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 Certificate Holder. Opponents <strong>of</strong> infiltrations argue that those concerned about animal welfare should use these procedures, instead <strong>of</strong> publishing reports. According to this view, infiltrations are unacceptable, and prevent the building <strong>of</strong> trust between <strong>research</strong>ers and animal protection organisations. Infiltrations are thought to obstruct the pursuit <strong>of</strong> an open and factual discussion about animal <strong>research</strong>. 2.21 Proponents <strong>of</strong> undercover investigations, on the other hand, assert that <strong>research</strong> is being conducted in secrecy and that insufficient information, particularly about the suffering <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> involved in <strong>research</strong>, is available. <strong>The</strong>y take the view that publication <strong>of</strong> undercover investigations is in the public interest as it can help to demonstrate the reality <strong>of</strong> animal <strong>research</strong> and to expose cases <strong>of</strong> malpractice, abuse <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> and poor scientific practice. Proponents believe that investigators join <strong>research</strong> institutes legally, and that their reports should therefore be viewed as legitimate records <strong>of</strong> practices that are kept secret from the public and Parliament. Organised unlawful protests against animal <strong>research</strong> since the 1970s 2.22 A very small fraction <strong>of</strong> those opposing <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> employ unlawful or extreme means <strong>of</strong> protest. <strong>The</strong>y adopt violent or intimidating action towards <strong>research</strong>ers and their families, and also against those who are associated with organisations conducting such <strong>research</strong>, for example customers, shareholders, suppliers and other customers <strong>of</strong> suppliers. 2.23 Criminal activities began in the UK with arson attacks on pharmaceutical laboratories in the 1970s. During this decade, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) was formed in the UK, and started a campaign <strong>of</strong> ‘freeing’ or ‘liberating’ 27 <strong>animals</strong> from laboratories, causing unlawful damage in the process. <strong>The</strong>ir tactics became increasingly violent, and in 1982 the ALF sent letter bombs to the leaders <strong>of</strong> the four main political parties in the UK, injuring a civil servant. 28 In 1985, petrolbomb attacks on the homes <strong>of</strong> a small number <strong>of</strong> medical <strong>research</strong>ers were carried out. Later that year, the Animal Rights Militia claimed responsibility for two bombs planted under the cars <strong>of</strong> scientists. During the next ten years, protesters frequently targeted <strong>research</strong>ers whose work involved <strong>animals</strong>, as well as company sites linked with <strong>research</strong> or food testing. 29 2.24 In the 1990s, a campaign against the CRO HLS was launched. Staff <strong>of</strong> the company, as well its shareholders, banks, stockbrokers and clients, were harassed in different ways and many employees received hate mail and death threats, or had damage caused to their houses and cars. Senior staff <strong>of</strong> HLS were attacked physically, and on a few occasions hoax bombs were sent. 30 A group <strong>of</strong> animal-rights activists launched an initiative under the name Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Although SHAC states on its website that it does not encourage illegal activities, some <strong>of</strong> its leading members have been convicted <strong>of</strong> criminal <strong>of</strong>fences. 31 <strong>The</strong> protests have led some companies to withdraw their financial and auditing services from HLS, including its major creditors, the Royal Bank <strong>of</strong> Scotland. <strong>The</strong> UK Government, which also supported the company during the early phases <strong>of</strong> SHAC’s protest, has agreed to provide banking and insurance facilities for the company. 32 Protestors have 27 In many cases, <strong>animals</strong> that are taken from laboratories and placed in their natural environment subsequently die because they are insufficiently adapted to the new environment. In some cases where farmed mink have been released into the British countryside there was a subsequent marked decline in the numbers <strong>of</strong> native voles. Hence, there has been debate as to whether the act <strong>of</strong> ‘freeing’ the <strong>animals</strong> is beneficial. Some organisations assert that they have placed liberated <strong>animals</strong> in good homes. 28 Henshaw D (1989) Animal Warfare (London: Fontana Press). 29 Matfield M (1996) <strong>The</strong> animal liberation front: terrorist attacks on animal <strong>research</strong> Scand J Lab Anim Sci 23: 31–5. 30 For victims’ accounts see the Victims <strong>of</strong> Animal Rights Extremism website, available at: http://www.vare.org.uk/vctms.html Accessed on: 14 Apr 2005. 31 See Huntingdon v SHAC judgement (2004) Neutral Citation Number EWHC 1231 (QB), available at: http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2004/1231.html&query=1231&method=all. Accessed on 11 Mar 2005. 32 Clark A (2001) Bank <strong>of</strong> last resort <strong>The</strong> Guardian July 2, available at: http://education.guardian.co.uk/business<strong>of</strong><strong>research</strong>/story/0,9860,515646,00.html. Accessed on: 14 Apr 2005. 26
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 also mounted a continuing campaign against the owners <strong>of</strong> a facility for guinea pigs used in <strong>research</strong>, based in Staffordshire. Some <strong>of</strong> these protests are lawful, although there have also been a number <strong>of</strong> unlawful activities carried out by unidentified campaigners. <strong>The</strong>se include desecration <strong>of</strong> the grave and stealing <strong>of</strong> the body <strong>of</strong> a relation <strong>of</strong> the Hall family, who operate the breeding facility, in October 2004. 33 We return to the issue <strong>of</strong> animal-rightsrelated violence and its implications in Chapters 14 and 15 (Chapters 14 and 15 (paragraphs 14.63 and 15.47–15.50). <strong>The</strong> origins <strong>of</strong> the UK Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 2.25 In the early 1970s, the <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> Europe set up an ad hoc committee <strong>of</strong> experts to draft a convention to establish guidance for animal <strong>research</strong>. This body developed a framework for legislation and guidelines for laboratory animal housing, which was transposed with very few additions into Directive EEC 86/609 <strong>of</strong> the European Economic Community (the predecessor <strong>of</strong> the EU) in 1985. <strong>The</strong> Directive required Member States to adopt national legislation, or similar controls, on animal <strong>research</strong> in the light <strong>of</strong> its provisions (see paragraph 13.3). 34 2.26 Meanwhile, pressure for new legislation had been growing in the UK. 35 <strong>The</strong> combination <strong>of</strong> the impending Directive EEC 86/609 and the willingness <strong>of</strong> the Home Office Minister at the time to respond to concerns about the age <strong>of</strong> the 1876 Act led to the drafting <strong>of</strong> a bill in 1985. CRAE formed an alliance with the BVA and the scientific charity FRAME (see Box 2.4). Working together, these organisations had a strong influence on the drafting <strong>of</strong> the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A), which was passed in 1986. 36 <strong>The</strong> cornerstone <strong>of</strong> the Act, which is described in more detail in Chapter 13, is the cost-benefit assessment, 37 which focuses on an evaluation <strong>of</strong> the likely scientific benefits to be gained from a <strong>research</strong> proposal against the likely adverse effects to the <strong>animals</strong>, although these are not the only factors that are taken into account (see paragraph 3.58–3.60 and 13.16). 2.27 In 2001, the European Commission decided to revise Directive EEC 86/609, and a Technical Expert Working Group was subsequently convened. It has recommended a number <strong>of</strong> ways in which the Directive should be revised. 38 <strong>The</strong>se revisions, which are currently under discussion, would be binding for all EU Member States (see paragraph 13.47). <strong>The</strong>y include 33 In early 2005 the owners and some <strong>of</strong> their neighbours applied for an exclusion zone around the farm, which was subsequently not granted by a judge. Instead, orders to regulate protests were imposed. <strong>The</strong> ruling judge said protesters had conducted a ‘guerrilla campaign <strong>of</strong> terrorism’, referring to actions taken against both staff and associates <strong>of</strong> staff. For example, it was reported that a petrol bomb and death threats had been delivered to staff and to the owners’ family in March 2005. See BBC News (2005) Activists branded as ‘terrorists’, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4184753.stm; BBC News (2005) Activists ‘no-go’ zone rejected, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4356713.stm; BBC News (2005) Guinea pig farm’s family targeted, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4342183.stm. All accessed on: 14 Apr 2005. 34 Directives <strong>of</strong> the EU are binding law for the EU Member States. This is not the case for Conventions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> Europe, which usually have the status <strong>of</strong> multilateral treaties (see paragraph 13.39). 35 In 1979, two Private Member’s Bills were introduced. <strong>The</strong> Fry Bill was drafted by the RSPCA and had the support <strong>of</strong> many other animal protection groups. In contrast, the Halsbury Bill was drafted by the RDS and supported by a great number <strong>of</strong> scientific organisations. Both bills went through to the committee stage, and the Halsbury Bill stimulated the Lords to have a Select Committee examine the issue in detail. When the Conservative Government was elected in 1979, it agreed to update the 1876 legislation, which, it was widely acknowledged, was not well suited to regulating <strong>research</strong> a full century after it had been passed. 36 For a more detailed discussion <strong>of</strong> the background to the A(SP)A see Ryder RD (2000) Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism (New York: Berg Publishers); Radford M (2001) Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 37 Although the A(SP)A does not mention the term cost-benefit analysis, the term is commonly used to refer to Section 5(4), which states that: ‘In determining whether and on what terms to grant a project licence the Secretary <strong>of</strong> State shall weigh the likely adverse effects on the <strong>animals</strong> concerned against the benefit likely to accrue as a result <strong>of</strong> the programme to be specified in the licence’. 38 European Commission Directorate General for the Environment Laboratory Animals, available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/lab_<strong>animals</strong>/revision_en.htm. Accessed on: 14 Apr 2005. CHAPTER 2 THE CONTEXT OF ANIMAL RESEARCH: PAST AND PRESENT 27
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 41: Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 51: Chapter 2 The cont
Page 69: Chapter 3 Ethical issues raised by
Page 97: Chapter 4 The capa
Page 114 and 115:
T h e e t h i c s o f r e s e a r c
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:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325:
Appendices
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 376:
Genetic screening: ethical issues P
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?