Minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2004
Fri, 8 October 2004
9th meeting
NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS
WORKING PARTY ON THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH INVOLVING ANIMALS
Minutes of the meeting held at the Nuffield Foundation
28 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3JS
on Tuesday 29 June 2004
PRESENT
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Chair)
Professor Kenneth Boyd
Professor Allan Bradley FRS
Professor Steve Brown
Professor Maggy Jennings
Professor Barry Keverne FRS
Dr Judy MacArthur Clark CBE
Dr Mark Matfield
Professor Ian McConnell
Dr Timothy Morris
Professor Martin Raff FRS
Mr Nick Ross
Professor John Spencer
Ms Michelle Thew
Professor Jonathan Wolff
APOLOGIES
Professor Robert Combes, Professor Grahame Bulfield CBE, Dr Lewis Smith
SECRETARIAT
Dr Sandy Thomas, Dr Catherine Moody, Mr Harald Schmidt, Ms Nicola Perrin, Ms Caroline Rogers, Mr Mun-Keat Looi
INTRODUCTION BY THE CHAIR
1 The Chair welcomed the members of the Working Party and congratulated Dr Judy MacArthur Clark on her recently awarded CBE. Members were also informed that the Council’s Public Liaison Manager, Nicola Perrin, would be leaving the Council in September. The Chair and members expressed their gratitude to Ms Perrin for her contribution to the Working Party, especially with regard to the consultation with the public.
2 The schedule for the meeting was outlined. In the morning, recent comments made by the Council would be considered. The discussion of ethical issues would then be resumed, focussing on Chapter 8 (ethical arguments and conclusions) and Chapter 9 (implications for policy) of the draft Report. In the afternoon, this discussion would be continued.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
3 The minutes of the 8th meeting were approved.
DRAFT REPORT
4 The Chair had reported to the Council at its meeting in the previous week on the Working Party’s progress. The Council was satisfied with the overall structure and content of the draft Report and agreed that it was now ready to be sent for peer review. Several more detailed comments about the general tone throughout the Report, and specific matters, such as the role of opinion polls, were considered by the Working Party.
5 The Chair thanked all members of the Working Party for their recent contributions and comments on the draft Report. Particular thanks were given to Professor Jonathan Wolff who had revised Chapter 3 in the light of the discussion at the last meeting, and had developed a framework for Chapter 8. The members agreed that, in general, Chapter 3 now addressed the principal ethical issues raised by research involving animals, in an appropriate way.
6 Chapter 8 should also make it clear that the Working Party rejected extreme and fundamentalist views which either claimed that animal research had not led to any benefits at all or that animal research did not require any justification. It was therefore agreed that Chapter 8 should begin by stating clearly that animal experimentation required ethical justification.
7 How should the spectrum of views on animal research which were held by members of the Working Party and members of the Council be represented in the Report? Paragraph 8.17 suggested three possible options. After some discussion, it was agreed that these should be amended by two further options: one was to be inserted before the current option (i). This position related to an ‘anything goes’ approach, which rejected the Three Rs. Although it appeared that no member of the Working Party adhered to this view, and very few scientists held it, the position was taken by some. Desperate representatives of patient groups could also be said to hold this position. The current option (i) would be revised to represent positions such as those held by Dr Mark Matfield. The second new option would be added after the current option (iii) to indicate that the acknowledgement of a fundamentally unjustified status quo could also be paired with a more optimistic moral perspective according to which morality was a sufficiently motivating force that made change possible.
8 With regard to the value of research, the discussion of the five possible positions should include the point that for many people, the advancement of knowledge had a very substantial value. Some members took the view that the current climate in society was characterised by an anti-science climate, and that it was therefore important to state the arguments of those who took the view that there was a moral obligation to advance science. However, it was also emphasised that it would be important not to lose sight of the fact that by no means all research was undertaken to advance knowledge. For example, a considerable amount was undertaken for commercial purposes. Furthermore, it was important to be clear that those opposed to animal research were not opposed to scientific progress per se.
9 Chapter 9 should begin by stating clearly in which areas the Working Party agreed. It appeared that, despite the different views of members of the Working Party, there was the possibility of consensus in several areas. These included concern about the welfare implications of research for animals; the scientific validity of animal research; the relation of such research to other uses of animals; and the role of alternatives. More detailed discussion followed and members identified specific propositions within each area they were able to agree on.
10 There was some discussion about the usefulness of setting targets and striving for a sudden and radical implementation of abolitionist strategies, either to achieve a reduction to zero, or to ensure that more credible efforts be made towards reducing the number of procedures. Those arguing in favour of targets noted that such mechanisms were used successfully in other areas of policy making, for example, road safety, and that the stipulation of targets focussed strategies and provided additional incentives to reduce the use of animals. Targets were also useful to measure and monitor progress in the application of the 3Rs. Those critical towards the setting of targets argued that in most areas of research the approach would be unfeasible, especially in basic research. It would also be difficult in the case of sudden emergencies, such as the BSE crisis, which might require an unexpected increase in the use of animals. Furthermore, it was not clear what the consequences of setting targets for reduction in a single country would be: in the case of academic research, laboratories might relocate elsewhere; in the case of pharmaceutical companies, which were usually multinational, it could be expected that they too might undertake animal research in less restrictive countries. There followed some discussion which did not resolve the question of whether or not targets were either desirable or useful in all areas of animal research. However, it was agreed to address the topic in the Report.
11 The proposition of improving the provision of currently available information about animal research was discussed. On one view, the data provided at present, for example through the Statistics, were perceived as misleading. On another view, this assessment was disputed, although it was acknowledged that the situation could be improved. However, it was also argued that the solution was not simply to provide as much information as possible. Rather, it was important to focus on providing information in appropriate ways. The view was taken that summaries of granted Home Office licences in the form of a narrative description, including details about the expected benefits of the research and likely harms to the animals, had an important role to play in this respect. While there was acknowledgement that such summaries were useful, some questioned whether they were sufficient, and, more generally, who was to judge what counted as appropriate information.
12 In general, the focus of the recommendations should be on ethical issues. On one view, it was important to address the use of primates and the role of commercial interests. Other important issues concerned comparisons between areas such as cosmetic testing, where a de facto ban was in place, and comparable uses of animals where the purposes could be described as ‘trivial’, for example, household cleaners, which differed insignificantly from products which were already marketed.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
13 There was no other business.
Last Updated Fri, 8 October 2004