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 />
the reas<strong>on</strong>s that people hold them. Too <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten the debate about animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> is<br />
presented in a very simplified and polarised manner, differentiating between ‘those<br />
opposed’ and ‘those in favour’. Our own discussi<strong>on</strong>s, and our analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>ses to the<br />
C<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>, have indicated that such percepti<strong>on</strong>s are overly simplistic and unhelpful in<br />
furthering fruitful debate.<br />
■ From a philosophical perspective, c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> different views is useful<br />
because they illustrate the complex structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ethical justificati<strong>on</strong>. Like other areas <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
c<strong>on</strong>troversy in bio<str<strong>on</strong>g>ethics</str<strong>on</strong>g>, the topic <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <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> challenges us to test,<br />
and if necessary revise, our ethical framework in view <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> our c<strong>on</strong>sidered judgements<br />
about specific areas <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> (paragraph 3.7).<br />
■ Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we also aim to clarify more precisely the scope <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
agreement and disagreement between different views, and the sources <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> disagreement.<br />
Such an exercise is helpful in reducing disagreement as far as possible, in order to identify<br />
an ethically based public policy, which, while it may not entirely accord with any<br />
particular moral framework, may be seen as reflecting a broad agreement that provides<br />
for the best accommodati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> views that can be achieved under current c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
14.9 Before we present an outline <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ethical views, we need to make <strong>on</strong>e further<br />
important observati<strong>on</strong>. We have said that the Working Party does not take a view <strong>on</strong> the<br />
status <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> morality itself. Thus, it might be thought that the Working Party was c<strong>on</strong>tent to<br />
agree with the following two statements.<br />
■ ‘All claims that are given a moral justificati<strong>on</strong> are equally valid, and hence all <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the four<br />
views presented below are equally valid. Morality comes down to a matter <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> "picking<br />
and choosing".’<br />
CHAPTER 14 DISCUSSION OF ETHICAL ISSUES<br />
■ ‘If there were a country in which all inhabitants agreed that there was nothing wr<strong>on</strong>g<br />
with causing pain, suffering, distress or death to <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>, then the matter would be<br />
entirely up to those people and they would not deserve moral criticism.’<br />
14.10 <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> Working Party does not agree with either <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these statements. With regard to the first,<br />
all members <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Working Party associate themselves with <strong>on</strong>e (or more, depending <strong>on</strong><br />
the c<strong>on</strong>text) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the views that we set out below. In holding their particular view, they are<br />
willing to defend their reas<strong>on</strong>s and justificati<strong>on</strong>s for coming to particular c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s, and<br />
they challenge others to do the same, in a calm and civilised manner. All members strive to<br />
achieve coherence between their c<strong>on</strong>sidered judgments or intuiti<strong>on</strong>s about specific cases <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>, the relati<strong>on</strong>ship to judgments about similar cases, and the principles, rules<br />
and theoretical c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>s that govern them. Discussi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>flicts between these<br />
views provides welcome opportunity to engage in this process. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> reader is invited to<br />
judge whether <strong>on</strong>e or other <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the positi<strong>on</strong>s is superior to others. However, in presenting<br />
them, we are clear there is no such thing as an '<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f-the-shelf' morality. Moral frameworks<br />
are not acquired and maintained in a simple ‘pick-and-choose’ fashi<strong>on</strong>. Rather, they require<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tinuous scrutiny and justificati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
14.11 With regard to the questi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> whether or not people <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a country that showed no c<strong>on</strong>cern<br />
for any <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> deserved moral criticism, all members <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Working Party agree that this<br />
would be so. No member takes the view that complete disregard for the five morally<br />
relevant features – sentience, higher cognitive capacities, capability for flourishing,<br />
sociability and the value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> life – can be ethically justified. In this sense all members agree<br />
that the purposeless inflicti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pain, suffering, distress or death to <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> is a universal<br />
moral wr<strong>on</strong>g. However, we disagree about the reas<strong>on</strong>s for reaching this c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong><br />
(paragraphs 3.7 and 14.8).<br />
243