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 />
primates. It will therefore infringe <strong>on</strong> the animal’s morally relevant properties (sentience,<br />
higher cognitive capacities, capacity to flourish, sociability and possessi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a life) to<br />
varying degrees. We observed above that the questi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> whether or not other <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>,<br />
and particularly primates, have higher cognitive capacities that can be compared in a<br />
meaningful way to those <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> humans is the subject <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tinuing <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> paragraphs 3.30,<br />
4.4 and 4.27). No member <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Working Party is persuaded that a pers<strong>on</strong>’s experience <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
suffering can justify the unlimited impositi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pain or suffering by <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>,<br />
regardless <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> whether they are mice or primates. However, we agree that patients’ views<br />
should be fully c<strong>on</strong>sidered in deliberati<strong>on</strong>s about the permissibility <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
al<strong>on</strong>gside other voices in the debate.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> role <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Three Rs<br />
14.20 While views <strong>on</strong> the Three Rs may differ am<strong>on</strong>g those sympathetic to the ’anything goes’<br />
view, many prop<strong>on</strong>ents may view them with scepticism. Although Refinement will be<br />
relevant to all those who do not deny the capacity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> suffering to <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>, in general the<br />
Three Rs are likely to be <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> interest primarily ins<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ar as they c<strong>on</strong>tribute to more ec<strong>on</strong>omic<br />
and effective scientific progress, for example where Refinements are necessary so as not to<br />
compromise the scientific validity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> results from animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>. 6<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> ’<strong>on</strong> balance justificati<strong>on</strong>’ 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 />
14.21 In Chapter 3 we referred to a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> normative ethical theories in our attempt to<br />
determine the appropriate c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> morally relevant features <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se<br />
theories include de<strong>on</strong>tological, c<strong>on</strong>sequentialist, utilitarian and virtue-<str<strong>on</strong>g>ethics</str<strong>on</strong>g>-based<br />
approaches and all may be used to justify some animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Many approaches have as<br />
their basis the argument that there is a moral primacy <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> humans over <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are<br />
also arguments based <strong>on</strong> the biological or evoluti<strong>on</strong>ary order <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> humans and other <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
(paragraphs 3.20–3.26) as well as religious frameworks or other noti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> solidaristic<br />
preference (paragraph 14.14).<br />
CHAPTER 14 DISCUSSION OF ETHICAL ISSUES<br />
14.22 Unlike prop<strong>on</strong>ents <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ’anything goes’ view, supporters <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this view acknowledge that<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> entails costs to <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>, which must be taken seriously in moral reas<strong>on</strong>ing.<br />
However, very <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten the benefits to human beings are seen to morally outweigh the costs<br />
to <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Prop<strong>on</strong>ents point to the statistics about the level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pain, suffering and distress<br />
experienced by <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> and note that, for example, 39 percent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> project<br />
licences in force at the end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2003 were classified as mild (56 percent as moderate, see<br />
Appendix 2). <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y take the Statistics to be broadly representative <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> animal suffering, view<br />
the levels as acceptable, and emphasise that the law requires that experiments must be<br />
designed to use the minimum number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>, drawn from the species with the lowest<br />
neurophysiological sensitivity. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y further argue that the welfare implicati<strong>on</strong>s are<br />
experienced in far less negative ways by <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> than by humans (paragraphs 3.29). Hence,<br />
in view <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the important goals <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> many <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> programmes using <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>, and the lack<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> alternatives, they argue that in accepting animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> they act with full moral<br />
justificati<strong>on</strong>. N<strong>on</strong>etheless they can also hold that every reas<strong>on</strong>able step must be taken to<br />
reduce the costs that fall <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>, and that some forms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> are not justified.<br />
6 Derbyshire S (2001) Animal Research: A scientist's defence Spiked 29 March, available at: http://www.spiked<strong>on</strong>line.com/Printable/000000005547.htm.<br />
Accessed <strong>on</strong> 6 May 2005.<br />
247