The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...

T h e e t h i c s o f r e s e a r c h i n v o l v i n g a n i m a l s
■ <strong>The</strong>re is something special about humans, and
all humans possess some morally vital property
that all <strong>animals</strong> lack (the clear-line view).
■ <strong>The</strong>re is a hierarchy <strong>of</strong> moral importance with
humans at the apex, followed by primates
and then other mammalian species such as
pigs, dogs, rats and mice and other
vertebrates such as zebrafish, with
invertebrates (for example fruit flies) and
single-celled creatures arranged towards the
bottom (the moral sliding scale view).
■ <strong>The</strong>re is no categorical distinction between
human and non-human <strong>animals</strong>, and that
they are moral equals (the moral equality
view).
Box 2: Ethical questions raised by animal
<strong>research</strong>
■ Provided there are substantial benefits associated
with <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>, why should the
use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> require special justification?
■ Can any use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> by humans be justified?
Which specific issues need to be considered in the
context <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong>?
■ What role does the unavailability <strong>of</strong> alternatives
play in the justification <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong>
<strong>animals</strong>?
■ How does the justification <strong>of</strong> animal <strong>research</strong> relate
to the justification <strong>of</strong> other uses, such as food
production?
■ What is the appropriate role <strong>of</strong> regulation for
<strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>?
We conclude that neither consideration <strong>of</strong> the relative moral status nor reference to the evolutionary
order or uses <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in other contexts (paragraphs 3.21-3.26), settles the question <strong>of</strong> the
permissibility <strong>of</strong> animal experimentation, or <strong>of</strong> any other use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in a helpful manner.
Exclusive focus on the concept <strong>of</strong> moral status may obscure more than it illuminates (paragraph 3.24).
Morally relevant features
We suggest instead that a promising approach is to ask what features <strong>of</strong> humans and <strong>animals</strong> can
qualify them as moral subjects, imposing constraints or limits on how they may be treated. We do
not start from the assumption that there is one ‘master property’ or overriding criterion. Nor, for
the purpose <strong>of</strong> the discussion in Chapter 3, do we assume that there are some species that should
never be used for any purpose, or that the acceptability <strong>of</strong> using species depends on how closely
related they are to humans in evolutionary terms. We explore the possibility that there are no less
than the following five morally relevant features. At least one, or all <strong>of</strong> these, may be applicable
to specific <strong>animals</strong>, albeit to differing degrees, and with subtly distinct moral consequences:
■ sentience (paragraphs 3.28–3.29);
■ higher cognitive capacities (paragraphs 3.30–3.36);
■ the capacity to flourish (paragraphs 3.37-3.43);
■ sociability (paragraphs 3.44–3.46); and
■ possession <strong>of</strong> a life (paragraphs 3.47–3.49);
Ways <strong>of</strong> considering morally relevant features in different normative frameworks
We then turn to the question <strong>of</strong> deciding how, with regard to the possible or certain benefits <strong>of</strong>
<strong>research</strong>, such characteristics should be taken into account in moral decision making: through
weighing <strong>of</strong> factors (for example, the degree <strong>of</strong> suffering experienced by <strong>animals</strong> versus the value
<strong>of</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong>) or through the generation <strong>of</strong> absolute prohibitions (for example, that no
<strong>research</strong> should be undertaken on <strong>animals</strong> that are capable <strong>of</strong> higher cognitive capacities, such
as the chimpanzees, regardless <strong>of</strong> the benefits; paragraphs 3.51 and 3.57). A consequentialist
view weighs all costs against all benefits (paragraphs 3.52–3.55). A deontological view lays down
particular prohibitions (paragraphs 3.56–3.57). A hybrid view contains some prohibitions and
some weighing (paragraphs 3.58–3.61). Hybrid views appear to prevail in practice, both in UK
regulations and in public attitudes.
XXII