'Ethics' is a new buzz word in our society

'Ethics' is a new buzz word in our society by Kevin P. Dolan, SThl(JusCan), BD, DipLaw, FIAT
Lecturer in Ethics, Bioscientific Events Limited, London and Fraser Darling, MA (Cantab), BSc (Hons), CBiol, MIBiol, Director of Biological Services, The Institute of Cancer Research, London. As published in Lab Animal Europe (www.labanimaleurope.eu)

International organisations pride themselves on ethical statements including 'ethical investments,' 'ethical policies' and 'ethical purchasing' to mention only a few. Ethics is, and always will be, different things to different people. Our personal experiences, backgrounds and beliefs are a few examples of the important areas that make us the individuals we are. Ethics needs to be different for each of us; it would be a strange society if we all had the same thoughts and followed the same actions without question. Ethics is the glue that holds our thoughts and beliefs together, and it often triggers some very interesting debates. Science, unlike ethics, is empirical; it needs to originate in, or be based on, observation or experience. According to Karl Popper, the renowned philosopher of science, scientific statements, such as hypotheses, must be not only testable but also verifiable in the real world. On the other hand, statements in ethics are philosophical in nature and therefore speculative. To look for ethical points that can be proven beyond doubt is to look for shadows in the dark. The divergence of opinions about right and wrong, the material of ethics, is prominent in all discussions on the use of animals in research. Usually, controversy on this topic results in a dialogue among the deaf. There is a lack of common ground and a scarcity of mutually accepted premises. Consensus on the matter proves elusive. Objective truth is difficult to establish, but certainty among the protagonists concerning their own opinions is rampant.

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is vehemently opposed to any use of animals in research; the group's name implies that researchers who use animals are unethical. Because antivivisectionists use ethics as a basis of their opposition to animal experimentation, it is appropriate for scientists to turn their attention to the subject of ethics. The controversy will not go away and nor should we wish that it would. Albert Einstein rightly remarked, "The important thing is not to stop questioning." Within the scientific community, there is sufficient evidence of moral concern for the suffering of animals in research. As early as 1831, Marshall Hall, a leading physiologist, expounded on the need to limit the use of animals in his publication, "Of the principles of investigation in physiology." This paper was republished in the American Heart Association's journal, Circulation, in 1973. This re-publication, more than 100 years after its initial release, testifies to the acceptance of concern about animal suffering by some within the scientific community. Marshall Hall was not alone in his agitation for moral concern regarding the use of animals in research. In the 19th century, Darwin, Huxley and Jenner supported the drive for the legal protection of animals in laboratories. The crucial ethical issue about animals in laboratories is concern with use that may involve pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The two horns of this moral dilemma are research - the gaining of new knowledge - and a scientific procedure that could result in hurt to a sentient creature. Can the former justify the latter? The widely accepted pursuit of laboratory animal science in many nations, supported by legal enactments, implies there is a consensus in its favour. The late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, "In acivilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics." From within the scientific community there is a loud call for a critical assessment of such supposed justification. The harm/benefit ratio must be scrupulously assessed in each instance on an ad hoc basis. The harm and the cost in suffering to the animal must always be meticulously investigated. The proposed benefit must be realistically evaluated.

The proportion of the dichotomy between harm and benefit must be conscientiously balanced. Science is an essential component of any debate on the use of animals in research. The constant refrain at any scientific conference on animal use in research is the necessity to always observe the 3Rs- replacement, reduction and refinement. This imperative is enshrined in Russell and Burch's 1959 book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. The ideal target, wherever possible, must be identifying and using alternatives to animals in research. The dictum of the philosopher and scientist, Albert Schweitzer is relevant here: "Avoid hurting sentient creatures whenever possible." In the setting of the animal facility, it must be stressed that the animal care staff has a moral obligation to care for the animals in their charge. These animals are restricted for our benefit. They do not have the ability to care for their own needs. Unlike their conspecifics in the wild, they are not free to fully express their nature, an activity which they might be thought to have a natural right to pursue.

A list of freedoms that must be supplied by those responsible for the welfare of laboratory animals was promulgated through the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1979:

• Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition by ready access to water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
• Freedom from discomfort by providing a suitable environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
• Freedom from pain, injury and diseases by prevention or by rapid diagnosis and treatment.
• Freedom of normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of animals of its own kind.
• Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering.

Meeting these obligations is a small price to pay, as we and future generations will owe a massive debt to these essential animal adjuvants for medical progress.

There are no easy answers in ethics. The answers are within us, and we must use courage to awaken these thoughts and to stimulate our senses. There is no area of our everyday lives in which ethics does not play a part, and there is no better way to stir our emotions.

Kevin P. Dolan, SThl(JusCan), BD, DipLaw, FIAT
Lecturer in Ethics, Bioscientific Events Limited, London

Fraser Darling, MA (Cantab), BSc (Hons), CBiol, MIBiol
Director of Biological Services
The Institute of Cancer Research, London

Back