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 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
14.15 With this background in mind we now address for each view four questi<strong>on</strong>s: (i) what is the<br />
justificati<strong>on</strong> for using <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>? (ii) how does the justificati<strong>on</strong> relate to the<br />
treatment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in other c<strong>on</strong>texts? (iii) what is the value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>? (iv) what is the<br />
role <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Three Rs?<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> ’anything goes’ view<br />
Justificati<strong>on</strong> for using <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
14.16 As we have said, all members <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Working Party agree that <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><br />
requires ethical justificati<strong>on</strong>. People holding different views might refer to the philosophers<br />
Malebranche and Descartes, who established a dualistic c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mind and body that<br />
<strong>on</strong>ly applied to humans, arguing that <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> lacked relevant cognitive capacities.<br />
According to Descartes, <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> were not sentient or capable <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> suffering pain or distress<br />
(paragraphs 3.30 and 4.4). Based <strong>on</strong> a somewhat different assumpti<strong>on</strong>, in the 1960s<br />
prop<strong>on</strong>ents <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a philosophical approach called behaviourism came to similar sceptical<br />
c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s about mental capacities <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Although this approach still features in<br />
some journalistic c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>s 4 to the ethical debate about animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>, it has little<br />
currency in c<strong>on</strong>temporary academic discussi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Using <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> and in other c<strong>on</strong>texts<br />
14.17 We have observed that a useful way <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> addressing ethical issues raised by harmful uses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> is to identify morally relevant features, and to assess how these features should be<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sidered in moral reas<strong>on</strong>ing. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cartesian and similar approaches simply focus <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these features (higher cognitive capacities), and c<strong>on</strong>sider that this justifies categorising<br />
all <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> as outside <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the moral community (see Box 3.1). N<strong>on</strong>etheless, even such radical<br />
approaches which deny <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> any moral status need not allow any want<strong>on</strong> cruelty<br />
towards them, as it can be argued that humans who are cruel to <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> are more likely to<br />
be cruel to humans (the Kantian argument). Thus, the most liberal framework c<strong>on</strong>ceivable 5<br />
with regard to the use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> could still prohibit some treatments <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
in other c<strong>on</strong>texts; for example, some forms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hunting, or pest c<strong>on</strong>trol without regard to<br />
the way in which <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> were killed.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
14.18 Although the ’anything goes’ view is hardly a feature <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the current debate, some people,<br />
for example those affected by severe diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Huntingt<strong>on</strong>’s or<br />
Parkins<strong>on</strong>’s might argue for a very low threshold in specific cases. Some patients waiting for<br />
new or improved therapeutic interventi<strong>on</strong>s could take the view that the interests <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> used for medical <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> should be given far less c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> than their own,<br />
regardless <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> whether experiments are at an early stage in basic <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>, for example, to<br />
understand disease processes, or at more advanced stages, such as to test a new therapeutic<br />
interventi<strong>on</strong>. To others, such an argument based <strong>on</strong> need appears unjustified, and they<br />
point out that there are also a great number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> patients who disagree and prefer not to<br />
cause <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> suffering in their name.<br />
14.19 Research <strong>on</strong> diseases such as cystic fibrosis or neurodegenerative disorders involves <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
at different levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> neurological and behavioural development, ranging from mice to<br />
4 Guldberg H (2004) Why Humans are Superior to Apes Spiked 24 February, available at: http://www.spiked<strong>on</strong>line.com/Printable/0000000CA40E.htm.<br />
Accessed <strong>on</strong> 6 May 2005.<br />
5 See footnote 2.<br />
246