Emotions and Ethical Decision-Making in Animal Ethics Committees

Abstract

Simple SummaryIn the EU, research projects using animals must be evaluated and approved by an ethical committee prior to start to balance potential harm to the animals with potential benefit to humans, in order to ensure moral standards, scientific validity, and public trust. However, different levels of knowledge among committee members, different views on which ethical aspects are relevant, member hierarchies, and a discrepancy between prevailing scientific norms of objectivity and the necessary conditions of a proper ethical evaluation makes it challenging. If applications are not properly evaluated, this can cause distrust in the ethics committees by society. We analyzed the role of scientific norms among Swedish committee members, application of the harm–benefit model, and the role of emotions in the ethical decision-making process. Researchers and chairpersons were most positive, whereas laypersons from animal welfare organizations were most negative. Laypersons more often felt emotionally engaged in the evaluation, but also that they felt they had less influence. We argue that the prevailing scientific norms are preventing necessary conditions for sound ethical evaluation consideration by excluding some members from the discourse. We propose that alternative models for ethical decision-making could contribute to an improved process and hence meet public trust.AbstractEthical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.

Animal Models in the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Phage Therapy for Infections Caused by Gram-Negative Bacteria from the ESKAPE Group and the Reliability of Its Use in Humans

“…Application for consent should provide a specific committee with a detailed course of the planned work and each procedure, as well as the degree of invasiveness of the research. In particular, the level of achievable benefits for human medicine that can be achieved through the potential harm to animals is assessed [81]. Below are examples and a discussion of recent studies using animal models and phage therapy for infections with gram-negative bacteria from the ESKAPE group.…”

Methodology for the Development and Validation of New Stent Designs: In Vitro and In Vivo Models

“…The rational sequence of the preclinical assessment of a new stent design or innovation should follow the order from in silico, in vitro and ex vivo studies, to finally in vivo trials. This thus allows the reduction of the number of animal models used to a minimum that provides adequate statistical power, increasing the likelihood of success of these experimental trials and preserving animal welfare [14,15].…”

“…Concerning animal welfare in experimental studies, ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory in the EU since January 2013, through the Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council [16]. Establishing the basic rules applicable to the protection of animals used in experimentation and other scientific purposes [15,16]. In order to ensure moral standards, scientific validity, and public trust, all projects must be evaluated and approved by an ethical committee prior to development.…”

Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden

“…For this study, we have chosen to analyze the Swedish ethical review process for several reasons. First, multiple previous studies have shown that Swedish AECs may not be as efficient and reliable as intended and that the Swedish method for ethical review may in itself be flawed and difficult to apply [ 17 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Second, with a long tradition of including lay persons in their ethical review committees, Sweden makes for an interesting case of the connection between scientific research and public trust.…”