Ethics of Research involving animals
The context of the debate - continuation I
Information about the cost-benefit assessment
15.37 The common emphasis on the cost-benefit assessment in combination with the system of classification of severity bands sometimes evokes the impression that the Home Office assesses the costs and benefits of each individual experiment or procedure. As we have explained, this is not the case, since assessments take place at the much higher level of protocols and project licences (Box 13.3).12
15.38 The APC’s 2003 Report, Review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research, provides very useful information about the application of the cost-benefit assessment in practice.13 The Report also observes that relevant information is spread across several different documents, and recommends that ‘there is a need for an easy-to-use, comprehensive list of factors to be taken into account in assessing costs, benefits and scientific validity, that could guide researchers and others engaged in ethical review under the act, such as members of ERPs.’14 We endorse this recommendation. Since ERPs should, ideally, also include lay people, it is important that this information is provided in a way that is accessible to non-experts. Such a document would also be of use to the general public and the same information therefore should be provided in an accessible manner on the websites of the Home Office for the general public. These materials should include specific case studies and also a summary of the process of how decisions are made in practice (see paragraph13.16 and Figure 13.1). We address further practical issues concerning the operation of the cost-benefit assessment below (paragraphs 15.54 and 15.56).
Provision of information by campaigning organisations and researchers, and ways of improving the broader context of public debate
Balanced information about animal research
15.39 Responses to our Consultation, and information in the press, indicate that there is still much confusion about the use of animals in research. Information which is publicly available can be unbalanced and biased. Although there are many excellent examples of responsible accounts of research involving animals, some animal protection groups sometimes use disturbing pictures that are not representative of the range of research that is permitted under current regulations.15 Equally, some of the information that is produced by organisations representing those whose work involves animals focuses disproportionately on the medical benefits of animal research, paying less attention to areas such as basic research or product testing, and the pain and suffering experienced by animals involved in such uses.16
15.40 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.
15.41 Public debates about research on animals would also be enhanced by educating young people about issues raised by animal experimentation through presenting all sides of the argument. More balanced materials could make an important contribution to an improved understanding of the costs and benefits, 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 that 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.
Public debates and discussions in stakeholder fora
15.42 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.’17 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 animal research in the Science & Innovation Investment Framework programme,18 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 NC3Rs to advise Ministers on areas of particular concern.
15.43 However, arranging dialogue, including public debates, on controversial matters is not straightforward. For example, there was some criticism of the Government’s GM Nation? debate which was organised in 2003.19 There are a number of different approaches to be considered, from large public meetings to consensus conferences and citizens’ juries. While we do not give detailed attention as to which approach might be best suited to discussion of issues raised by animal research we make some general observations.
15.44 First, it is important to create an environment for debate in which all views are heard and all participants are treated with the same respect. Secondly, the purpose and outcome of any public meeting or debate needs to be clear from the outset. For example, it might need to be stated whether the purpose is restricted to stimulating exchange of views, or whether it is being undertaken in the context of informing decision-making processes. Failure to consider the appropriate approach and outcome of any such exercise can possibly lead to more, rather than less, polarisation as well as to increasing scepticism about publicengagement exercises and trust in democratic processes.
15.45 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 represent a broad spectrum of views on research involving animals. 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.
Research on views of the public
15.46 We have already commented on the limitations of opinion polls, and the scarcity of peerreviewed academic research, which could help provide reliable assessments to be made about the views of members of the public about research involving animals (paragraphs 1.14–1.16). Such information can be important in considering whether or not policies are likely to be supported by the majority of the population. 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 their 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.
Footnotes11 News (2004) Science fears attacks will rise with Act THES 1657 10 September, p1.
12 See also Guidance on the Operation of the A(SP)A 1986, Appendix I, available at: http://www.archive.officialdocuments.
co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-xi.htm. Accessed on: 6 May 2005.
13 The criteria for making cost-benefit assessments are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of the APC’s report (see especially Chapter 4,
Boxes 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6); A description of those involved at particular stages of processing a licence application is provided in
Chapter 5. Animal Procedures Committee (2003) Review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research, available
at: http://www.apc.gov.uk/reference/costbenefit.pdf. Accessed on: 4 April 2005.
14 Animal Procedures Committee (2003) Review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research, p73, available at:
http://www.apc.gov.uk/reference/costbenefit.pdf. Accessed on: 4 April 2005.
15 The Advertising Standards Agency has upheld several complaints made by the RDS about the use of unrepresentative pictures
in campaigns. These include rulings against Naturewatch (October 1996), Uncaged campaigns (March 1998), Save the Hillgrove
Cats (August 1999), FAUNA (September 1999) and Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs (March 2000).
16 For example, some members of the Working Party consider that information brochures such as Medical Advances from
Research using Animals (CMP 2003/4), Animal Research and Human Medicine (ABPI 2004) or The Use of Non-human Animals in
Research: A guide for scientists (Royal Society, 2003), available at: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy/AnimalsResearch.htm
Accessed on: 21 April 2005, which are intended to provide neutral information about animal research, are insufficiently
balanced. See also Russell WMS (2004) The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists ATLA 32: 119–20.
17 See HM Treasury/DTI/Department for education and skills (2004) Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014,
paragraph 21, available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/33A/AB/spend04_sciencedoc_1_090704.pdf. Accessed on: 21
April 2005.
18 See HM Treasury/DTI/Department for education and skills (2004) Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014,
paragraph 6.16-7.20, available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/33A/AB/spend04_sciencedoc_1_090704.pdf. Accessed on: 21 April 2005.
19 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2003) Eighteenth Report, available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvfru/1220/122002.htm. Accessed on: 21 April 2005;
Understanding Risk Team, University of East Anglia (2004) A Deliberative Future? An Independent Evaluation of the GM
Nation? Public Debate about the Possible Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops in Britain, 2003, Working Paper 04-02,
University of East Anglia, available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur/latest_news.html. Accessed on: 21 April 2005.