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

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