The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...
The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...
The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
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<br />
We c<strong>on</strong>sider that the c<strong>on</strong>cept <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Three Rs, and the type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hybrid moral positi<strong>on</strong> underlying the<br />
A(SP)A (some absolute c<strong>on</strong>straints, some balancing) could be accepted, or at least tolerated, by all<br />
those holding reas<strong>on</strong>able views. Clearly, neither the Three Rs nor the A(SP)A command universal<br />
respect, and hence it would be wr<strong>on</strong>g to claim that these approaches could be supported fully from<br />
the positi<strong>on</strong>s included in the spectrum set out above. For example, aboliti<strong>on</strong>ists will not agree to any<br />
invasive <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>involving</str<strong>on</strong>g> sentient <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>, and hence will not be able to genuinely share a<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sensus permitting it under certain c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s. However, they may, in principle, be able to tolerate<br />
the approach <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Three Rs and the provisi<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the A(SP)A as a compromise, while c<strong>on</strong>tinuing to<br />
campaign for a change in policy. Thus, although it would be wr<strong>on</strong>g to suggest that there can be a<br />
substantive c<strong>on</strong>sensus (i.e. c<strong>on</strong>sensus <strong>on</strong> a shared view that <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> can be viewed as justified), it<br />
seems right to say that in view <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the current situati<strong>on</strong> an enlarged procedural c<strong>on</strong>sensus is<br />
achievable (i.e. c<strong>on</strong>sensus that certain democratic procedures are justified, such as a system <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
licensing and c<strong>on</strong>trol <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> that is deemed necessary). By fine tuning the regulati<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
relaxing some restricti<strong>on</strong>s and introducing others, a broader group <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> people could give a greater<br />
endorsement to the form and c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the regulati<strong>on</strong>s than has been the case so far, even if no<br />
<strong>on</strong>e set <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> regulati<strong>on</strong>s would be c<strong>on</strong>sidered fully acceptable by all (paragraph 14.59).<br />
If this approach is to count as a fair process, several c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s need to be met.<br />
■ All involved need to be able to have access to relevant informati<strong>on</strong> about <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>involving</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>, such as the goals, welfare implicati<strong>on</strong>s and alternatives to <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>, in order to judge<br />
whether specific types <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> are justifiable in respect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> their normative frameworks.<br />
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS<br />
■ <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> discussi<strong>on</strong> about appropriate policies must be c<strong>on</strong>ducted in a fair and informed manner,<br />
which permits all reas<strong>on</strong>able participants to argue their case. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> violence and<br />
intimidati<strong>on</strong> are highly damaging to this process and are unacceptable, as they erode the<br />
necessary climate for reas<strong>on</strong>ed debate.<br />
■ <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re must be a genuine possibility for policies to be readjusted. For this to be achieved, there<br />
must be reliable evidence about the views <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> members <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the public so as to judge whether<br />
specific policies need to be revised (paragraph 14.63).<br />
V. C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Before we present the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s and recommendati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Working Party, we must clarify<br />
two important points. First, members <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Working Party who believe that <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> using<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> is, <strong>on</strong> balance, justified, as well as those members who take the view that it poses a moral<br />
dilemma, find most <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> which is currently undertaken to be acceptable. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y are cautious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
any proposals that might undermine progress in specific areas <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> basic and applied sciences<br />
which, they believe, depend crucially <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>involving</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Other members who, within<br />
the spectrum <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> possible views, are closer to the aboliti<strong>on</strong>ist view, are implacably opposed to the<br />
use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sentient <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> for any scientific or medical purposes. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y are equally cautious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> any<br />
proposals that prol<strong>on</strong>g or legitimise the inflicti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pain and suffering <strong>on</strong> sentient <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>. We<br />
emphasise that the recommendati<strong>on</strong>s that follow below, several <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> which aim to improve the<br />
c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in which <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> are used, should not be taken to imply the acquiescence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the latter<br />
group to animal experimentati<strong>on</strong>. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se members acknowledge that <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> are currently<br />
subjected to experiments and believe that they need protecti<strong>on</strong>. While they c<strong>on</strong>tinue to advocate<br />
that the recommendati<strong>on</strong>s should go further in specific areas, they accept them as steps in the<br />
right directi<strong>on</strong>, without endorsing <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>involving</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in principle.<br />
Sec<strong>on</strong>dly, as implied above, because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the diversity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> views and beliefs held by the Working<br />
Party, it has not been possible to achieve complete agreement <strong>on</strong> all <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the recommendati<strong>on</strong>s by<br />
all members <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the group. In our discussi<strong>on</strong>s, however, and in discussi<strong>on</strong> with the <str<strong>on</strong>g>Council</str<strong>on</strong>g>, it<br />
became clear that in the c<strong>on</strong>text <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a highly polarised debate it is important to make<br />
XXV