DOCSLIB.ORG

Talking Pointpoint the Ethics of Animal Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Talking Pointpoint the Ethics of Animal Research talkingtalking pointpoint The ethics of animal research Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research Simon Festing & Robin Wilkinson nimal research has had a vital role assessed in terms of any harm to the ani- hanks to some extensive opinion in many scientific and medical mals. This involves detailed examination of polls by MORI (1999a, 2002, 2005), Aadvances of the past century and the particular procedures and experiments, Tand subsequent polls by YouGov continues to aid our understanding of vari- and the numbers and types of animal used. (2006) and ICM (2006), we now have a ous diseases. Throughout the world, peo- These are then weighed against the poten- good understanding of the public’s atti- ple enjoy a better quality of life because tial benefits of the project. This cost–benefit tudes towards animal research. Although of these advances, and the subsequent analysis is almost unique to UK animal society views animal research as an ethi- development of new medicines and treat- research legislation; only German law has cal dilemma, polls show that a high pro- ments—all made possible by animal a similar requirement. portion—84% in 1999, 90% in 2002 and research. However, the use of animals in 89% in 2005—is ready to accept the use of scientific and medical research has been The UK has gone further than animals in medical research if the research a subject of heated debate for many years is for serious medical purposes, suffering in the UK. Opponents to any kind of ani- any other country to write such is minimized and/or alternatives are fully mal research—including both animal- an ethical framework into law considered. When asked which factors rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist by implementing the Animals should be taken into account in the regu- groups—believe that animal experimenta- (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 latory system, people chose those that— tion is cruel and unnecessary, regardless unknown to them—are already part of the of its purpose or benefit. There is no mid- UK legislation. In general, they feel that dle ground for these groups; they want the In addition, the UK government intro- animal welfare should be weighed against immediate and total abolition of all animal duced in 1998 further ’local’ controls—that health benefits, that cosmetic-testing research. If they succeed, it would have is, an Ethical Review Process at research should not be allowed, that there should enormous and severe consequences for institutions—which promote good animal be supervision to ensure high standards of scientific research. welfare and humane science by ensuring welfare, that animals should be used only No responsible scientist wants to use that the use of animals at the designated if there is no alternative, and that spot- animals or cause them unnecessary suf- establishment is justified. The aims of this checks should be carried out. It is clear fering if it can be avoided, and therefore additional review process are: to provide that the UK public would widely support scientists accept controls on the use of ani- independent ethical advice, particularly the existing regulatory system if they knew mals in research. More generally, the bio- with respect to applications for project more about it. science community accepts that animals licences, and standards of animal care and should be used for research only within an welfare; to provide support to licensees It is clear that the UK public ethical framework. regarding animal welfare and ethical issues; The UK has gone further than any other and to promote ethical ana lysis to increase would widely support the country to write such an ethical framework awareness of animal welfare issues and existing regulatory system if they into law by implementing the Animals to develop initiatives for the widest possi- knew more about it (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It exceeds ble application of the 3Rs—replacement, the requirements in the European Union’s reduction and refinement of the use of ani- Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of mals in research (Russell & Burch, 1959). Unsurprisingly, medical general prac- animals used for experimental and other In practice, there has been concern that titioners (GPs) are even more aware of the scientific purposes, which is now under- the Ethical Review Process adds a level of contribution that animal research has made going revision (Matthiessen et al, 2003). bureaucracy that is not in proportion to its and continues to make to human health. The Act requires that proposals for research contribution to improving animal welfare In 2006, a survey by GP Net showed that involving the use of animals must be fully or furthering the 3Rs. 96% of GPs agreed that animal research 526 EMBO reports VOL 8 | NO 6 | 2007 ©2007 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION talking point science & society As a House of Lords Select Committee report in July 2002 stated, “The availabil- ity to the public of regularly updated, good quality information on what animal experi- ments are done and why, is vital to create an atmosphere in which the issue of animal experimentation can be discussed produc- tively” (House of Lords, 2002). Indeed, according to a report on public attitudes to the biological sciences and their oversight, “Having information and perceived hon- esty and openness are the two key consid- erations for the public in order for them to have trust in a system of controls and regu- lations about biological developments” (MORI, 1999b). In the past five years, there have been four major UK independent inquiries into the use of animals in biomedical research: a Select Committee in the House of Lords (2002); the Animal Procedures Committee (2003); the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005); and the Weatherall Committee (Weatherall et al, 2006), which specifi- cally examined the use of non-human pri- mates in scientific and medical research. has made important contributions to many such as the research councils. The FOI Act is All committees included non-scientists medical advances (RDS News, 2006). The intended to promote openness and account- and examined evidence from both sides opinion poll also sought doctors’ views ability, and to facilitate better public under- of the debate. These rigorous independent about the safety testing of medicines. standing of how public authorities carry out inquiries all accepted the rationale for the Almost nine out of ten GPs (88%) agreed their duties, why and how they make deci- use of animals in research for the benefit of that new medicines should be tested on sions, and how they spend public money. human health, and concluded that animal animals before undergoing human trials. There are two ways in which information can research can be scientifically validated on GP Net also asked whether GPs agreed be made available to the public: some infor- a case-by-case basis. The Nuffield Council that “medical research data can be mis- mation will be automatically published and backed the 3Rs and the need for clear infor- leading”; 93% agreed. This result puts into some will be released in response to indi- mation to support a constructive debate, context the results from another poll of GPs vidual requests. The FOI Act is retro spective and further stated that violence and intimi- in 2004. Europeans for Medical Progress so it applies to all information, regardless of dation against researchers or their allies is (EMP; London, UK), an anti-vivisection when it was created. morally wrong. group, found that 82% had a “concern […] In response to the FOI Act, the Home that animal data can be misleading when Office now publishes overviews of all new Animal research has obviously applied to humans” (EMP, 2004). In fact, animal research projects, in the form of it seems that most GPs think that medical anonymous project licence summaries, on become a smaller proportion of research in general can be misleading; it a dedicated website. This means that the overall bioscience and medical is good scientific practice to maintain a UK now provides more public information R&D spending in the UK healthy degree of scepticism and avoid about animal research than any other coun- over-reliance on any one set of data or try. The Research Defence Society (RDS; research method. London, UK), an organization representing In addition, the Advertising Standards doctors and scientists in the debate on the Authority (ASA; London, UK) has investi- nother law, which enables people use of animals in research and testing, wel- gated and ruled on 38 complaints made to get more information, might also comes the greater openness that the FOI Act since 1992 about published literature— Ahelp to influence public attitudes brings to discussions about animal research. leaflets and brochures—regarding claims towards animal research. The UK Freedom With more and reliable information about about the validity or otherwise of animal of Information (FOI) Act came into full force how and why animals are used, people research and the scope of alternative meth- on 1 January 2005. Under the Act, anybody should be in a better position to debate the ods. In 34 out of 38 cases, they found can request information from a public body issues. However, there are concerns that against the anti-vivisectionist groups, either in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. extremist groups will try to obtain personal supporting complaints about anti-vivisec- Public bodies include government depart- details and information that can identify tionist literature, or rejecting the com- ments, universities and some funding bodies researchers, and use it to target individuals. plaints by anti-vivisectionists about the ©2007 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION EMBO reports VOL 8 | NO 6 | 2007 527 science & society talking point literature from medical organizations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research in Primates Non-Human of Use The
    The use of non-human primates in research The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatherall FRS FMedSci Report sponsored by: Academy of Medical Sciences Medical Research Council The Royal Society Wellcome Trust 10 Carlton House Terrace 20 Park Crescent 6-9 Carlton House Terrace 215 Euston Road London, SW1Y 5AH London, W1B 1AL London, SW1Y 5AG London, NW1 2BE December 2006 December Tel: +44(0)20 7969 5288 Tel: +44(0)20 7636 5422 Tel: +44(0)20 7451 2590 Tel: +44(0)20 7611 8888 Fax: +44(0)20 7969 5298 Fax: +44(0)20 7436 6179 Fax: +44(0)20 7451 2692 Fax: +44(0)20 7611 8545 Email: E-mail: E-mail: E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Web: www.acmedsci.ac.uk Web: www.mrc.ac.uk Web: www.royalsoc.ac.uk Web: www.wellcome.ac.uk December 2006 The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatheall FRS FMedSci December 2006 Sponsors’ statement The use of non-human primates continues to be one the most contentious areas of biological and medical research. The publication of this independent report into the scientific basis for the past, current and future role of non-human primates in research is both a necessary and timely contribution to the debate. We emphasise that members of the working group have worked independently of the four sponsoring organisations. Our organisations did not provide input into the report’s content, conclusions or recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Research Essay Resources 2013
    Animal research essay resources 2013 Animal Research Essay Resources (Manage) and AO2 (Use Resources) assessment objectives of their EPQ. Click on one of the links below for resources on the specific area of interest surrounding the AO1 requires students to identify their topic and issue of animal testing: the project’s aims and objectives. They must then produce a project plan and complete their History of animal research work, applying organisational skills and Ethics of animal experiments strategies to meet stated objectives. This page Costs and benefits of research aims to help students get a handle on the topic Regulatory systems and the 3Rs of animal research and provide some inspiration Animal rights activism and extremism for possible areas of further study. General Websites AO2 requires students to obtain, and select Many students, from primary school to from, a variety of resources, analyse and apply university, write assignments that relate to the this data in a relevant manner and demonstrate issue of animal research. This page aims to an understanding of appropriate links. This page support this by providing links to useful will provide links to large amounts of relevant materials. It is especially useful to any students information that students can use for their carrying out the Extended Project Qualification project, however it remains up to students to (EPQ) alongside their A-levels or Extended Essay critically analyse and apply it to their specific as part of their International Baccalaureate project focus. studies. Those students should read the section below. History of animal research Beneath each link is a Harvard Reference for the The use of animals in scientific experiments in book, webpage or document in question which the UK can be traced back at least as far as the can be used in the footnotes or endnotes of 17th Century with Harvey’s experiments on your project paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Ethics Committees and Animal Use in a Monitored Environment: Is the Ethics Real, Imagined Or Necessary?
    Animal Ethics Committees and animal use in a monitored environment: is the ethics real, imagined or necessary? Proceedings of the ANZCCART Conference held in Wellington, New Zealand, 26–28 June 2005 ANZCCART 2005 © 2005 Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) C/- Royal Society of New Zealand, PO Box 598, Wellington, New Zealand ISBN 1-877264-18-0 The Proceedings were edited by Dr Pat Cragg, Professor Martin Kennedy, Associate Professor Don Love, Dr John Schofield, Professor Kevin Stafford, Dr Jim Webster and Mrs Gill Sutherland. Acknowledgments The Chairman and Board of ANZCCART New Zealand would like to express their appreciation to the following sponsors for financial assistance to this conference: AGCARM AGMARDT Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University Health Research Council Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Ministry of Research, Science and Technology New Zealand Veterinary Association Royal Society of New Zealand Contents Introduction ...........................................................v Session 5: Alternatives and cost Development of acceptable alternative methods: Session 1: Animal Ethics Committees: what do a review of methods, validation and ethical aspects they really do, what should they do, and why associated with alternative methods ...........51 should they do it? in vitro Dr Richard Clothier Animal Ethics Committees: a help Public accountability of animal use for scientific or a hindrance? ........................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Propaganda About Animal Rights John Sorensona a Department of Sociology, Brock University, St
    This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] On: 4 February 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 932223628] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Critical Studies on Terrorism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t780786797 Constructing terrorists: propaganda about animal rights John Sorensona a Department of Sociology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada To cite this Article Sorenson, John(2009) 'Constructing terrorists: propaganda about animal rights', Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2: 2, 237 — 256 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17539150903010715 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17539150903010715 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Critical Studies on Terrorism Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Use in Major Depressive Disorder: a Necessary Evil? Assessing the Past to Improve the Future
    UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA FACULDADE DE CIÊNCIAS Animal use in Major Depressive Disorder: a necessary evil? Assessing the past to improve the future “Documento Definitivo” Doutoramento em Biologia Especialidade Biotecnologia Maria Constança Dias Pinheiro de Oliveira Carvalho Tese orientada por: Professor Doutor Andrew David Knight Professor Doutor Luís António de Matos Vicente Professor Doutor Tiago André Lamas Oliveira Marques Documento especialmente elaborado para a obtenção do grau de doutor 2020 UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA FACULDADE DE CIÊNCIAS Animal use in Major Depressive Disorder: a necessary evil? Assessing the past to improve the future Doutoramento em Biologia Especialidade de Biotecnologia Maria Constança Dias Pinheiro de Oliveira Carvalho Tese orientada por: Professor Doutor Andrew David Knight Professor Doutor Luís António de Matos Vicente Professor Doutor Tiago André Lamas Oliveira Marques Júri: Presidente: ● Doutora Sólveig Thorsteinsdottir, Professora Associada com Agregação da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa Vogais: ● Doutor Andrew Knight, Professor na Faculty of Health and Wellbeing da University of Winchester (Reino Unido) (Orientador) ● Doutora Paula Maria Marques Leal Sanches Alves, Investigadora Principal do Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica António Xavier (ITQB) da Universidade Nova de Lisboa ● Doutor Rui Filipe Nunes Pais de Oliveira, Professor Catedrático do ISPA - Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida ● Doutor Davide Vecchi, Investigador Júnior do Centro de Filosofia das Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa ● Doutor Rui Miguel Borges Sampaio e Rebelo, Professor Auxiliar da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa Documento especialmente elaborado para a obtenção do grau de doutor AnimalFreeResearch/Switzerland John Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing 2020 I This research was funded by AnimalFreeResearch/Switzerland and, partially, by the John Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing.
    [Show full text]
  • Accountability
    ACCOUNTABILITY animal experiments & freedom of information The assessment of projects under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 The licensing process The Animal Procedures Committee The application of Nolan principles ACCOUNTABILITY animal experiments & freedom of information - a parliamentary briefing CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Background 2 3. Secrecy vs Transparency 5 4. Put it to the test 9 5. The Animal Procedures Committee 13 6. Reform of the APC 16 7. Local Ethics Committees 21 8. Conclusions 25 Appendix: Profile of current members of the APC 261 Goldhawk Road, London W12 9PE. Tel. 0181 846 9777 Fax. 0181 846 9712 e-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.cygnet.co.uk/navs ©NAVS 1997 ACCOUNTABILITY 1. Introduction There is undoubtedly considerable public disquiet that cruel, unnecessary or repetitive research continues on animals in British laboratories. Bland government assurances that our legislation is the ‘best in the world’ do not convince a public now familiar with video and photographic evidence of the reality of animal experimentation. The secrecy with which the law is administered only hardens the conviction that there is something to hide. Well documented evidence from the NAVS and others has shown that government guidelines and the ‘Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Laboratory Animals’ are not diligently enforced and that the Home Office leans towards protection of vivisection industry interests rather than towards serving the public will. It has taken undercover investigations to expose serious abuses within the system. In March 1997 a Channel 4 investigation led to the threat of the revocation of the Certificate of Designation for Huntingdon Life Sciences and the prosecution of former staff members.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives
    PERSPECTIVES several organizations that were set up to SCIENCE AND SOCIETY continue the campaign. In both the United States and Europe, the debate about animal experimentation waned Animal experimentation: with the advent of the First World War, only to re-emerge during the 1970s, when anti- the continuing debate vivisection and animal-welfare organizations joined forces to campaign for new legislation to regulate animal research and testing. In the Mark Matfield United States, the public debate re-emerged in a more dramatic fashion in 1980, when an The use of animals in research and there was considerable protest from some activist infiltrated the laboratory of Dr Edward development has remained a subject of members of the audience and that, after one Taub of the Institute of Behavioural Research public debate for over a century. Although animal had been injected, an eminent med- at Silver Spring, Maryland (BOX 1). This attack there is good evidence from opinion surveys ical figure summoned the magistrates to on Taub’s research was organized by a tiny that the public accepts the use of animals in prevent the demonstration from continuing. animal-rights group called People for the research, they are poorly informed about the The Royal Society for the Prevention of Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which way in which it is regulated, and are Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) brought a pros- has since grown to dominate the campaign in increasingly concerned about laboratory- ecution for cruelty, and several of the doctors the United States. animal welfare. This article will review how present at the demonstration gave evidence public concerns about animal against Magnan, who returned to France to The anatomy of the campaign experimentation developed, the recent avoid answering the charges.
    [Show full text]
  • Platforms and Funds for Alternatives to Animal Experimentation
    Platforms and Funds for Alternatives to Animal Experimentation Live Kleveland A report from The Norwegian Reference Centre for Laboratory Animal Science & Alternatives, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway 2005 ISBN 82-7725-120-3 This is a revised version of the report, after circulation to representatives of all ecopa platforms for approval. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________ 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ______________________________________________ 4 ECOPA AND EUROPEAN CONSENSUS-PLATFORMS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION _____________________________________ 5 Austria ______________________________________________________________ 5 Belgium _____________________________________________________________ 6 The Czech Republic ____________________________________________________ 6 Finland______________________________________________________________ 7 Germany_____________________________________________________________ 8 Italy_________________________________________________________________ 8 The Netherlands ______________________________________________________ 9 Spain_______________________________________________________________ 10 Sweden _____________________________________________________________ 11 Switzerland__________________________________________________________ 12 The UK _____________________________________________________________ 13 SUMMARY OF CONSENSUS-PLATFORMS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION ________________________________________________ 15 FUNDING OF
    [Show full text]
  • 79Th Stephen Paget Memorial Lecture and Openness Awards Ceremony 7
    79th Stephen Paget Memorial Lecture and Openness Awards Ceremony 7th December 2015 Wellcome Collection, London Programme 17:30 Arrival and Refreshments 18:00 Welcome Address 18:15 Openness Awards Internal or sector engagement activity Public engagement activity Media engagement or media stories Website or use of new media 19:00 79th Paget Lecture by Sir Colin Blakemore Four Stories about Understanding the Brain 20:00 Drinks Reception 21:30 End The Stephen Paget Memorial Lecture The Stephen Paget Memorial Lecture is a scientific lecture to commemorate the life of Dr Stephen Paget. Stephen Paget (1855 – 1926) was the founder of the Research Defence Society, a forerunner of Understanding Animal Research. He believed passionately that better science and understanding of physiology would lead to better medical treatments. After his death in 1926, he was greatly missed by his medical colleagues and the scientific community. The first Stephen Paget memorial lecture was given in 1927 to commemorate his life and allow leading bio-medical scientists of the day to talk about their research. The Openness Awards The Concordat on Openness launched in May 2014 and has to date brought together 97 organisations in a pledge to be more open and transparent about the use of animals in research. This year the Openness Awards celebrate four recipients that have met the Concordat commitments and encouraged the widespread sharing of best practice. Sir Colin Blakemore, FMedSci, HonFRCP, HonFRSM, HonFRSB, FRS Sir Colin Blakemore is Professor of Neuroscience & Philosophy in the School of Advanced Study, University of London, and Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience at Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Animal Protection Law Journal
    AUSTRALIAN ANIMAL PROTECTION LAW JOURNAL 2008 VOLUME 1 EDITOR John Mancy LEGAL BULLETIN SERVICE [2008] 1 ANIMAL PROTECTION LAW JOURNAL 1 AUSTRALIAN ANIMAL PROTECTION LAW JOURNAL Editor: John Mancy Assistant Editor: Jacquie Mancy-Stuhl SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONS The Australian Animal Protection Law Journal welcomes any financial donation. Any person or organisation wishing to become a patron of the AAPLJ should contact the Editor for further information. The Australian Animal Protection Law Journal expresses its appreciation to Voiceless, the fund for animals, for its generous support in 2008. The Australian Animal Protection Law Journal (AAPLJ) is meant for general information. Where possible, references are given so readers can access original sources or find more information. Information contained in the AAPLJ does not represent legal advice. Liability is limited by a scheme approved under the Professional Standards legislation © 2008 Lightoir Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Legal Bulletin Service [2008] 1 ANIMAL PROTECTION LAW JOURNAL 2 Australia’s first animal law journal The Australian Animal Protection Law Journal (AAPLJ) is intended to be a forum for principled consideration and spirited discussion of the issues of law and fact affecting the lives of non-human animals. “The greatest threat to animals is passivity and ongoing acceptance of the status quo; a status quo most easily maintained through silence,” as Peter Sankoff says in a note on the imminent publication of Animal Law in Australasia: A New Dialogue. This inaugural issue of the AAPLJ illustrates some of the width and depth of issues arising under animal law. Arguably, as Ian Weldon writes, animal protection laws in all Australian states fail to protect “most animals from routine and systematic ill treatment”.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Commons Debate to Improving Human Health by Modernising Biomedical Late 2005 Saw an Extraordinary Leaflet by the Association of Medical Research
    Europeans for Medical Progress Newsletter Winter 2005/06 is a non-profit research and educational institute dedicated House of Commons Debate to improving human health by modernising biomedical Late 2005 saw an extraordinary leaflet by the Association of Medical research. We focus on rigorous discussion meeting in the House of Research Charities that “Some of the scientific analysis of animal Commons, entitled “Is animal major advances in the last century experimentation to assess the experimentation helpful to medicine?” would have been impossible without balance of help or harm to EMP’s science director, Dr Jarrod animal research” is misleading and human health. We oppose Bailey and science consultant, Dr told the AMRC not to repeat it. animal modelled research as a John Pippin – Senior Medical Advisor method for seeking cures and Our opponents were completely to the Physicians Committee for treatments for human disease unable to refute such devastating Responsible Medicine – opposed based on overwhelming scientific indictments of animal research as the Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief evidence that findings from fact that 30 AIDS vaccines successful Executive of the Medical Research animal models cannot be reliably in primates have failed in clinical Council and Dr Simon Festing, extrapolated to humans. When trials, or that out of 700 stroke such findings are extrapolated to Executive Director of the Research treatments successful in animals, not a humans, patients, consumers and Defence Society. research volunteers are harmed single one
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of Research Involving Animals Published by Nuffield Council on Bioethics 28 Bedford Square London WC1B 3JS
    The ethics of research involving animals Published by Nuffield Council on Bioethics 28 Bedford Square London WC1B 3JS Telephone: +44 (0)20 7681 9619 Fax: +44 (0)20 7637 1712 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org ISBN 1 904384 10 2 May 2005 To order a printed copy please contact the Nuffield Council or visit the website. © Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2005 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of the publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without prior permission of the copyright owners. Designed by dsprint / redesign 7 Jute Lane Brimsdown Enfield EN3 7JL Printed by Latimer Trend & Company Ltd Estover Road Plymouth PL6 7PY The ethics of research involving animals Nuffield Council on Bioethics Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC, FBA (Chairman) Professor Catherine Peckham CBE (Deputy Chairman) Professor Tom Baldwin Professor Margot Brazier OBE* Professor Roger Brownsword Professor Sir Kenneth Calman KCB FRSE Professor Peter Harper The Rt Reverend Richard Harries DD FKC FRSL Professor Peter Lipton Baroness Perry of Southwark** (up to March 2005) Professor Lord Raymond Plant Professor Martin Raff FRS (up to March 2005) Mr Nick Ross (up to March 2005) Professor Herbert Sewell Professor Peter Smith CBE Professor Dame Marilyn Strathern FBA Dr Alan Williamson FRSE * (co-opted member of the Council for the period of chairing the Working Party on the ethics of prolonging
    [Show full text]