Ethics of Research involving animals
The current debate
11.2 There is much debate about the potential to replace animals in experiments with alternative methods. Some, often those involved in animal research, point out that the use of alternatives to animals is a legal requirement in the UK; that alternatives are always used if they are available; and that it is simply not possible to avoid the use of animals in most of the experiments that are currently carried out. They argue that large sums of money are spent on the search for alternatives; and that most research on Replacement methods is in fact undertaken by the scientific community.
11.3 Others, often those who work for animal protection organisations, and some scientists, argue that efforts to develop new, alternative methods and use of those already available could be increased substantially; that funding to develop (and validate) alternatives ought to be augmented; and that the search for alternatives requires greater commitment and focus. They argue that much more could be done with political will, greater resources and greater motivation within the scientific community. Some commentators also assert that animal experiments are poorly validated and sometimes misleading, and that alternative methods are therefore ‘better science’.1 The divergence of views on the role of alternatives is also illustrated by the following observations made by respondents to the Consultation:
‘Far from being a separate activity, research into alternatives happens continuously when researchers seek and introduce new methods as part of normal working practice, and through the application of existing technologies. Replacement of animal use happens when information derived from new technologies allows us to gain knowledge which might otherwise have required animals. However, it is often unclear whether developments in say tissue culture are genuinely "alternatives" to animal use… They may simply be "different" methods which provide different information.’
AMRC ‘
Many of the suggestions for alternatives are based on misunderstanding or wilful misreporting of the facts. …the majority of medical research is nowadays on long-term degenerative diseases…, it is very difficult to see how any grossly simplified system (in vitro, in silico, etc.) can provide anything other than grossly simplified and misleading data.’
Dr Chris Jackson
‘Despite British and EU legislation prohibiting the use of animals where a valid alternative exists, there are no centralised, comprehensible and easily accessible sources of information on alternatives for scientists to consult…. The establishment of a national centre of excellence for alternatives that could develop, promote and disseminate information and advice on alternatives to animals could solve this problem.’
The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research
‘The sooner the enormous sums of money that fund irrelevant experimentation on animals [are] diverted to relevant human-based, non-invasive methodologies, the sooner the pace of human medical progress will quicken.’
Derek S. Paton, Dundee Animal Rights
11.4 Arguments from both ‘sides’ of the debate about the potential to replace animals with alternatives are often applied to animal experiments in general, which is not particularly helpful or constructive. Animal experiments are used to provide information to try and answer a very wide range of scientific questions. The potential for using alternatives depends on the nature of the specific scientific question being addressed and therefore has to be evaluated on a case by case basis rather than in general terms, if progress in replacing animals is to be made.