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
What is your view about the use <strong>of</strong> alternatives?
<strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> respondents who commented on this subject were in favour <strong>of</strong> increasing
<strong>research</strong> into alternative methods. Views ranged from those who felt that practically all results
currently obtained using <strong>animals</strong> were achievable by other means, to those who would like to see
further use <strong>of</strong> alternatives to supplement animal <strong>research</strong>. It was proposed that <strong>research</strong> into
alternatives should not focus on replacing each conventional procedure with one that does not
involve <strong>animals</strong>; Instead entire alternative approaches could be investigated.
<strong>The</strong> view that <strong>research</strong> into alternatives could be better funded was widely expressed. <strong>The</strong>re were
a variety <strong>of</strong> suggestions as to potential sources <strong>of</strong> funding, including pharmaceutical companies,
corporate taxes, taxpayers, <strong>research</strong> councils, charities and abolitionist groups. It was important
to some respondents that a lack <strong>of</strong> funding might mean that <strong>research</strong>ers were currently unable
to distinguish if alternatives were possible in principle. <strong>The</strong>re was support for the establishment
<strong>of</strong> a National Centre for the Three Rs, which would be dedicated to the development <strong>of</strong>
alternatives in addition to the refinement <strong>of</strong> experimental procedures. Others felt that <strong>research</strong>
on the Three Rs should be encompassed within mainstream science rather than separated from
it. This was based on the view that specific earmarking <strong>of</strong> support for alternatives could be
wasteful, and therefore these funds would be better spent on further <strong>research</strong>. Contrary to this
opinion was the view from one respondent that concern about the Three Rs was a smokescreen
to deflect attention from the fact that animal <strong>research</strong> was scientifically flawed. For example,
some stated their belief that if <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> were completely prohibited, <strong>research</strong>
into alternatives would result in a huge leap in capabilities as ‘necessity is the mother <strong>of</strong>
invention’.
Several people would prefer to see more extensive use <strong>of</strong> human volunteers than was currently
the case. <strong>The</strong>y were anxious that future legislation would further reduce the <strong>research</strong> carried out
on humans and human tissue and would therefore lead to increased animal use.
APPENDIX 5: CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC
Scientists wrote to assert that, wherever possible, they already used alternative methods rather
than <strong>animals</strong> and that peer review and review by funding bodies and the Home Office ensured
that this was the case. <strong>The</strong>y noted that animal <strong>research</strong> was expensive and inconvenient. <strong>The</strong>y
argued that alternatives did not always provide a similar level <strong>of</strong> complex information as
experiments using <strong>animals</strong>. According to some <strong>of</strong> these respondents, alternatives <strong>of</strong>fered
simplified systems which could result in simplified and misleading data.
Those who held the opposing view contended that approaches using alternatives were not taken
seriously by scientists and regulatory bodies. It was suggested that the latter, for example, could
take a more positive view <strong>of</strong> alternative testing in toxicology studies. It was predicted that this
would require more funding for validation.
Several respondents felt that it was important that scientists increase the extent to which they
share their <strong>research</strong> results, including ‘negative’ results (i.e. results from <strong>research</strong> that was
regarded as unsuccessful and which was not subsequently published). It was felt that greater
sharing would reduce duplication and therefore animal use. However, it was also argued that it
was improbable that two pharmaceutical companies, for example, would be working on exactly
the same chemical entity and that a certain amount <strong>of</strong> replication was therefore an essential
component <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong>. It was also suggested that published <strong>research</strong> papers could include more
in-depth discussion <strong>of</strong> the methodologies used, including advice to other <strong>research</strong>ers regarding
humane endpoints and potential welfare implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong>.
What is your view about ethical issues relating to the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in <strong>research</strong>?
Many people responded to the Consultation with their view that the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in <strong>research</strong>
was unethical in principle. <strong>The</strong>y observed that if <strong>animals</strong> were so like humans that results from
307