Page 0034


3 Drawing conclusions

Having examined likely harms and benefits and discussed ways of maximising the benefits and minimising the

harms, members of an ERB will need to decide whether or not they are comfortable with the balance of benefit

over harm in the project application. They then need to provide advice to the applicants and, if required by

regulations, authorise the work. These judgements can be difficult. As a consequence, whilst ERBs have been

shown to be very good at addressing the 3Rs in project applications, they may avoid explicit consideration of the

ethical 'weighing' of harms and benefits (Ideland, 2009; Hansen, 2013).

One of the problems is that there is debate about what exactly the "weighing" of harms and benefits should mean

in practice. A particular difficulty is that the factors to be weighed are not directly comparable. Animal suffering

must be weighed against benefit to humans or, in some cases, other animals. It is therefore debatable whether it

is possible, or indeed desirable, ever to say that the predicted benefits "exceed" the harms to animals.

However, this "weighing" is not in any sense a quantitative procedure; rather, it is a matter of moral judgement

which, by its nature, depends on the particular circumstances involved. In this sense, it does not seem a unique

or even unusual process of judgement:

"In everyday life... personal, professional and political judgements on moral issues normally require the weighing

of factors and considerations which cannot be quantified with mathematical precision. A judge, for example,

weighing a plea for mitigation of sentence in the "scales of justice" carries out a procedure of this kind" Smith and

Boyd (1991, p.140).

In any discussion of the use of animals in research there is likely to be a range of views expressed. Some people

argue that no amount of benefit can permit the infliction of any form of suffering on animals, and thus that the

benefits of using animals in research and testing are never sufficient to sanction the harms. Other people feel that

it would be wrong to forgo potential benefits of animal use and accept that at least some uses of animals in research

and testing should be allowed, provided that the benefits are judged sufficiently worthwhile and no alternatives are

available that could reduce or avoid harm to animals. Most members of ERBs are likely to be in the latter group.

For them, the justification, or lack of justification, for using animals varies with context, and so they must make their

judgements case by case.

In practice, it can be relatively easy to reach consensus on what definitely should not be done. When the benefits

are considered to be very low or unlikely to be achieved (e.g. because the experimental design is poor or other

non-animal approaches could be taken), animal use should not be sanctioned, even when the predicted harms are

mild. Similarly, at the other end of the spectrum, there are harms that are so high that no benefit can be considered

to justify their use. However, both personal and consensus judgements about the balance of benefit over harm are

more challenging within the grey area between these extremes.

In such situations, "confidence in the soundness of judgements largely depends on the approach of those who

make them: upon whether they have taken all the known morally relevant factors... and interests" (Smith and Boyd,

1991 p.141) and can be trusted to come to balanced, informed decisions that take into account all reasonable

perspectives on the issues. Involving a diversity of people in the decision-making process is an important step

in achieving and enhancing such trust, especially where this includes lay members who are widely regarded as

having no vested interest in the outcomes of the review.

In the end, you will need to draw conclusions and/or come to decisions, both personally and

collectively with other participants in the review, but if these result from the kind of comprehensive

thinking described above, they will not rest on "gut feelings" alone. Rather, the judgements and

associated advice will be supported by arguments that are well-informed and sensitive to the different

ethical nuances and perspectives brought forward.


  1. Page 0001
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0006
  7. Page 0007
  8. Page 0008
  9. Page 0009
  10. Page 0010
  11. Page 0011
  12. Page 0012
  13. Page 0013
  14. Page 0014
  15. Page 0015
  16. Page 0016
  17. Page 0017
  18. Page 0018
  19. Page 0019
  20. Page 0020
  21. Page 0021
  22. Page 0022
  23. Page 0023
  24. Page 0024
  25. Page 0025
  26. Page 0026
  27. Page 0027
  28. Page 0028
  29. Page 0029
  30. Page 0030
  31. Page 0031
  32. Page 0032
  33. Page 0033
  34. Page 0034
  35. Page 0035
  36. Page 0036
  37. Page 0037
  38. Page 0038
  39. Page 0039
  40. Page 0040
  41. Page 0041
  42. Page 0042
  43. Page 0043
  44. Page 0044
  45. Page 0045
  46. Page 0046
  47. Page 0047
  48. Page 0048
  49. Page 0049
  50. Page 0050
  51. Page 0051
  52. Page 0052
  53. Page 0053
  54. Page 0054
  55. Page 0055
  56. Page 0056
  57. Page 0057
  58. Page 0058
  59. Page 0059
  60. Page 0060
  61. Page 0061
  62. Page 0062
  63. Page 0063
  64. Page 0064