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 a formalisation <strong>of</strong> the cost-benefit assessment, which would encapsulate in European law the approach that underlies the 1986 UK legislation. <strong>The</strong> context <strong>of</strong> the current debate in the UK 2.28 <strong>The</strong> history <strong>of</strong> the debate on animal <strong>research</strong> in the UK has been characterised by conflict, dialogue and cooperation. It has involved campaigners, representatives <strong>of</strong> animal protection organisations, physicians, scientists, those engaged in animal care and members <strong>of</strong> the general public. Despite differences on matters such as whether or not specific types <strong>of</strong> animal <strong>research</strong> are acceptable, opinion polls commissioned by various organisations concur in their finding that most people perceive a need for more information. 39 <strong>The</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> openness and transparency 2.29 <strong>The</strong> underlying assumption <strong>of</strong> most Western states is that a system <strong>of</strong> representative democracy is the most appropriate model to devise policies that are compatible with the wide range <strong>of</strong> views held by members <strong>of</strong> the public. Nonetheless, controversies remain in many areas, and parliamentarians and policy makers are required to justify their decisions, especially in areas where there is no consensus. In order to keep the public committed to democratic institutions and processes, all stakeholders need to have, as far as possible, access to relevant information (see Box 13.4). It is also necessary to <strong>of</strong>fer credible and legitimate opportunities to contribute views that policy makers should consider in their decisions. An atmosphere <strong>of</strong> openness and transparency is crucial in this respect. 2.30 Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to engage with the public. Some have had concerns about the possibility <strong>of</strong> becoming victims <strong>of</strong> aggression. Others may have decided that explaining or justifying their <strong>research</strong> to lay people was unnecessary. Currently, there is a small, but increasing number <strong>of</strong> academic and industrial scientists, and scientific institutions involved in animal <strong>research</strong> who are more willing to engage in public debates about their work, particularly in relation to ethically sensitive matters. <strong>The</strong>y take a proactive stance in explaining their <strong>research</strong>, the reasons for conducting it and the beneficial outcomes that they anticipate for society. 40 For example, the Roslin Institute, whose <strong>research</strong>ers cloned the sheep Dolly in 1996 (see paragraph 5.28–5.29), invited representatives <strong>of</strong> the press and the public to visit its laboratories, in reaction to the controversies about <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> reproductive cloning. <strong>The</strong> Institute also aims to increase knowledge about animal <strong>research</strong> among non-scientific or non-technical staff who interact with the local community. <strong>The</strong> CRO HLS has also generally increased openness. When a new senior management team was appointed in 1998, several measures were adopted in recognition <strong>of</strong> the fact that until then there had not been sufficient engagement with the public. Visits are now regularly organised and have included local groups, schools and colleges, as well as Members <strong>of</strong> Parliament. All visitors are usually invited for a tour <strong>of</strong> the animal facilities. <strong>The</strong> company has also been involved in several television documentaries in which members <strong>of</strong> staff have given interviews. We welcome such initiatives. <strong>The</strong>y help to improve understanding about issues raised by animal <strong>research</strong> and reduce secrecy and lack <strong>of</strong> transparency, which are frequently associated with animal <strong>research</strong> and which pose a major 39 MORI (2002) <strong>The</strong> Use <strong>of</strong> Animals in Medical Research, Research Study Conducted for <strong>The</strong> Coalition for Medical Progress, p8, available at: http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/pdf/cmp.pdf. Accessed on: 14 Apr 2005; MORI (1999) Animals in Medicine and Science, General Public Research conducted for Medical Research <strong>Council</strong>, p34, available at: http://www.mori.com/polls/1999/pdf/mrc99.pdf. Accessed on: 7 Apr 2005. 40 See, for example, RDS Welcome to RDS Online, available at: http://www.rds-online.org.uk. Accessed on: 13 Apr 2005; See also Chapter 1, footnote 5. 41 See Chapter 15, footnote 16. 28
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 obstacle to informed debate. However, there is also a view that, in some instances, increased openness focuses disproportionately on the benefits <strong>of</strong> animal <strong>research</strong>, <strong>of</strong>fering a ‘sanitised’ account which ignores the welfare implications and possible suffering <strong>of</strong> the <strong>animals</strong>. 41 Equally detailed information about both scientific benefits and implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> for animal welfare is fundamental to achieving an informed debate. As a general principle, we conclude that freedom <strong>of</strong> information is essential to debate for its own sake. It would therefore be desirable for the public to have, as far as possible and subject to appropriate levels <strong>of</strong> safety for those involved in <strong>research</strong>, access to detailed information about the kinds <strong>of</strong> animal <strong>research</strong>, the number and species <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> used in specific <strong>research</strong> projects, the full implications in terms <strong>of</strong> pain, suffering and distress for the <strong>animals</strong> involved, and the intended benefits <strong>of</strong> the work. This information should be provided in a clear and accessible form. We consider ways in which such information could be supplied in more detail in paragraphs paragraphs 15.25–15.52. Summary 2.31 <strong>The</strong> justification for <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong> has been contested for several hundred years. Since the mid-19th century, debate in the UK has intensified in parallel with the increased use <strong>of</strong> <strong>animals</strong> for this purpose. Growing levels <strong>of</strong> public concern led to the enactment <strong>of</strong> the first legislation on the subject in 1876. In the 20th century, academic discussion on the ethical justification <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>, and debates bringing together stakeholder organisations, have been influential in the shaping <strong>of</strong> further legislation. 2.32 <strong>The</strong>re is currently a broad spectrum <strong>of</strong> opinion about the <strong>ethics</strong> <strong>of</strong> conducting <strong>research</strong> on <strong>animals</strong>. A range <strong>of</strong> organisations is involved in the debate, including those representing the interests <strong>of</strong> industry and <strong>research</strong>ers, those who wish to improve conditions for <strong>animals</strong> or reduce <strong>research</strong> <strong>involving</strong> <strong>animals</strong>, and others who want an immediate end to <strong>research</strong>. Very few people resort to extreme forms <strong>of</strong> protest but their actions have had a disproportionate effect on the possibility <strong>of</strong> increasing openness in <strong>research</strong>. <strong>The</strong> current lack <strong>of</strong> openness and limited availability <strong>of</strong> balanced information appears to have contributed to mistrust. <strong>The</strong>re is now increasing recognition by many stakeholders that this trend needs to be reversed. CHAPTER 2 THE CONTEXT OF ANIMAL RESEARCH: PAST AND PRESENT 29
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 116 and 117:
T h e e t h i c s o f r e s e a r c
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?