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
useful for interested members <strong>of</strong> the public. In contrast to this view, some scientists took the view
that simplification would distort the nature and context <strong>of</strong> animal <strong>research</strong>.
It was noted by some respondents that results <strong>of</strong> animal <strong>research</strong> were published in the scientific
literature and therefore available, but concerns were expressed regarding the perceived
insufficient information regarding the actual use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>animals</strong>, husbandry and the role <strong>of</strong> the
Three Rs. <strong>The</strong> scientific and medical language used in such publications was also recognised as a
barrier to public understanding.
It was accepted that animal rights groups have provided much information to the public
regarding <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>. Supporters <strong>of</strong> these groups considered that they had
performed a valuable public service in exposing cruelty and bad practice. However, others took
the view that the information that they provided was inaccurate, alarmist or out <strong>of</strong> date.
Charities fund a significant proportion <strong>of</strong> medical <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> and certain
respondents remarked that they seemed reluctant to acknowledge the part that they played in
the projects that they fund. <strong>The</strong>y felt that charities should be more open. Others felt that it was
difficult to persuade <strong>research</strong>ers to speak about their work in public, as they then become a
target <strong>of</strong> extremists. Other suggestions for provision <strong>of</strong> information included education in schools
and making available leaflets regarding animal <strong>research</strong> in doctors’ surgeries and hospital
waiting areas.
On the question <strong>of</strong> who could be trusted in order to obtain reliable information regarding
<strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>, it was felt by some that the current <strong>of</strong>ficial sources <strong>of</strong> information
were biased towards those who carried out such <strong>research</strong> and tended to present only the positive
side <strong>of</strong> the work. <strong>The</strong>se respondents felt that it was therefore difficult to trust companies which
made a pr<strong>of</strong>it from <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>. Conversely, other respondents felt that they
would not trust any organisation which promotes unlawful direct action against <strong>research</strong>ers or
institutions. Rather, there was a call for an independent body which would balance the different
interests <strong>of</strong> both stakeholders and the general public.
It was suggested by a number <strong>of</strong> respondents that they would like to 'see inside' animal
laboratories; perhaps through the use <strong>of</strong> CCTV camera. Others considered that a wealth <strong>of</strong>
information regarding animal <strong>research</strong> already existed, which is available to anyone who is
interested, especially via the Internet.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Council</strong> asked a secondary question in its Consultation paper regarding whether medicines
that have been developed using <strong>animals</strong> should be labelled as such. Many people supported this
idea. <strong>The</strong>re was concern by one respondent that such labelling would lead to an increase in the
number <strong>of</strong> people who refuse medication tested in this way, and who therefore demand
resources to provide alternatives. <strong>The</strong>re was a concern that pharmaceutical companies might try
to mislead the public they would use on such labels.
310