The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 Responses to the Consultation with the public <strong>The</strong> Working Party wishes to thank the following individuals and organisations for their interesting and helpful responses (the sign [*] indicates that permission has been granted to make the response available on the <strong>Nuffield</strong> <strong>Council</strong>'s website): 3 Organisations Anonymous (1) Animal Aid, UK (Andrew Tyler, Director)* Animal Health Trust, UK Association <strong>of</strong> Medical Research Charities (AMRC), UK* Association <strong>of</strong> the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)* AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, UK* Bayer HealthCare, International BioIndustry Association (BIA), UK Biosciences Federation, UK* Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research <strong>Council</strong> (BBSRC), UK* Pr<strong>of</strong>essor David R Katz, on behalf <strong>of</strong> Board <strong>of</strong> Deputies <strong>of</strong> British Jews* Boyd Group, UK* British Psychological Society Research Board’s Standing Advisory Committee on the Welfare <strong>of</strong> Animals in Psychology* British Society <strong>of</strong> Animal Science (BSAS)* British Union for the Abolition <strong>of</strong> Vivisection* British Veterinary Association Bromley Local Research Ethics Committee (NHS), UK* Canadians for Health Research* Committee for Ethical Issues in Medicine, Royal College <strong>of</strong> Physicians <strong>of</strong> London, UK* COST (European Co-operation in the field <strong>of</strong> Scientific and Technical Research) Technical Committee on Medicine and Health, Brussels* Covance Laboratories and the British Toxicology Society, UK* <strong>The</strong> Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, UK* European Federation <strong>of</strong> Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), Brussels* Europeans for Medical Advancement, UK* Genetic Interest Group, UK* GeneWatch, UK* Hellenic National Bio<strong>ethics</strong> Commission, Greece* Henderson Global Investors: Sustainable and Responsible Investment Team, UK* Humane Research Trust, UK* Humane Slaughter Association, UK* Humane Society <strong>of</strong> the United States: Animal Research Issues Section* Imperial College London Central Ethical Review Process Committee, UK Institute for Animal Health, Compton Laboratory, UK <strong>The</strong> Institute <strong>of</strong> Animal Technology, UK* International Primate Protection League UK* APPENDIX 5: CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC 3 See http://www.nuffieldbio<strong>ethics</strong>.org/go/ourwork/animal<strong>research</strong>/introduction. 311
Page 1 and 2:
The ethics
Page 3:
The ethics
Page 7 and 8:
Foreword The issue
Page 9 and 10:
Table of contents
Page 11 and 12:
Stages 1-2: discovery and selection
Page 13:
Conclusions and recommendations ...
Page 17:
Terms of reference
Page 20 and 21:
T h e e t h i c s o f r e s e a r c
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 41:
Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 51:
Chapter 2 The cont
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 69:
Chapter 3 Ethical issues raised by
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 97:
Chapter 4 The capa
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 121:
Section 2 Use of <
Page 125:
Chapter 5 The use
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 143:
Chapter 6 The use
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
Section 3 Alternatives
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255:
Section 4 Legal, ethical and policy
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277:
Chapter 14 Discussion of</s
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 299 and 300: T h e e t h i c s o f r e s e a r c
Page 325: Appendices
Page 376: Genetic screening: ethical issues P
show all

The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?