Ethics of Research involving animals
Introduction Research involving animals: outline of the controversy
1.1 Humans have a variety of different relationships with animals. They bring pleasure to our lives as companions, and when we observe them in their natural environment, or in zoos and wildlife parks. In some cultures, certain animals are thought to have religious significance and are treated with special reverence. But we also use animals extensively for food, clothing, transport and sports such as racing or hunting.1 Animals are sometimes culled to maintain stable populations in natural ecosystems, or killed when they come into conflict with humans. For example rats, flies and mosquitoes are generally considered to be pests. These examples show clearly that the relationships between humans and animals differ in terms of the benefits they bring to humans, and their effects on the welfare of the animals. This Report focuses on an examination of the ethical issues raised by the use of animals in one particular area: basic and applied scientific and medical research.2
1.2 Debate about research on animals is not new. Animals have been used in basic and applied research for more than 2,000 years and the acceptability of this practice has been contested for a similar length of time (paragraph 2.6). During the last century, the technological capacity of the medical, biological and pharmaceutical sciences has developed substantially and both the number of researchers and the number of animals used in research have increased. In recent years the debate has intensified and has become more public in several countries.3
1.3 There is a wide range of opinions concerning the acceptability of research involving animals. It is unhelpful to describe the debate as being only between those who are in favour of research and those who are against it. A very brief overview would need to include at least the following range of views. Most medical research charities, many patient groups, the current UK Government and most members of the scientific community emphasise the scientific and medical benefits that have resulted from animal research. They stress that it has made a substantial contribution to our understanding of biological processes, and that it has been responsible for many crucial biomedical advances. Historically, the discovery of the circulation of blood, the function of the lungs, and the hormonal system in humans has involved research on animals. More recently, the development of important therapies and preventative treatments, including antibiotics, insulin, vaccines, organ transplantation and modern medicines, has involved animal research and testing. Moreover, such research has begun to provide critical insights into some of the more complex diseases, such as cancers,
heart disease, depression, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), malaria and tuberculosis. Farm animals and pets have also benefited from the development of new veterinary medicines and vaccines.4 Those who support research involving animals argue that on both ethical and scientific grounds, it is necessary for such research to continue.5
| Box 1.1: Use of the term ‘animal’ Strictly speaking, it would be more appropriate to use the terms ‘human animals’ and ‘non-human animals’ (and likewise ‘human primates’ and ‘nonhumanprimates’) to distinguish between humans and other animals. According to systems of biological classification, humans are within the animal kingdom and belong to the taxonomic group referred to as primates. However, for reasons of brevity, the term ‘animals’ is used to refer to ‘nonhuman animals’ throughout this Report. This use should not be taken to imply differences between humans and animals in their ability to suffer or feel pain to an extent that sets humans apart from all other species. Neither should it be taken to imply differences in moral status. |
1.4 Others also drawing on ethical and scientific arguments object to this conclusion.6 Campaigning organisations, with support from some scientists, question whether the results of experiments undertaken on animals can be reliably applied to humans.7 They argue that animal research is too often perceived as the only means of addressing specific research questions, that scientists are reluctant to explore other methodologies and that more effort should be made in exhausting the potential of alternative scientific methods. They also question whether it is right for humans to subject animals to procedures that cause pain and suffering, and from which they will not benefit. Accordingly, some commentators take the view that all animal research should be abandoned immediately.8
1.5 A range of further positions can be found in the debate. Many people may have sympathy for some assumptions, but reject others made by those taking the two positions sketched above. For example, some accept the basic scientific validity and necessity of animal research, but question whether enough effort is made to reduce the suffering of the animals involved. Others object to specific kinds of research, and have concerns about the species used, or the aims of the research. There are also those who, in wishing for an end to all research on animals, acknowledge that a sudden abandonment is not straightforward. For them, a phasing out of all such research, combined with maximum efforts to reduce any pain, suffering or distress that animals might experience, is a highly desirable goal.
Footnotes1 For a brief statistical overview of the numbers of animals used in different contexts see Appendix 1 and see Appendix 2 for
information about the numbers of animals used in scientific procedures.
2 In this report, we generally use the term ‘research’ in a broad sense, encompassing experiments undertaken in basic and
applied research, as well as for the purpose of toxicity testing. We use the term ‘testing’ to refer exclusively to toxicity
testing.
3 A recent survey in China, South Korea and Vietnam commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare concluded
that 77–90% (variation across different countries) of people believed ’we have a moral duty to minimise suffering‘, when
asked about their views on the treatment of animals. MORI 2005 Asian Nations Share British Concern for Animals, available
at: http://www.mori.com/polls/2005/ciwf.shtml. Accessed on: 6 Apr 2005.
4 For 2003, 150,679 procedures in the category Applied studies – veterinary studies were recorded, comprising 5.4% of the
total number of procedures and 5.5% of the total number of animals. Of the total number of procedures in this category, the
farmed animals pigs, sheep, cattle, poultry and fish accounted for 79%. Home Office (2004) Statistics of Scientific Procedures
on Living Animals Great Britain 2003 (London: HMSO).
5 See, for example, websites for: the Coalition for Medical Progress, available at: http://www.medicalprogress.org/; The
Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC), available at: http://www.amrc.org.uk/; UK Home Office Animals in Scientific
Procedures, available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/animals/index.html; RDS Understanding Animal Research in
Medicine, available at: http://www.rds-online.org.uk. All accessed on: 21 Feb 2005.
6 In this Report, the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ are used synonymously. For further discussion see Crisp R (1998) Ethics, in
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Craig E (Editor) (London: Routledge), available at:
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/L132. Accessed on: 23 Mar 2005.
7 See British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) Frequently asked questions about vivisection, available at:
http://www.buav.org/faqs.html#faq13. Accessed on: 23 Mar 2005.
8 A very small group of those opposed to the use of animals also protest by damaging property and by using violence against
individual researchers, institutions and business partners, paragraphs 2.22–2.24 and 15.47–15.50.