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
progress in medical <strong>research</strong>. 6 <strong>The</strong>y also contend, for example, that it has not been necessary
for medical progress, claiming that clinical observations in humans had actually revealed
these discoveries, which were then subsequently ‘validated’ in <strong>animals</strong>. 7 Thus, even if many
fundamental discoveries did involve the use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong>, they argue that this practice should
not be mistaken for evidence <strong>of</strong> the necessity <strong>of</strong> animal experiments. 8 Discussion about
whether or not these assertions are justified, and what a world without previous and current
animal <strong>research</strong> would be like, is interesting, but not straightforward. It involves a significant
number <strong>of</strong> highly speculative and variable hypotheses. While we address some related issues
in Chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.11–3.12), we consider it more fruitful to explore the current
potential <strong>of</strong> Replacements (see Chapter 11) rather than to focus on what could have been
achieved without animal <strong>research</strong> in the past.
Box 2.1: Use <strong>of</strong> important terms
Throughout this Report, we make occasional reference
to specific concepts and groups <strong>of</strong> people involved in
the debate about animal <strong>research</strong>. We explain below
how we use the terms to describe them. <strong>The</strong>y should
not be understood as rigidly defined categories,
suggesting that people can only be grouped under one
<strong>of</strong> the terms. We merely use them for practical reasons,
to highlight particular points <strong>of</strong> view.
■ Defenders <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>: <strong>The</strong>re are
several organisations that have been set up by
<strong>research</strong>ers or patients expressly to defend the use <strong>of</strong>
<strong>animals</strong> in medical <strong>research</strong> on scientific and ethical
grounds. Many other scientific and medical
organisations publicly support the need to use
<strong>animals</strong> in <strong>research</strong> (see Box 2.4).
■ Opponents <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>: This group
includes those who believe that animal <strong>research</strong> is
not scientifically and/or ethically justified and oppose
its use.
■ Antivivisection groups: Originally, this term was used
to describe groups that opposed animal <strong>research</strong> that
involved performing surgical procedures on living
<strong>animals</strong> (vivisection literally means the 'cutting up’ <strong>of</strong>
a living being). It is now <strong>of</strong>ten used as a term to
describe groups that oppose any experimentation on
living <strong>animals</strong>, on either scientific or ethical grounds,
or on both.
■ Animal rights: A concept according to which most, if
not all, <strong>animals</strong> are granted rights to live a life free
from abuse and exploitation by humans. This would
imply that <strong>animals</strong> must not be harmed for scientific
purposes or any other purposes that benefit humans,
other <strong>animals</strong> or the environment (see Box 3.4). This
view is sometimes compatible with using <strong>animals</strong> in
other contexts, for example as pets, provided that
they are not treated merely as a means to an end.
Those who espouse this principle differ in their views
on how respect for animal rights should be
promoted. Most restrict their actions to discussion in
their immediate private environment; others
campaign actively, but peacefully; a very small
minority think it is justifiable to use unlawful,
physical or psychologically violent actions with the
aim <strong>of</strong> achieving an end to animal <strong>research</strong> or any
other use they perceive as cruel.
■ Animal welfare: This concept relates to the promotion
and systematic study <strong>of</strong> all aspects <strong>of</strong> animal wellbeing.
For <strong>animals</strong> involved in <strong>research</strong>, animal
welfare includes the assessment <strong>of</strong> breeding,
transport, housing, nutrition, disease prevention and
treatment, handling and, where necessary,
euthanasia. As a philosophical approach, the
promotion <strong>of</strong> animal welfare is distinct from that <strong>of</strong>
animal rights in the sense that those advocating
respect for the welfare <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> do not necessarily
wish to use the language <strong>of</strong> rights. Accordingly,
animal-welfare groups emphasise human
responsibility towards <strong>animals</strong>. <strong>The</strong>y consider that
some uses <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> may be acceptable (albeit with
reluctance) provided they are adequately justified and
carried out with full attention to the principle <strong>of</strong> the
Three Rs, and that the behavioural and physiological
needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>animals</strong> concerned are addressed (see
Box 2.4). Proponents <strong>of</strong> this approach are not
necessarily committed to wishing an end to animal
<strong>research</strong>, but most would see this state as desirable.
■ Animal protection groups: An umbrella term for
antivivisection, animal-rights and animal-welfare
groups that seek to achieve the greatest possible
protection <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> from inadequate treatment.
Scientific developments and public opinion in the 18th and 19th centuries
2.5 As the study <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> developed in medical schools across Europe during the 17th and 18th
centuries, experiments became increasingly complex and invasive. Due to the absence <strong>of</strong>
anaesthetics, many experiments involved vivisection in the literal sense <strong>of</strong> the word (see Box
2.1), as some <strong>research</strong>ers frequently operated on unanaesthetised living <strong>animals</strong> as part <strong>of</strong>
6 See Europeans for Medical Advancement website at: http://www.curedisease.com/efma.htm. Accessed on: 8 Apr 2005; LaFollette
H and Shanks N (1996) Brute Science: Dilemmas <strong>of</strong> animal experimentation (Routledge: London).
7 Greek CR and Greek JS (2000) Sacred Cows and Golden Geese (New York: Continuum), p19.
8 Greek CR and Greek JS (2000) Sacred Cows and Golden Geese (New York: Continuum), p16.
16