Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties?

Abstract

Simple SummaryScientists justify animal use in medical research because the benefits to human health outweigh the costs or harms to animals. However, whether it is justifiable is controversial for many people. Even public interests are divided because an increasing proportion of people do not support animal research, while demand for healthcare that is based on animal research is also rising. The wider public should be given more influence in these difficult decisions. This could be through requiring explicit disclosure about the role of animals in drug labelling to inform the public out of respect for people with strong objections. It could also be done through periodic public consultations that use public opinion and expert advice to decide which diseases justify the use of animals in medical research. More public input will help ensure that animal research projects meet public expectations and may help to promote changes to facilitate medical advances that need fewer animals.AbstractCurrent animal research ethics frameworks emphasise consequentialist ethics through cost-benefit or harm-benefit analysis. However, these ethical frameworks along with institutional animal ethics approval processes cannot satisfactorily decide when a given potential benefit is outweighed by costs to animals. The consequentialist calculus should, theoretically, provide for situations where research into a disease or disorder is no longer ethical, but this is difficult to determine objectively. Public support for animal research is also falling as demand for healthcare is rising. Democratisation of animal research could help resolve these tensions through facilitating ethical health consumerism or giving the public greater input into deciding the diseases and disorders where animal research is justified. Labelling drugs to disclose animal use and providing a plain-language summary of the role of animals may help promote public understanding and would respect the ethical beliefs of objectors to animal research. National animal ethics committees could weigh the competing ethical, scientific, and public interests to provide a transparent mandate for animal research to occur when it is justifiable and acceptable. Democratic processes can impose ethical limits and provide mandates for acceptable research while facilitating a regulatory and scientific transition towards medical advances that require fewer animals.

Strengthening Workplace Well-Being in Research Animal Facilities

“…On the one hand, safe and efficacious treatments, vaccines and cures are demanded; however, there is an unwillingness to openly discuss exactly how these needs can be met. A lack of overwhelming support for animal research by society at large ( 30 ) can create workplace stress in research animal workers. Self-esteem and value are commonly tied to the nature of one's work ( 31 , 32 ) and the inability to speak about one's work to peers, friends or family members can contribute to feelings of discomfort and shame in research animal workers ( 4 ).…”

Alzheimer’s Disease, and Breast and Prostate Cancer Research: Translational Failures and the Importance to Monitor Outputs and Impact of Funded Research

“…Another relevant aspect to consider when assessing the contribution to innovation and the impact of biomedical research is understanding what methodological approaches underpinned the advances made and, in this context, the specific contribution of animal-based approaches. Apart from scientific concerns, the use of animals in biomedical research has also raised ethical concerns [188][189][190], often driven upon 'harm-benefit' analysis, i.e., expected scientific benefits and societal impact should outweigh the expected harm to the animals [191]. The harm-benefit consideration is clearly a fundamental aspect to account for whenever planning and conducting animal experimentation.…”

15 Labelling medicines as developed using animals? Opening up the topic of animal research

“…25 Nevertheless, similar policy suggestions have continued to be made by other commentators in the field. For instance, researcher Khoo argues that if medicines were labelled as tested on animals, this may have advantages in 'opening healthcare to ethical consumerism through labelling and disclosure can […] be seen as a means of respecting the ethical views of a significant minority of the population', 26 with such labelling assumed as enabling choice. More recently, in 2021, including labels on medicine packets was advocated by the US-based organisation Speaking of Research (SoR).…”