to what degree, and for how long. We therefore recommend that the Statistics be revised to provide this information, including details about the number of animals killed under A(SP)A Schedule 1 (paragraph 15.33).
Balanced information: campaigning organisations
We encourage animal protection groups and organisations representing those involved in research using animals to produce fair and balanced literature on this subject. This should include, among other things, detailed information about both the scientific benefits and the costs in terms of the implications for animal welfare. Similarly, the advantages and limitations of using alternative methods for research need to be discussed in a realistic manner (paragraph 15.40).
Violence and intimidation
The current climate in which animal research takes place has been influenced by several factors, including protests that often entail threats, harassment and violence (paragraphs 2.22–2.24). The effects of these actions have been highly disproportionate to the very small number of activists involved.
Those who promote violence and intimidation to pursue their case against animal research often attempt to justify their actions on the basis that they are liberating animals in much the same way as the Allies liberated Europe from the Nazis. They believe the democratic process is too slow, and moreover that the voting system is invalid, in that animals are disenfranchised. In the wake of their activities are others who would not themselves use violence but who are prepared to threaten it, persuading themselves that bullying is acceptable because it is aimed at people who are themselves bullying animals. If some of those engaged in the animal rights movement were able to force research abroad or prevent multinational companies from opting to conduct work in the UK, by means of militant actions, they would claim such outcomes as a victory.
We conclude that all approaches based on violence and intimidation are morally wrong: democracy is a precious achievement that allows conflict to be resolved without recourse to violence. It cannot permit exceptions where militant activities displace debate and consensus, otherwise anyone with any strongly held view would be able to prevail over the majority. The debate about research involving animals must be conducted in a reasonable and civilised manner. Aiming to force research out of the country through the use of violence and intimidation is no solution to the complex issues it raises (paragraph 15.50).
Public debates and discussions in stakeholder fora
Much can be learned from meetings which provide a forum for dialogue and allow members of the public to discuss their views with relevant experts. We welcome provision in the Government’s Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014 for a new grants scheme ‘to build the capacity of citizens, the science community and policy makers to engage in the dialogue necessary to establish and maintain public confidence in making better choices about critical new areas in science and technology.’4 We are aware that the way the grants scheme is operated is currently being reviewed, and that Ministers may decide to allocate funding for prioritised areas. In view of our observation about the need to improve the quality of the debate, and also the Governments discussion about research involving animals in the Science & Innovation Investment Framework programme5 we recommend that funding should be provided by the Government to identify and carry out novel ways of achieving stakeholder engagement and public debate on issues raised by research involving animals. The Office of Science and Technology (OST) should liaise with the APC and the National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs) to advise Ministers on areas of particular concern.
In addition to public events, there are a number of ad hoc and permanent stakeholder groups that enable discussion among stakeholders. In our own debates, we realised the importance of having members who between them hold a broad spectrum of views on animal research. This approach allowed for comprehensive consideration of relevant arguments about specific areas of research. We encourage all parties to continue to take part in such fora (paragraph 15.45).
Open laboratories
In order to improve and sustain public trust, researchers in animal research facilities must find more ways to open themselves to dialogue. We therefore recommend that those involved in animal experimentation should take a proactive stance with regard to explaining their research, the reasons for conducting it, the actual implications for the animals involved and the beneficial outcomes they intend for society. These discussions should take the form of a two-way process, in which scientists not only inform the public about their research, but also listen to and understand concerns by members of the public (paragraph 15.52).
Research on views of the public
Accurate information about the current concerns of members of the public are important in considering whether or not policies on research involving animals are likely to be supported by the majority of the population. However, because of methodological constraints, opinion polls are often of limited use, and there is a lack of peer-reviewed research.
We therefore recommend that the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and other relevant funding bodies provide funding for research to be undertaken on the knowledge, opinions and views of members of the public on animal research, and the underlying ways of reasoning. Particular attention should be paid to the level and quality of information that participants have prior to, and while taking part in, the research, and to the ways in which provision of information affects individual responses (paragraph 15.46).
Education
Public debate would also be enhanced by educating young people about issues raised by research involving animals, presenting all sides of the argument. More balanced materials could make an important contribution to an improved understanding of the benefits and costs, to both humans and animals, of research involving animals, particularly for use in schools. We therefore recommend that the UK Department for Education and Skills should commission an academic department of education, which does not have close links to pressure groups or to those involved in animal research, to produce suitable materials for use across the curriculum as appropriate, especially at Key Stages 2 and 3 (paragraph 15.41).
Footnotes3 We note that some explanation can be found in the Guidance notes on the Act (Home Office (2000) Guidance on the
Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (London: TSO), p32, available at: http://www.archive.officialdocuments.
co.uk/document/hoc/321/321.htm Accessed on: 4 May 2005. However, it is unlikely that members of the public
will consult this document, and it is therefore important to clarify the terminology in appropriate places, for example in
the Statistics.
4 See Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014, paragraph 21, available at: http://www.hmtreasury.
gov.uk/media/33A/AB/spend04_sciencedoc_1_090704.pdf. Accessed on: 21 Apr 2005.
5 Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014, paragraphs 6.16-7.20, available at: http://www.hmtreasury.
gov.uk/media/33A/AB/spend04_sciencedoc_1_090704.pdf. Accessed on: 21 Apr 2005.