Next Article in Journal
Effects of Topical Anaesthetic and Buccal Meloxicam Treatments on Concurrent Castration and Dehorning of Beef Calves
Next Article in Special Issue
Naturalness and Animal Welfare
Previous Article in Journal
Developing an Ethically Acceptable Virtual Fencing System for Sheep
Previous Article in Special Issue
Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties?
Article Menu
Issue 3 (March) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Animals 2018, 8(3), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8030034

Necessary, but Not Sufficient. The Benefit Concept in the Project Evaluation of Animal Research in the Context of Directive 2010/63/EU

1
Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
2
Institute for Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 5 January 2018 / Revised: 16 February 2018 / Accepted: 21 February 2018 / Published: 28 February 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Animal Ethics)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [221 KB, uploaded 28 February 2018]

Abstract

Directive 2010/63/EU (henceforth “Directive”) on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes mandates that every project proposal in EU member states involving procedures on living non-human vertebrates and cephalopods has to be approved in an review process, including a harm-benefit-analysis (HBA), to assess “whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and distress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical consideration and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or the environment”. Despite the justifying relevance of “outcome” and “benefit”, it remains unclear how to understand these concepts. However, national authorities and applicants require a clear understanding of this to carry out a HBA. To analyze the underlying premises of the HBA and its consequences for the evaluation process, we introduce a heuristic to analyze the relation between “outcome”, “benefit” and “prospective benefit assessment”. We then apply the heuristic to all seven legitimate purposes for animal research stated in the Directive, namely basic research, translational or applied research, product safety, education and training, protection of the environment, preservation of species and forensic inquiries. As we show, regardless of which purpose is aimed for, applicants are hard-pressed to demonstrate tangible benefits in a prospective assessment. In the HBA, this becomes a problem since—as we argue—the only reasonable, expected and tangible outcome of research can ever be knowledge. The potential long-term benefits on the basis of gained knowledge are unforeseeable and impossible to predict. Research is bound to fall short of these proclaimed societal benefits and its credibility will suffer as long as research has to validate itself through short-term societal benefit. We propose to revise the ethical evaluation based on the HBA and we think it necessary to develop an alternative model for project evaluation that focuses on the value of knowledge as a scientific outcome as a necessary but not sufficient condition for societal benefit. View Full-Text
Keywords: animal ethics; harm-benefit analysis; animal research ethics; benefit concept animal ethics; harm-benefit analysis; animal research ethics; benefit concept
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Eggel, M.; Grimm, H. Necessary, but Not Sufficient. The Benefit Concept in the Project Evaluation of Animal Research in the Context of Directive 2010/63/EU. Animals 2018, 8, 34.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Animals EISSN 2076-2615 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top