Ethics of Research involving animals
Structure of the Report
1.18 The Report focuses on ethical issues arising from the fact that animals are used by humans for research in ways that may cause pain, suffering or death. This is a substantial task. We have therefore avoided extending our terms of reference to more specific issues, such as the use of animals in education and training, issues raised by the unintended release of GM animals into the environment, the patenting of animals, and xenotransplantation.18 We begin in Chapter 2 by providing a brief overview of the historical, and current social and regulatory context of research involving animals. In Chapter 3, we discuss the way in which moral philosophy relates to issues raised by such research. We focus in particular on the kind of questions that need to be asked when considering whether, and if so how, the use of animals by humans for research can be justified. We consider whether there are particular features of animals that are of special moral relevance, and we outline ways in which different philosophical frameworks can be related to morally relevant characteristics. We also discuss the relation of moral theory to regulatory codes and practices, and how it should contribute to achieving appropriate regulation. Chapter 4 explores philosophical and scientific issues in relation to the assessment of pain, suffering and distress caused by research on animals.
1.19 The areas of research in which animals are used are described in Chapters 5–9. They include: basic research to understand how animals and humans develop and function (Chapter 5), the use of animals for the study of human disease (Chapter 6), genetic modification of animals in the study of disease (Chapter 7), the development of medicines and vaccines by the pharmaceutical industry (Chapter 8) and toxicological testing of substances that are potentially hazardous for animals, humans or the environment (Chapter 9). Within each of these sections we provide examples of specific types of research. A summary of Chapters 5–9, that also considers in more detail the transferability to humans of results obtained from animal research, is provided in Chapter 10.
1.20 Chapters 11 and 12 discuss the Three Rs: Refinement, Reduction and Replacement. These terms represent widely accepted principles of humane experimental technique, whereby animals should be replaced by alternatives wherever possible, and the numbers and suffering of animals kept to a minimum. Chapter 11 focuses on replacements. It addresses the scope and limitation of the approach, and identifies scientific and non-scientific obstacles. Reduction and Refinement are similarly addressed in Chapter 12. An overview of the regulatory framework governing animal research in the UK and the formal provisions and operation in practice of the principal law, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (A(SP)A), is provided in Chapter 13. Developments at the international level are also considered briefly.
1.21 The initial discussion of moral issues in Chapter 3 is resumed in Chapter 14. We aim to identify areas of practical consensus, which leads to some conclusions and recommendations for policy in Chapter 15. While our observations focus mainly on animal research in the UK, we have tried to consider the broader context and hope that the Report will be of use internationally.
1.22 As with all the Reports published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, this document has been produced primarily by a Working Party that was established for the specific purpose of writing this Report. The draft Report has also been considered, and commented upon, several times by all members of the Council, before final adoption. The members of the Working Party reflect in their own convictions the diversity of views held in the wider population. In the Report, we have avoided the search for a spurious show of agreement on all topics, but have instead attempted to clarify the varied ethical and scientific views that are held. Inevitably, some members of the group find some parts of the Report difficult to accept, and sometimes contrary to their own beliefs. It is therefore all the more important that a consensus statement was achieved after many hours of discussion (see paragraphs 15.3–15.20). Members have recognised that although disagreements will remain on both fundamental and very specific issues raised by animal research, nevertheless, all can respect the deeply held ethical convictions from which the views of others are derived.
1.23 It is in this spirit that we present this Report and its recommendations. Readers will therefore need to bear in mind that while the Working Party has tried scrupulously to give fair coverage to the widest possible range of ethical and scientific arguments, it is not possible, outside the consensus statement, to attribute to all members of the group the views described on any one issue. Rather, the Council adopted the Report as a whole, recognising it as a fair and balanced study of the wide range of views, trusting that it is valuable to lay out the range of opinions and beliefs about the use of animals in research, and to give a detailed analysis of the ethical arguments that should be the basis of any informed and fair debate.
Footnotes14 In a recent study that reviewed 56 surveys on how people view the use of animals in research, the authors concluded that there were marked discrepancies in the results reported in different surveys. See Hagelin J, Carlsson H-E and Hau J (2003) An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: some factors that may influence the outcome Public Understand Sci 12: 67-81. The design of the 2002 MORI poll mentioned above has been criticised by the BUAV. See BUAV (2004) Press release New survey shows that doctors do not share government support for animal experiments, available at:
http://www.buav.org/press/2004/09-01.html. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005.
15 See, for example, the website of the Coalition for Medical Progress, which commissioned the research, available at:
http://www.medicalprogress.org/reference/mori.cfm; The Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team (BIGT) (2003) Bioscience
2015, p22, available at: http://www.bioindustry.org/bigtreport/; Home Office, Attorney General and Department for Trade
and Industry (2004) Animal Welfare – Human Rights: Protecting people from animal rights extremists, p7, available at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/humanrights.pdf. In a parliamentary debate on 7 July 2004, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for the Home Department, said ‘Whatever the extremists say, most people in the United Kingdom – a recent survey gave the figure of 90 percent – believe that the use of animals for medical research is justified so long as it is done without causing unnecessary suffering to the animals’. See transcript, available at: 15)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040707/halltext/40707h02.htm. All accessed on: 7 Apr 2005.
16 See Chapter 1, footnote 14.
17 The study focused on attitudes towards genetic modification of animals and also considered the wider context of animal research.
With regard to GM animals, views were similar; people had major concerns but generally accepted the use of the technology for medical research and testing. However, the group responded negatively to examples of genetic modification that would benefit humans in other ways, such as faster-growing farm animals and cats that do not cause allergies. Macnaghten P (2004) Animals in
their nature: a case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’ Sociology 38: 533–51.
18 The Council published a Report on xenotransplantation in 1996. See Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1996) Animal-to-Human Transplants: The ethics of xenotransplantation (London: NCOB). Members of the Working Party on the ethics of research involving animals do not necessarily share the conclusions of other Council Reports.