Ethics of Research involving animals
V. Conclusions and recommendations
Before we present the conclusions and recommendations of the Working Party, we must clarify two important points. First, members of the Working Party who believe that research using animals is, on balance, justified, as well as those members who take the view that it poses a moral dilemma, find most research which is currently undertaken to be acceptable. They are cautious of any proposals that might undermine progress in specific areas of basic and applied sciences which, they believe, depend crucially on research involving animals. Other members who, within the spectrum of possible views, are closer to the abolitionist view, are implacably opposed to the
use of sentient animals for any scientific or medical purposes. They are equally cautious of any proposals that prolong or legitimise the infliction of pain and suffering on sentient animals. We emphasise that the recommendations that follow below, several of which aim to improve the conditions in which animals are used, should not be taken to imply the acquiescence of the latter group to animal experimentation.
These members acknowledge that animals are currently subjected to experiments and believe that they need protection. While they continue to advocate that the recommendations should go further in specific areas, they accept them as steps in the right direction, without endorsing research involving animals in principle.
Secondly, as implied above, because of the diversity of views and beliefs held by the Working Party, it has not been possible to achieve complete agreement on all of the recommendations by all members of the group. In our discussions, however, and in discussion with the Council, it became clear that in the context of a highly polarised debate it is important to make unambiguous recommendations in specific areas. While it is therefore not possible to attribute to all members of the group the conclusions and recommendations presented on any one issue, all members do accept the recommendations as valid contributions to the debate, clarifying further important implications of the more abstract thoughts presented in the consensus statement above. Nonetheless, on a few occasions it did not prove possible to identify positions that were acceptable to all members. In such instances we have tried to explain the areas of disagreement and we hope that these descriptions help to clarify the nature of the underlying dispute in a constructive way (paragraph 15.21).