Assessing harms and benefits
One function of the local ethical review process (ERP) in the UK is to:
examine proposed applications for new project licences and amendments to existing licences, with reference to the likely costs to animals, the expected benefits of the work and how these considerations balance.
During project review, ERP members need to understand and 'weigh' the likely adverse effects to the animals against the likely benefits of the work. There is considerable debate about what this should mean in practice, and it is likely to be one of the most difficult tasks that ERP members face.
Useful background information is provided in the UK Animal Procedures Committee report on the 'cost-benefit assessment' which examines all of the factors that should be taken into account when assessing and weighing harms and benefits. Read the full report:
APC review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research (2003) (PDF 1464 KB)
In the case of the harms, all potential sources of harms throughout the lifetime experience of the animals need to be considered. This includes any suffering associated with housing, husbandry, transport, restraint and euthanasia, as well as that caused by procedures. Identification of all sources of potential harm also helps to ensure that suffering is reduced as far as possible and that every effort is made to improve animal welfare.
Assessments of harms and benefits are matters of judgement, which by their nature are contestable. Opinion will differ on what should count as a harm or legitimate benefit, and on the relative weights that should be accorded to different kinds of harms and benefits.
The weighing cannot be quantitative - it is a matter of moral judgement, which depends on the particular circumstances and the approach of individual participants. Involving ERP members from a variety of perspectives, including animal welfare representatives, and those who have no vested interest in the outcome of the review, helps to ensure the integrity of the process.
