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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 14 January 2005, Huntingdon Research Centre (HRC), Huntingdon; Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Huntingdon Members <strong>of</strong> the Working Party who attended the meeting included Baroness Perry <strong>of</strong> Southwark (Chair), Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Martin Raff, Dr Sandy Thomas and Harald Schmidt Staff at HLS: Mr Brian Cass Managing Director HLS Mr Andrew Gay Marketing and Communications Director Mr David Whittaker Director, Laboratory Animals Sciences, Certificate Holder Programme: ■ Introduction to structural organisation and HLS business pr<strong>of</strong>ile as a contract <strong>research</strong> organisation that undertakes developmental <strong>research</strong> on pharmaceutical, agrochemical, nutraceutical, veterinary and industrial chemicals. Discussion about functioning <strong>of</strong> the Ethical Review Process and scientific and regulatory aspects <strong>of</strong> toxicity testing; ■ visit to the animal facilities and discussion with animal technicians and other staff. Viewing <strong>of</strong> part <strong>of</strong> a chronic toxicity, snout-only exposure study <strong>involving</strong> beagles. Visit to the dog and mini-pig holding facilities; ■ discussion about the forms and implications <strong>of</strong> organised unlawful protests against the company. 304
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 Appendix 5: Consultation with the public A Consultation with the public was held between October and December 2003. Nearly 600 copies <strong>of</strong> the Consultation paper were disseminated and a further 2,503 were downloaded from the <strong>Council</strong>’s website. <strong>The</strong>re was also the opportunity to comment online on the questions posed. One hundred and sixty-eight responses were received from both individuals and organisations. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Council</strong> welcomed the many and varied responses from nine different countries. A summary <strong>of</strong> the responses to six specific questions asked in the Consultation document is set out below. A list <strong>of</strong> respondents follows the summary. Many respondents agreed to make their full submissions available to the wider public and their comments can be found on the <strong>Council</strong>’s website. 1 <strong>The</strong> Working Party would like to thank everyone who contributed to the Consultation. Figure 1: Breakdown <strong>of</strong> response – individuals and organisations APPENDIX 5: CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC What is your view about the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in <strong>research</strong>? Many respondents stated that, in their view, <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> had led to considerable advances in biology and medicine. <strong>The</strong>y said that it would not be possible to exclude animal use without compromising safety or slowing progress, as <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> provided information which was not otherwise obtainable. Of the respondents who supported <strong>research</strong>, a significant number did not favour the indiscriminate use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> for human purposes. Rather, they felt that the acceptability <strong>of</strong> experimental work on <strong>animals</strong> depended on the purpose <strong>of</strong> the <strong>research</strong>, the amount <strong>of</strong> suffering and the species involved. Some respondents felt that there were defined areas which should be excluded such as the testing <strong>of</strong> cosmetics and household chemicals (the former is not permitted in the UK). Some people accepted animal experimentation which involved mild or moderate procedures on certain species, but found substantial procedures unacceptable. Several respondents described the creation <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> with reduced sentiency or which would endure continuous suffering as deplorable. Scientists and scientific organisations submitted responses stating that basic <strong>research</strong> was crucial. <strong>The</strong>y observed that this type <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> may seem more difficult to justify, as by definition it did not promise immediate or obvious application. However, they argued that, it was responsible for major developments in biological and medical understanding. <strong>The</strong>re were also many respondents who wrote to express their dissatisfaction with <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> these respondents took the view that using <strong>animals</strong> was unethical and should not be practised, regardless <strong>of</strong> the purpose. Others believed that results 1 See http://www.nuffieldbio<strong>ethics</strong>.org/go/ourwork/animal<strong>research</strong>/introduction. 305
Page 1 and 2:
The ethics
Page 3:
The ethics
Page 7 and 8:
Foreword The issue
Page 9 and 10:
Table of contents
Page 11 and 12:
Stages 1-2: discovery and selection
Page 13:
Conclusions and recommendations ...
Page 17:
Terms of reference
Page 20 and 21:
T h e e t h i c s o f r e s e a r c
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 41:
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 51:
Chapter 2 The cont
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 69:
Chapter 3 Ethical issues raised by
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 97:
Chapter 4 The capa
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 121:
Section 2 Use of <
Page 125:
Chapter 5 The use
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 143:
Chapter 6 The use
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
Section 3 Alternatives
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255:
Section 4 Legal, ethical and policy
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277:
Chapter 14 Discussion of</s
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293: T h e e t h i c s o f r e s e a r c
Page 325: Appendices
Page 376: Genetic screening: ethical issues P
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?