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
composed <strong>of</strong> members <strong>of</strong> the government or civil service. <strong>The</strong> Inspectorate, which consisted <strong>of</strong> 25
inspectors in 2003, was felt by some to be insufficiently staffed. It was suggested that if the number
<strong>of</strong> inspectors were increased, then more unannounced visits to <strong>research</strong> establishments could take
place.
Some respondents considered that simplification and flexibility <strong>of</strong> project licences would be
beneficial for animal welfare. <strong>The</strong>se respondents, <strong>of</strong>ten involved in animal <strong>research</strong>, believed the
regulations to be strict and thorough and sometimes overly bureaucratic. <strong>The</strong>y felt that any
further tightening <strong>of</strong> the legislation would stifle <strong>research</strong>, slow down progress, increase costs and
could drive <strong>research</strong>ers away from the UK.
<strong>The</strong> development <strong>of</strong> the Ethical Review Process in the previous six years was highlighted. One
respondent felt that the lay member on ethical review panels had limited involvement, although
others felt that lay members frequently made valuable contributions. Some noted that the
Animal Procedures Committee had made recommendations regarding improvements to
regulation; and suggested that these be implemented. 2
Some respondents considered the concept <strong>of</strong> the cost-benefit assessment to be flawed because
costs to <strong>animals</strong> were not given due weight. <strong>The</strong> regulations state that <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>
should only be undertaken in the absence <strong>of</strong> alternatives. However, some people alleged that this
limitation could not be adhered to until further <strong>research</strong> into alternatives was conducted, as
alternatives may be possible but have simply not been developed. <strong>The</strong> regulations also rely on
assessments made in advance <strong>of</strong> experimentation; many respondents questioned how <strong>research</strong>ers
could make welfare assessments in advance and felt that evaluations should be made before,
during and after procedures are applied.
A core concern was how the regulations related to genetically modified (GM) <strong>animals</strong>. Some took
the view that they were inadequate and had been written before the advent <strong>of</strong> new technologies
which have resulted in the creation <strong>of</strong> GM <strong>animals</strong>. It was pointed out that current Home Office
statistics included GM <strong>animals</strong> kept to maintain breeding colonies. This meant that the statistics
misrepresent the proportion <strong>of</strong> rodents as compared with other <strong>animals</strong> used in actual scientific
procedures. Others felt the status quo should prevail, and licences should be required for all GM
breeding.
APPENDIX 5: CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC
<strong>The</strong> Home Office system <strong>of</strong> classification for procedures was criticised by some respondents who
questioned the use <strong>of</strong> the term ‘moderate’ for certain <strong>research</strong> carried out on primates. <strong>The</strong>y argued
that a ‘substantial’ procedure could be hidden within a ‘moderate’ project. In addition, some people
objected to the fact that the terminal sedation <strong>of</strong> an animal could be termed ‘unclassified’.
It was suggested that greater effort could be made to harmonise regulations regarding animal
<strong>research</strong> in different countries, at least across the EU. A number <strong>of</strong> respondents considered that
there was insufficient protection for people and institutions involved in animal <strong>research</strong> and would
like to see regulation introduced to overcome this. <strong>The</strong>re were particular concerns about violent
extremists.
What do you think about the information that is available to the public about
<strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>?
<strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> people who commented on this question felt that more information on the use
<strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in <strong>research</strong> would be welcome. Some suggested that anonymised licence applications
should be published and one pr<strong>of</strong>essional body agreed, stating that the non-confidential parts <strong>of</strong>
licences should be available to the public. Alternatively, or in addition, lay summaries could prove
2 Animal Procedures Committee (2003) Review <strong>of</strong> the cost-benefit assessment in the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in <strong>research</strong> (London: HO).
309