Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Cost–Benefit Analysis: Who Pays and who Gains?

Cost–Benefit Analysis: Who Pays and who Gains? May 2015 Perspectives in Laboratory Animal Science For professionals in the fields of laboratory animal care and use Cost−Benefit Analysis: PiLAS Who Pays and Who Gains? This issue of PiLAS contains a challenging note by Herwig Grimm about current limitations in the intention and the ultimate value of the weighing of harm and benefit when considering animal experimenta- tion, as now required by Directive 2010/63/EU. The likely costs to animals and the potential benefits to humans have long been involved in thought and practice in relation to animal exper- imentation, but it was only when the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into effect that this became a formal requirement. The following words had been added, as Clause 5.4, at the insistence of the Government’s advisers, Triple Alliance (the British Veterinary Association, FRAME and the Committee for the Reform of CONTENTS Animal Experimentation): In determining whether and on what terms to grant a project licence the Secretary of State shall weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to CURRENT DILEMMAS In vitro methodologies in accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence. ecotoxicological hazard Happily, about 25 years later, a clause (38.2.d) was included in assessment: the case of Directive 2010/63/EU, which is now in force in all the EU Member bioaccumulation testing for fish States, and requires: A harm−benefit analysis of the project, to assess whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and dis- DISCUSSIONS tress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical Coffee in class: an alternative to animal experiments in considerations, and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or pharmacology? the environment. Nevertheless, as Herwig Grimm points out, the application of these Turning apples into oranges? requirements is far from satisfactory, and he calls for experts in this The harm–benefit analysis and how to take ethical field to contribute to a “lively and future-oriented discussion”, not considerations into account least so that researchers could provide better answers when asked which projects involving animals are justifiable, and which are not. THE WISDOM OF RUSSELL It happens that this issue of ATLA also contains a thought-provoking AND BURCH and highly-critical discussion of the current situation with regard to the ethical evaluation of animal experiments, in Roman Kolar’s outstanding article, How long must they suffer? Success and failure of our efforts to end the animal tragedy in laboratories, which is based on the plenary lecture he gave in Prague in 2014, during the 9th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. We hope that our readers will respond to these challenges with informed lively contributions, so that the reality more-closely matches the good intentions of the law makers and those who advise them. Grimm, H. (2015). Turning apples into oranges? The harm−benefit analysis and how to take ethical considerations into account. ATLA 43, P22–P24. Kolar, R. (2015). How long must they suffer? Success and failure of our efforts to end the animal tragedy in laboratories. ATLA 43, 129–143. PiLAS has been made possible by a grant from the Phoebe Wortley Talbot Charitable Trust Published by: Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments Russell & Burch House, 96-98 North Sherwood Street, Nottingham NG1 4EE, UK http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Alternatives to Laboratory Animals SAGE

Cost–Benefit Analysis: Who Pays and who Gains?

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals , Volume 43 (2): 1 – May 1, 2015

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/cost-benefit-analysis-who-pays-and-who-gains-En9DOVHtRS

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© 2015 Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments
ISSN
0261-1929
eISSN
2632-3559
DOI
10.1177/026119291504300208
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

May 2015 Perspectives in Laboratory Animal Science For professionals in the fields of laboratory animal care and use Cost−Benefit Analysis: PiLAS Who Pays and Who Gains? This issue of PiLAS contains a challenging note by Herwig Grimm about current limitations in the intention and the ultimate value of the weighing of harm and benefit when considering animal experimenta- tion, as now required by Directive 2010/63/EU. The likely costs to animals and the potential benefits to humans have long been involved in thought and practice in relation to animal exper- imentation, but it was only when the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into effect that this became a formal requirement. The following words had been added, as Clause 5.4, at the insistence of the Government’s advisers, Triple Alliance (the British Veterinary Association, FRAME and the Committee for the Reform of CONTENTS Animal Experimentation): In determining whether and on what terms to grant a project licence the Secretary of State shall weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to CURRENT DILEMMAS In vitro methodologies in accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence. ecotoxicological hazard Happily, about 25 years later, a clause (38.2.d) was included in assessment: the case of Directive 2010/63/EU, which is now in force in all the EU Member bioaccumulation testing for fish States, and requires: A harm−benefit analysis of the project, to assess whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and dis- DISCUSSIONS tress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical Coffee in class: an alternative to animal experiments in considerations, and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or pharmacology? the environment. Nevertheless, as Herwig Grimm points out, the application of these Turning apples into oranges? requirements is far from satisfactory, and he calls for experts in this The harm–benefit analysis and how to take ethical field to contribute to a “lively and future-oriented discussion”, not considerations into account least so that researchers could provide better answers when asked which projects involving animals are justifiable, and which are not. THE WISDOM OF RUSSELL It happens that this issue of ATLA also contains a thought-provoking AND BURCH and highly-critical discussion of the current situation with regard to the ethical evaluation of animal experiments, in Roman Kolar’s outstanding article, How long must they suffer? Success and failure of our efforts to end the animal tragedy in laboratories, which is based on the plenary lecture he gave in Prague in 2014, during the 9th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. We hope that our readers will respond to these challenges with informed lively contributions, so that the reality more-closely matches the good intentions of the law makers and those who advise them. Grimm, H. (2015). Turning apples into oranges? The harm−benefit analysis and how to take ethical considerations into account. ATLA 43, P22–P24. Kolar, R. (2015). How long must they suffer? Success and failure of our efforts to end the animal tragedy in laboratories. ATLA 43, 129–143. PiLAS has been made possible by a grant from the Phoebe Wortley Talbot Charitable Trust Published by: Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments Russell & Burch House, 96-98 North Sherwood Street, Nottingham NG1 4EE, UK

Journal

Alternatives to Laboratory AnimalsSAGE

Published: May 1, 2015

There are no references for this article.