Ethics of Research involving animals
The context of the current debate in the UK
2.28 The history of the debate on animal research in the UK has been characterised by conflict, dialogue and cooperation. It has involved campaigners, representatives of animal protection organisations, physicians, scientists, those engaged in animal care and members of the general public. Despite differences on matters such as whether or not specific types of animal research are acceptable, opinion polls commissioned by various organisations concur in their finding that most people perceive a need for more information.39
The importance of openness and transparency
2.29 The underlying assumption of most Western states is that a system of representative democracy is the most appropriate model to devise policies that are compatible with the wide range of views held by members of the public. Nonetheless, controversies remain in many areas, and parliamentarians and policy makers are required to justify their decisions, especially in areas where there is no consensus. In order to keep the public committed to democratic institutions and processes, all stakeholders need to have, as far as possible, access to relevant information (see Box 13.4). It is also necessary to offer credible and legitimate opportunities to contribute views that policy makers should consider in their decisions. An atmosphere of openness and transparency is crucial in this respect.
2.30 Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to engage with the public. Some have had concerns about the possibility of becoming victims of aggression. Others may have decided that explaining or justifying their research to lay people was unnecessary. Currently, there is a small, but increasing number of academic and industrial scientists, and scientific institutions involved in animal research who are more willing to engage in public debates about their work, particularly in relation to ethically sensitive matters.
They take a proactive stance in explaining their research, the reasons for conducting it and the beneficial outcomes that they anticipate for society.40 For example, the Roslin Institute, whose researchers cloned the sheep Dolly in 1996 (see paragraph 5.28–5.29), invited representatives of the press and the public to visit its laboratories, in reaction to the controversies about research involving reproductive cloning. The Institute also aims to increase knowledge about animal research among non-scientific or non-technical staff who interact with the local community.
The CRO HLS has also generally increased openness. When a new senior management team was appointed in 1998, several measures were adopted in recognition of the fact that until then there had not been sufficient engagement with the public. Visits are now regularly organised and have included local groups, schools and colleges, as well as Members of Parliament. All visitors are usually invited for a tour of the animal facilities.
The company has also been involved in several television documentaries in which members of staff have given interviews. We welcome such initiatives. They help to improve understanding about issues raised by animal research and reduce secrecy and lack of transparency, which are frequently associated with animal research and which pose a major obstacle to informed debate. However, there is also a view that, in some instances, increased openness focuses disproportionately on the benefits of animal research, offering a ‘sanitised’ account which ignores the welfare implications and possible suffering of the animals.41 Equally detailed information about both scientific benefits and implications of research for animal welfare is fundamental to achieving an informed debate. As a general principle, we conclude that freedom of information is essential to debate for its own sake.
It would therefore be desirable for the public to have, as far as possible and subject to appropriate levels of safety for those involved in research, access to detailed information about the kinds of animal research, the number and species of animals used in specific research projects, the full implications in terms of pain, suffering and distress for the animals involved, and the intended benefits of the work. This information should be provided in a clear and accessible form. We consider ways in which such information could be supplied in more detail in paragraphs paragraphs 15.25–15.52.
39 MORI (2002) The Use of Animals in Medical Research, Research Study Conducted for The Coalition for Medical Progress, p8,
available at: http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/pdf/cmp.pdf. Accessed on: 14 Apr 2005; MORI (1999) Animals in Medicine and
Science, General Public Research conducted for Medical Research Council, p34, available at:
http://www.mori.com/polls/1999/pdf/mrc99.pdf. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005.
40 See, for example, RDS Welcome to RDS Online, available at: http://www.rds-online.org.uk. Accessed on: 13 Apr 2005; See
also Chapter 1, footnote 5.
41 See Chapter 15, footnote 16.