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.Current 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.
Highlights
Animal research is frequently considered justifiable based on a consequentialist calculus that invokes cost-benefit or harm-benefit analysis [1]
Surveys have shown that public opinion is turning against animal research, with support dropping from 75% to 66% in the UK and from 63% to 51% in the US between 2002 and 2016 [2,46]
Public engagement with these processes could be built through programs like the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research in the UK, which encourages signatories to better communicate their use of animals through annual reporting and making online statements about their animal use and policies [94]
Summary
Animal research is frequently considered justifiable based on a consequentialist calculus that invokes cost-benefit or harm-benefit analysis [1]. Opinion polls in the US and the UK show that the proportion of adults who believe medical research involving animals is morally acceptable has been falling since 2002 [2]. This trend in public opinion is at odds with the rising demand for healthcare [3], including drugs that are tested on animals as part of regulatory requirements [4]. Options for democratising animal research ethics should be considered, including drug labelling to educate the public and public consultation by national animal ethics committees to engage the public in deciding when animal research is justified
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
