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
market <strong>research</strong>, and academic <strong>research</strong>, which is usually better suited to analysing the
subtleties <strong>of</strong> peoples’ views and opinions. Methodology and findings <strong>of</strong> opinion polls are not
normally subject to academic peer review, and the results <strong>of</strong> polls frequently appear to
correlate with the views <strong>of</strong> the organisations that commission them. 14 Despite their
limitations, results from opinion polls are widely cited and treated authoritatively. For
example, MORI’s finding that 90 percent <strong>of</strong> people in the UK accept animal <strong>research</strong> under
certain conditions has been quoted extensively in the media. It has also been referred to by
several organisations, and the UK Government, without further qualification. 15
1.16 Opinion polls should in general be treated with caution. 16 <strong>The</strong>re is little recent peer-reviewed
<strong>research</strong> that would allow a reliable assessment to be made <strong>of</strong> public opinion on animal
<strong>research</strong>. One recent study, based on focus groups, indicated that participants were caught
in a moral dilemma by wishing to maximise both animal welfare and human benefits in
<strong>research</strong> on <strong>animals</strong>. Most people preferred not to confront the issue, although there
appeared to be acceptance <strong>of</strong> animal suffering when there was a genuine human need,
typically expressed in developing cures for life-threatening diseases. 17
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.17 This Report does not seek to summarise public opinion or derive conclusions from it. While
we have conducted a wider Consultation (see Appendix 5) and have additionally considered
facts and opinions from a range <strong>of</strong> external experts (see Appendix 4), our primary aim has
been to undertake a thorough qualitative analysis <strong>of</strong> the scientific and ethical issues. <strong>The</strong>
value <strong>of</strong> this examination does not depend on support from particular pr<strong>of</strong>essional, political
or social groups, but on the clarity and force <strong>of</strong> the arguments.
Structure <strong>of</strong> the Report
1.18 <strong>The</strong> Report focuses on ethical issues arising from the fact that <strong>animals</strong> are used by humans
for <strong>research</strong> in ways that may cause pain, suffering or death. This is a substantial task. We
have therefore avoided extending our terms <strong>of</strong> reference to more specific issues, such as the
use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in education and training, issues raised by the unintended release <strong>of</strong> GM
<strong>animals</strong> into the environment, the patenting <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong>, and xenotransplantation. 18 We
begin in Chapter 2 by providing a brief overview <strong>of</strong> the historical, and current social and
14 In a recent study that reviewed 56 surveys on how people view the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> in <strong>research</strong>, the authors concluded that
there were marked discrepancies in the results reported in different surveys. See Hagelin J, Carlsson H-E and Hau J (2003) An
overview <strong>of</strong> surveys on how people view animal experimentation: some factors that may influence the outcome Public
Understand Sci 12: 67-81. <strong>The</strong> design <strong>of</strong> the 2002 MORI poll mentioned above has been criticised by the BUAV. See BUAV
(2004) Press release New survey shows that doctors do not share government support for animal experiments, available at:
http://www.buav.org/press/2004/09-01.html. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005.
15 See, for example, the website <strong>of</strong> the Coalition for Medical Progress, which commissioned the <strong>research</strong>, available at:
http://www.medicalprogress.org/reference/mori.cfm; <strong>The</strong> Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team (BIGT) (2003) Bioscience
2015, p22, available at: http://www.bioindustry.org/bigtreport/; Home Office, Attorney General and Department for Trade
and Industry (2004) Animal Welfare – Human Rights: Protecting people from animal rights extremists, p7, available at:
http://www.home<strong>of</strong>fice.gov.uk/docs3/humanrights.pdf. In a parliamentary debate on 7 July 2004, the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary <strong>of</strong> State for the Home Department, said ‘Whatever the extremists say, most people in the United Kingdom – a
recent survey gave the figure <strong>of</strong> 90 percent – believe that the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> for medical <strong>research</strong> is justified so long as it is
done without causing unnecessary suffering to the <strong>animals</strong>’. See transcript, available at: 15)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040707/halltext/40707h02.htm. All accessed on: 7 Apr 2005.
16 See Chapter 1, footnote 14.
17 <strong>The</strong> study focused on attitudes towards genetic modification <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> and also considered the wider context <strong>of</strong> animal <strong>research</strong>.
With regard to GM <strong>animals</strong>, views were similar; people had major concerns but generally accepted the use <strong>of</strong> the technology for
medical <strong>research</strong> and testing. However, the group responded negatively to examples <strong>of</strong> genetic modification that would benefit
humans in other ways, such as faster-growing farm <strong>animals</strong> and cats that do not cause allergies. Macnaghten P (2004) Animals in
their nature: a case study on public attitudes to <strong>animals</strong>, genetic modification and ‘nature’ Sociology 38: 533–51.
18 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Council</strong> published a Report on xenotransplantation in 1996. See <strong>Nuffield</strong> <strong>Council</strong> on Bio<strong>ethics</strong> (1996) Animal-to-Human
Transplants: <strong>The</strong> <strong>ethics</strong> <strong>of</strong> xenotransplantation (London: NCOB). Members <strong>of</strong> the Working Party on the <strong>ethics</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong>
<strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> do not necessarily share the conclusions <strong>of</strong> other <strong>Council</strong> Reports.
9