The article by Dr Hobson-West (The role of public opinion in the UK animal research debate) contains an interesting discussion about the extent to which public opinion should guide the ethical debate about animal research (and indeed other controversial issues).
Our view is that it is a key component in the debate. The cost:benefit test which lies at the heart of the UK legislation is a value-lad...
The article by Dr Hobson-West (The role of public opinion in the UK animal research debate) contains an interesting discussion about the extent to which public opinion should guide the ethical debate about animal research (and indeed other controversial issues).
Our view is that it is a key component in the debate. The cost:benefit test which lies at the heart of the UK legislation is a value-laden judgement, albeit one informed by scientific knowledge. Is it ever right to inflict physical suffering on an innocent individual (human or non-human), without consent, when he or she is not intended to benefit from the suffering? How much suffering (if any) is acceptable? Does it depend on the species and, if so, why? Should it depend on whether a disease in question is life-threatening or debilitating?
Should society if necessary just do without certain products, such that we do not need to worry about their safety? What about fundamental research, from which the benefits are by definition speculative. Should the researcher be required to demonstrate that there is a realistic chance that his use of animals will lead to significant societal benefit?
There is no arithmetical formula to be applied to these ethical questions. In a mature democracy, how they are answered should reflect public opinion. They cannot be the sole preserve of researchers, and corporations should certainly not be allowed to set the ethical boundaries.
But whatever account is taken of public opinion, there can, surely, be no question that it should be as informed as possible. The article fails to address this key question. Animal experiments are conducted under conditions of great secrecy, with researchers deciding what (if anything) to put in the public domain.
This is the wrong approach. Given that animal experiments would, but for the special protection accorded by the law, otherwise constitute a criminal offence, the default position should be that everything should be publicly available, save for personal and genuinely commercially sensitive information. In that way, public opinion can be as informed as possible, and the ethical settlement will reflect the views of the populace as a whole rather than a self-appointed elite.
Dear Sir
The article by Dr Hobson-West (The role of public opinion in the UK animal research debate) contains an interesting discussion about the extent to which public opinion should guide the ethical debate about animal research (and indeed other controversial issues).
Our view is that it is a key component in the debate. The cost:benefit test which lies at the heart of the UK legislation is a value-lad...
Pages