Ethics of Research involving animals
Appendix 5: Consultation with the public
A Consultation with the public was held between October and December 2003. Nearly 600 copies of the Consultation paper were disseminated and a further 2,503 were downloaded from the Council’s website. There was also the opportunity to comment online on the questions posed. One hundred and sixty-eight responses were received from both individuals and organisations.
The Council welcomed the many and varied responses from nine different countries. A summary of the responses to six specific questions asked in the Consultation document is set out below. A list of respondents follows the summary. Many respondents agreed to make their full submissions available to the wider public and their comments can be found on the Council’s website.1
The Working Party would like to thank everyone who contributed to the Consultation.
Figure 1: Breadown of response
What is your view about the use of animals in research?
Many respondents stated that, in their view, research involving animals had led to considerable advances in biology and medicine. They said that it would not be possible to exclude animal use without compromising safety or slowing progress, as research involving animals provided information which was not otherwise obtainable.
Of the respondents who supported research, a significant number did not favour the indiscriminate use of animals for human purposes. Rather, they felt that the acceptability of experimental work on animals depended on the purpose of the research, the amount of suffering and the species involved. Some respondents felt that there were defined areas which should be excluded such as the testing of cosmetics and household chemicals (the former is not permitted in the UK). Some people accepted animal experimentation which involved mild or moderate procedures on certain species, but found substantial procedures unacceptable. Several respondents described the creation of animals with reduced sentiency or which would endure continuous suffering as deplorable.
Scientists and scientific organisations submitted responses stating that basic research was crucial. They observed that this type of research may seem more difficult to justify, as by definition it did not promise immediate or obvious application. However, they argued that, it was responsible for major developments in biological and medical understanding.
There were also many respondents who wrote to express their dissatisfaction with research involving animals. The majority of these respondents took the view that using animals was unethical and should not be practised, regardless of the purpose. Others believed that results obtained from animals were not transferable to humans and could be misleading and dangerous. They asserted that using animal models has slowed medical progress.
Many of those who expressed their view that research involving animals was unethical were concerned about the level of suffering experienced by laboratory animals. One respondent noted that pain was not always minimised, for example during pain research. A number of respondents were specifically concerned about husbandry and housing conditions and thought that these could be improved.
A few respondents questioned medical research per se, commenting that many modern human ailments were caused by unhealthy lifestyles and that these could be overcome without recourse to research on animals.
What are your views about the use of GM animals in research?
Generally, those who accepted research involving animals seemed to consider that genetically modified animals have proved useful research ‘tools’ and have allowed researchers to generate useful models of human diseases. Certain scientific advantages of GM animals were highlighted, for example, genetic changes could be made in a short timespan and research could be carried out which would not be possible in humans. Advances in this field seemed to be especially welcomed if they have resulted in the replacement of primates or other large animals with rodents. Some scientists who work with genetically modified animals reported that, in their view, the vast majority of modifications had no obvious harmful features in the animal.
Some of those who accepted the technology thought that it was given undue focus, and that the issue of welfare should be the more important consideration. They generally agreed with opponents to genetic modification that welfare implications could not easily be predicted, which may lead to suffering. Certain groups proposed increasing the availability of information regarding phenotypes and optimal husbandry conditions for these animals. It was felt that the sharing of knowledge could reduce the replication of experiments by different groups of researchers.
Many other respondents were opposed to the genetic modification of animals on the grounds that they felt it was unnatural and breached the intrinsic value of an animal. There were concerns that the result would be the increasing commodification of animals for human purposes. Others questioned the validity of the concept of genetic engineering in pathology, arguing that, as many diseases were multifactorial and affected by the environment, it was misleading to try to understand them by changing one or two genes.
A core concern was the ‘wastage’ of animals in genetic modification processes. In contrast, one response gave examples of best practice which would minimise the number of surplus animals. For example, embryos could be frozen and stored for later use rather than maintaining breeding colonies which were not actually going to be used in any procedures. Respondents noted the potential increases in animal morbidity and mortality that may accompany developments in genetic modification technologies.
Cloning raised new issues for some respondents. They commented on the low success rates and high occurrence of adverse effects seen in cloned animals. Others were anxious about causing irreversible changes in biodiversity, for example if genetically altered animals were to escape into the environment. With regard to xenotransplantation it was thought by some that new viruses might emerge.
Footnotes1 See http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/animalresearch/introduction.