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 ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
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 />
What is your view about the use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> alternatives?<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> majority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>dents who commented <strong>on</strong> this subject were in favour <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> increasing<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> into alternative methods. Views ranged from those who felt that practically all results<br />
currently obtained using <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> were achievable by other means, to those who would like to see<br />
further use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> alternatives to supplement animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>. It was proposed that <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> into<br />
alternatives should not focus <strong>on</strong> replacing each c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al procedure with <strong>on</strong>e that does not<br />
involve <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>; Instead entire alternative approaches could be investigated.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> view that <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> into alternatives could be better funded was widely expressed. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re were<br />
a variety <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> suggesti<strong>on</strong>s as to potential sources <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> funding, including pharmaceutical companies,<br />
corporate taxes, taxpayers, <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> councils, charities and aboliti<strong>on</strong>ist groups. It was important<br />
to some resp<strong>on</strong>dents that a lack <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> funding might mean that <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>ers were currently unable<br />
to distinguish if alternatives were possible in principle. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re was support for the establishment<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a Nati<strong>on</strong>al Centre for the Three Rs, which would be dedicated to the development <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
alternatives in additi<strong>on</strong> to the refinement <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> experimental procedures. Others felt that <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
<strong>on</strong> the Three Rs should be encompassed within mainstream science rather than separated from<br />
it. This was based <strong>on</strong> the view that specific earmarking <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> support for alternatives could be<br />
wasteful, and therefore these funds would be better spent <strong>on</strong> further <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>. C<strong>on</strong>trary to this<br />
opini<strong>on</strong> was the view from <strong>on</strong>e resp<strong>on</strong>dent that c<strong>on</strong>cern about the Three Rs was a smokescreen<br />
to deflect attenti<strong>on</strong> from the fact that animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> was scientifically flawed. For example,<br />
some stated their belief that if <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>involving</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> were completely prohibited, <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
into alternatives would result in a huge leap in capabilities as ‘necessity is the mother <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
inventi<strong>on</strong>’.<br />
Several people would prefer to see more extensive use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> human volunteers than was currently<br />
the case. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y were anxious that future legislati<strong>on</strong> would further reduce the <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> carried out<br />
<strong>on</strong> humans and human tissue and would therefore lead to increased animal use.<br />
APPENDIX 5: CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC<br />
Scientists wrote to assert that, wherever possible, they already used alternative methods rather<br />
than <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> and that peer review and review by funding bodies and the Home Office ensured<br />
that this was the case. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y noted that animal <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> was expensive and inc<strong>on</strong>venient. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y<br />
argued that alternatives did not always provide a similar level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> complex informati<strong>on</strong> as<br />
experiments using <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g>. According to some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these resp<strong>on</strong>dents, alternatives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fered<br />
simplified systems which could result in simplified and misleading data.<br />
Those who held the opposing view c<strong>on</strong>tended that approaches using alternatives were not taken<br />
seriously by scientists and regulatory bodies. It was suggested that the latter, for example, could<br />
take a more positive view <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> alternative testing in toxicology studies. It was predicted that this<br />
would require more funding for validati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Several resp<strong>on</strong>dents felt that it was important that scientists increase the extent to which they<br />
share their <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> results, including ‘negative’ results (i.e. results from <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> that was<br />
regarded as unsuccessful and which was not subsequently published). It was felt that greater<br />
sharing would reduce duplicati<strong>on</strong> and therefore animal use. However, it was also argued that it<br />
was improbable that two pharmaceutical companies, for example, would be working <strong>on</strong> exactly<br />
the same chemical entity and that a certain amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> replicati<strong>on</strong> was therefore an essential<br />
comp<strong>on</strong>ent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>. It was also suggested that published <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> papers could include more<br />
in-depth discussi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the methodologies used, including advice to other <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>ers regarding<br />
humane endpoints and potential welfare implicati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>.<br />
What is your view about ethical issues relating to the use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>?<br />
Many people resp<strong>on</strong>ded to the C<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> with their view that the use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
was unethical in principle. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>y observed that if <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> were so like humans that results from<br />
307