A defense of 'risk-benefit' terminology

Abstract

The longstanding concept of risk-benefit analysis is an established and familiar practice among animal research programs. It is generally preferred by researchers and statisticians and this term is used throughout the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. However, the term 'harm-benefit analysis' has recently come into use, particularly in the accreditation process for animal research programs. The Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care has incorporated a new interpretation of the eighth edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals into their assessment and evaluation process, whereby they may require institutions to conduct a 'harm–benefit analysis'. However, whereas 'risk-benefit analysis' is specifically described in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, harm-benefit analysis is not mentioned at all. The source of this harm-benefit language appears to be Article 38 of the European Directive 2010/63/EU. Here, the authors present a case for retaining the current language of risk-benefit analyses and not specifically introducing the language of harm-benefit analyses into ethical considerations of animal research activities, including protocol review procedures of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees.