The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...
The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...
The ethics of research involving animals - Nuffield Council on ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
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<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> that has the aim <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> benefiting human health, <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> or the envir<strong>on</strong>ment in a direct<br />
and immediate way, for example by assessing the safety <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a new medicine or agrochemical<br />
such as a pesticide; and (b) basic <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>, sometimes also called fundamental, ‘blue-sky’ or<br />
curiosity-driven <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> primary aim <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the latter is to increase knowledge rather than<br />
directly to decrease human suffering, but with the possibility that eventually the <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
could produce health-related benefits (see Chapter 5). Two general arguments are usually<br />
made when c<strong>on</strong>sidering the value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> basic <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>:<br />
■ <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> first is that it is difficult to assess the value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> such <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>, because the advancement<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowledge can be difficult to predict. Several questi<strong>on</strong>s need to be answered,<br />
including (a) is knowledge produced simply by completing a <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> project or by<br />
disseminating the results widely, for example by publishing in peer-reviewed journals? (b)<br />
what is the likelihood <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> any useful applicati<strong>on</strong> arising from knowledge gained in basic<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>? and (c) if results from a basic <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> project are viewed as being unlikely to<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tribute to any practical applicati<strong>on</strong>, can the <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> be justified?<br />
■ According to the sec<strong>on</strong>d argument, every scientifically sound <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> project <str<strong>on</strong>g>involving</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> is intrinsically valuable, since it c<strong>on</strong>tributes to the ‘jigsaw puzzle’ <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> scientific<br />
knowledge, i.e. to the sum total <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> scientific knowledge about a subject. Thus, whether<br />
or not a specific piece <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tributes directly to medical or other beneficial<br />
applicati<strong>on</strong>s for humans, it will always have some intrinsic worth because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />
knowledge gained. On the basis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this argument, it is c<strong>on</strong>sidered wr<strong>on</strong>g to measure the<br />
value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> purely in terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> its immediate benefits.<br />
3.54 C<strong>on</strong>sequentialist reas<strong>on</strong>ing requires two steps: first, an identificati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the harms and<br />
benefits c<strong>on</strong>sidered relevant to moral justificati<strong>on</strong> and, sec<strong>on</strong>dly, a calculati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> whether<br />
the course <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> acti<strong>on</strong> envisaged produces a higher balance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> benefit over harm than any<br />
alternative feasible opti<strong>on</strong>. Note that it is not enough simply to cite speculative benefits. It<br />
is necessary to have an estimate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the probability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> success (be this the generati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
knowledge or the development <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a new medicine), which will need to outweigh, in some<br />
sense, the estimated harm that the experiment will cause, if an experiment is to be justified<br />
<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sequentialist grounds. Any such calculati<strong>on</strong> will need to allow a way <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> comparing<br />
distinct costs and benefits in order to calculate what level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> health benefit for humans<br />
would outweigh, for example, a particular pain experienced by <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g> involved in <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>.<br />
3.55 One <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the most comm<strong>on</strong>ly found c<strong>on</strong>sequentialist positi<strong>on</strong>s is utilitarianism. In its simplest<br />
form the approach establishes a social duty to maximise the balance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pleasure over pain<br />
(see Box 3.3). Utilitarianism requires careful c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the capacity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> all beings<br />
capable <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> suffering, and permits animal (or human) suffering, if in sum, it causes more<br />
pleasure than pain. Where this is the case, the ends would justify the means. Thus, from the<br />
utilitarian view, the capacity for pain and suffering does not c<strong>on</strong>stitute an absolute<br />
c<strong>on</strong>straint, prohibiting any negative interference. Nor does the approach usually associate<br />
inviolable rights with sentience. This is why c<strong>on</strong>temporary utilitarians, such as Peter Singer,<br />
do not talk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘animal rights’ but <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘animal liberati<strong>on</strong>’. 19 From the utilitarian viewpoint there<br />
is, in principle, no restricti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the goals <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g>, whether it be health benefits, idle<br />
curiosity or sadistic pleasure, as l<strong>on</strong>g as the overall sum <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pleasure outweighs the overall<br />
sum <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pain. Within the current debate, this extreme view, though <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten menti<strong>on</strong>ed and<br />
theoretically possible, is probably not held. Most commentators appear to accept at least<br />
19 In his highly influential book Animal Liberati<strong>on</strong>, Singer focused <strong>on</strong> cases <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> that caused grave suffering to <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
and had little discernible benefit. He did not explore in detail the questi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> whether medical <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>involving</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>animals</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
can be justified in utilitarian terms. However, this seems likely in at least some cases, provided the overall costs in terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
pain, suffering and distress caused by <str<strong>on</strong>g>research</str<strong>on</strong>g> are outweighed by the overall benefits in terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> alleviating and preventing<br />
pain, suffering and distress. See Singer P (1975) Animal Liberati<strong>on</strong> (New York: HarperCollins).<br />
50