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.