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
obtained from <strong>animals</strong> were not transferable to humans and could be misleading and dangerous.
<strong>The</strong>y asserted that using animal models has slowed medical progress.
Many <strong>of</strong> those who expressed their view that <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> was unethical were
concerned about the level <strong>of</strong> suffering experienced by laboratory <strong>animals</strong>. One respondent noted
that pain was not always minimised, for example during pain <strong>research</strong>. A number <strong>of</strong> respondents
were specifically concerned about husbandry and housing conditions and thought that these
could be improved.
A few respondents questioned medical <strong>research</strong> per se, commenting that many modern human
ailments were caused by unhealthy lifestyles and that these could be overcome without recourse
to <strong>research</strong> on <strong>animals</strong>.
What are your views about the use <strong>of</strong> GM <strong>animals</strong> in <strong>research</strong>?
Generally, those who accepted <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> seemed to consider that genetically
modified <strong>animals</strong> have proved useful <strong>research</strong> ‘tools’ and have allowed <strong>research</strong>ers to generate
useful models <strong>of</strong> human diseases. Certain scientific advantages <strong>of</strong> GM <strong>animals</strong> were highlighted,
for example, genetic changes could be made in a short timespan and <strong>research</strong> could be carried
out which would not be possible in humans. Advances in this field seemed to be especially
welcomed if they have resulted in the replacement <strong>of</strong> primates or other large <strong>animals</strong> with
rodents. Some scientists who work with genetically modified <strong>animals</strong> reported that, in their view,
the vast majority <strong>of</strong> modifications had no obvious harmful features in the animal.
Some <strong>of</strong> those who accepted the technology thought that it was given undue focus, and that the
issue <strong>of</strong> welfare should be the more important consideration. <strong>The</strong>y generally agreed with
opponents to genetic modification that welfare implications could not easily be predicted, which
may lead to suffering. Certain groups proposed increasing the availability <strong>of</strong> information
regarding phenotypes and optimal husbandry conditions for these <strong>animals</strong>. It was felt that the
sharing <strong>of</strong> knowledge could reduce the replication <strong>of</strong> experiments by different groups <strong>of</strong>
<strong>research</strong>ers.
Many other respondents were opposed to the genetic modification <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> on the grounds
that they felt it was unnatural and breached the intrinsic value <strong>of</strong> an animal. <strong>The</strong>re were concerns
that the result would be the increasing commodification <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> for human purposes. Others
questioned the validity <strong>of</strong> the concept <strong>of</strong> genetic engineering in pathology, arguing that, as many
diseases were multifactorial and affected by the environment, it was misleading to try to
understand them by changing one or two genes.
A core concern was the ‘wastage’ <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in genetic modification processes. In contrast, one
response gave examples <strong>of</strong> best practice which would minimise the number <strong>of</strong> surplus <strong>animals</strong>.
For example, embryos could be frozen and stored for later use rather than maintaining breeding
colonies which were not actually going to be used in any procedures. Respondents noted the
potential increases in animal morbidity and mortality that may accompany developments in
genetic modification technologies.
Cloning raised new issues for some respondents. <strong>The</strong>y commented on the low success rates and
high occurrence <strong>of</strong> adverse effects seen in cloned <strong>animals</strong>. Others were anxious about causing
irreversible changes in biodiversity, for example if genetically altered <strong>animals</strong> were to escape into
the environment. With regard to xenotransplantation it was thought by some that new viruses
might emerge.
306