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
animal experiments were valid for humans, then these similarities made it unethical to use
<strong>animals</strong> for experimentation. <strong>The</strong>y felt that all living creatures should be given the same level <strong>of</strong>
compassion because they believed <strong>animals</strong> and humans had the same moral status. A number <strong>of</strong>
people compared the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> to the use <strong>of</strong> humans by other humans, such as abuses
carried out by Nazis preceding and during the Second World War.
Some <strong>of</strong> the respondents felt that <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> was unethical because <strong>of</strong> their belief
that the concept was scientifically flawed and actually caused a slowing <strong>of</strong> medical progress. A
different argument was presented by others who felt that humans had a responsibility or duty <strong>of</strong>
care and compassion for other species. Several <strong>of</strong> these respondents drew comparisons between
<strong>research</strong> and the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> for food, pets, clothing and sport, which they also thought
unacceptable and unethical. Some people considered that those who denied that <strong>animals</strong> suffer
should be considered as dangerous because their arguments could be used to deny that other
groups <strong>of</strong> humans suffer.
For many people who responded to the Consultation, welfare and the prevention <strong>of</strong> suffering
were paramount, independent <strong>of</strong> the question <strong>of</strong> whether the <strong>animals</strong> possessed ‘higher’ mental
states or cognitive capacities. However, others thought that self-awareness and cognitive ability
were more significant, because suffering could be connected to being able to recollect events <strong>of</strong>
the past and anticipate the future. Some were concerned that <strong>research</strong>ers did not recognise
symptoms <strong>of</strong> pain, or that observation <strong>of</strong> animal behaviour was not a reliable means <strong>of</strong> assessing
suffering. <strong>The</strong>se respondents believed that, based on their personal experience, many species
were capable <strong>of</strong> complex thoughts and emotions. <strong>The</strong>re was consensus that there should be
increased <strong>research</strong> into welfare, suffering and awareness.
Contrary to these viewpoints, many other respondents considered that there was a moral duty to
undertake <strong>research</strong> to alleviate human suffering and to improve quality <strong>of</strong> life. <strong>The</strong>y accepted
that if <strong>research</strong> involved <strong>animals</strong>, then it was ethical to use them for this purpose. In the view <strong>of</strong>
many respondents, the acceptability <strong>of</strong> a particular type <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> depended on the purpose.
For others it was the level <strong>of</strong> suffering that constituted the overriding factor in deciding whether
<strong>research</strong> should or should not be carried out. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> these commentators also drew
distinctions between the use <strong>of</strong> different species, noting that most people practise some
‘speciesism’ in their daily lives.
Some people favourably compared animal <strong>research</strong> to <strong>animals</strong> used for other purposes or even
those living in the wild. It was felt that ethical considerations should be consistent. One
respondent believed that it was important not to be too anthropomorphic about what we
conceive as quality <strong>of</strong> life for other <strong>animals</strong>. Others felt that <strong>animals</strong> did not have the capacity to
act rationally as moral agents and could therefore not have ‘rights’.
What is your view about the UK regulations on <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in
the UK?
<strong>The</strong> regulations which govern animal <strong>research</strong> were clearly important to the majority <strong>of</strong>
respondents. Views on the current UK regulations were divided, with many arguments being
expressed. Views ranged from those who considered that regulations were overly prescriptive to
those who thought that they were insufficiently strict and therefore ineffective. Within this
spectrum were others who believed the regulations to be appropriate as they stand. It was widely
held that the UK regulations were stricter than those in other countries.
Some thought that the nature <strong>of</strong> the care procedures at individual establishments were more
important than the role <strong>of</strong> the Home Office Inspectorate. One respondent wished to point out that
violations <strong>of</strong> the regulations have rarely led to prosecutions for staff in <strong>research</strong> establishments.
<strong>The</strong>re was the suggestion that licence applications should be assessed by an independent panel, not
308