The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: Why Harm–Benefit Analysis and Its Emphasis on Practical Benefit Jeopardizes the Credibility of Research (original) (raw)

Abstract

The European legislation on project evaluation of animal research has recently changed. Every procedure on live non-human vertebrates and cephalopods has to be approved in a project evaluation (harm-benefit analysis (HBA)) that weighs the inflicted harms on animals against potential prospective benefits. Recent publications on the HBA prioritise "societal benefits" that have a foreseeable, positive impact on humans, animals, or the environment over gaining knowledge (e.g., basic research). However, we argue that whether potential prospective societal benefits are realized is (a) impossible to predict and (b) exceeds the scope and responsibility of researchers. Furthermore, the emphasis on practical benefits has the drawback of driving researchers into speculation on the practical benefit of their research and, therefore, into promising too much. Repeated failure to deliver proclaimed practical benefits will lead to a loss of trust and credibility in research. The concepts of benefit and benefit assessment in the HBA, as well as the HBA itself, require re-evaluation in a spirit that embraces the value of knowledge in our society. Research projects should be measured by the quality of the research they perform and by the contributions they make to a specific field of research or research program. Only then can promises regarding benefits (in terms of knowledge) be kept and continued public trust ensured. Time and again, scientific knowledge has been utilized to great benefit for humans, animals, and the environment. The HBA, as it currently stands, tends to turn this idea upside down and implies that research is of value only if the resulting findings bring about direct practical benefits, which science itself can neither provide nor guarantee. The road to hell is, as the saying goes, paved with good intentions.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (23)

  1. European Commission. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, 28, 82-128.
  2. Russell, W.M.S.; Burch, R.L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 1st ed.; Methuen: London, UK, 1959.
  3. Grimm, H. Turning apples into oranges? The harm-benefit analysis and how to take ethical considerations into account. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2015, 43, 22-24.
  4. Alzmann, N. Zur Beurteilung der Ethischen Vertretbarkeit von Tierversuchen; Tübingen Studies of Ethics; Narr Francke Attempto: Tübingen, Germany, 2016.
  5. Porter, D.G. Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 1992, 356, 101-102. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Scharmann, W.; Teutsch, G.M. Zur ethischen Abwägung von Tierversuchen. ALTEX 1994, 11, 191-198.
  7. Stafleu, F.R.; Tramper, R.; Vorstenbosch, J.; Joles, J.A. The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: A proposal for a system to support decision-making. Lab. Anim. 1999, 33, 295-303. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bout, H.J.; van Vlissingen, J.M.F.; Karssing, E.D. Evaluating the ethical acceptability of animal research. Lab. Anim. 2014, 43, 411-414. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ach, J.S. Zur 'ethischen Vertretbarkeit' von Tierversuchen. In Der Ethisch Vertretbare Tierversuch; Borchers, D., Luy, J., Eds.; Mentis: Paderborn, Germany, 2009; pp. 89-112.
  10. Imboden, M.D. Über die Grundlagenforschung und den Wert der Erkenntnis. In Güterabwägung bei der Bewilligung von Tierversuchen; Sigg, H., Folkers, G., Eds.; Collegium Helveticum: Zurich, Switzerland, 2011; pp. 53-57.
  11. Abbot, A. Basel declaration defends animal research. Nature 2010, 468, 742-743. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Laber, K.; Newcomer, C.E.; Decelle, T.; Everitt, J.I.; Guillen, J.; Brønstad, A. Recommendations for Addressing Harm-Benefit Analysis and Implementation in Ethical Evaluation-Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis-Part 2. Lab. Anim. 2016, 50, 21-42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Brønstad, A.; Newcomer, C.E.; Decelle, T.; Everitt, J.I.; Guillen, J.; Laber, K. Current concepts of Harm-Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments-Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis-Part 1. Lab. Anim. 2016, 50, 1-20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Schiermeier, Q. German Authority halts primate work. Nature 2008, 455, 1159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Oberverwaltungsgericht Bremen 2013:669. Available online: http://www.oberverwaltungsgericht.bremen. de/sixcms/detail.php?gsid=bremen72.c.11099.de&asl=bremen72.c.11265 (accessed on 28 August 2017).
  16. Persson, K.; Elger, B.S.; Shaw, D.M. The Indignity of Relative Concepts of Animal Dignity: A Qualitative Study of People Working with Nonhuman Animals. Anthrozoös 2017, 30, 237-247. [CrossRef]
  17. Williams, S.R.; Lotia, S.; Holloway, A.K.; Pico, A.R. From scientific discovery to cures: Bright stars within a galaxy. Cell 2015, 163, 21-23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Comroe, J.H.; Dripps, R.D. Ben Franklin and open heart surgery. Circ. Res. 1974, 35, 661-669. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Project Retrosight. Available online: https://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/health-quarterly/issues/v1/ n1/16.html (accessed on 14 August 2017).
  20. CAMARADES. Available online: http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/default.htm#about (accessed on 23 August 2017).
  21. Perel, P.; Roberts, I.; Sena, E.; Wheble, P.; Briscoe, C.; Sandercock, P.; Macleod, M.; Mignini, L.E.; Jayaram, P.; Khan, K.S. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. Br. Med. J. 2007, 334, 197. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vogt, L.; Reichlin, T.S.; Nathues, C.; Würbel, H. Authorization of animal experiments is based on confidence rather than evidence of scientific rigor. PLoS Biol. 2016, 14, e2000598. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Reichlin, T.S.; Vogt, L.; Würbel, H. The researcher's view of scientific rigot-Survey on the conduct and reporting of in vivo research. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165999. [CrossRef] [PubMed]