Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Harm-Benefit Analysis: opportunities for enhancing ethical review in animal research

Lab Animal volume 47, pages 57–58 (2018)Cite this article

To the Editor —

The UK’s Animals in Science Committee (ASC) recently completed its review of the processes of harm–benefit analysis (HBA) carried out under the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) (see Supplementary material). The ASC report focuses on the UK, where ASPA requires the HBA of a programme of work to assess whether the harm that would be caused to protected animals, in terms of suffering, pain, distress, and lasting harm, can be justified by the expected outcome, taking into account ethical considerations and the expected benefit to human beings, animals, or the environment. ASPA additionally demands consideration of “important animal welfare or ethical concerns, novel or contentious issues, or societal concerns”1. Given these complex requirements, processes of HBA need regular review to operate in a way that is responsive to scientific and societal developments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Home Office. Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Home Office, London, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brønstad, A. et al. Current concepts of harm–benefit analysis of animal experiments–report from the AALAS–FELASA working group on harm–benefit analysis–part 1. Laboratory Animals 50, 1–20 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Laber, K. et al. Recommendations for addressing harm–benefit analysis and implementation in ethical evaluation–report from the AALAS–FELASA working group on harm–benefit analysis–part 2. Laboratory Animals 50, 21–42 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission. National Competent Authorities for the implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes: Working Document on Project Evaluation and Retrospective Assessment (2013).

  5. OIE. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapter 7.8, Use of animals in Research and Education (Office International des Epizooties, 2016).

  6. CIOMS-ICLAS. International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences - International Council for Laboratory Animal Science, 2012).

  7. Pound, P. & Blaug, R. Transparency and public involvement in animal research. ATLA 44, 167–173 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Haraway, D. When Species Meet (University of Minnesota Press, 2008) p.87.

  9. AMS. Reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: improving research practice (The Academy of Medical Sciences, London, 2015).

  10. Walport, M. Animal Research: Then and Now. Online seminar. (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The ASC Harm–Benefit Analysis subgroup was established in autumn 2014. Its members are: Professor Gail Davies (ASC, Chair of the subgroup); Huw Golledge (ASC); Penny Hawkins (ASC); Anna Rowland (ASC); Sarah Wolfensohn (ASC); Jane Smith (Boyd Group, advice and report drafting); and Dominic Wells (Animals in Science Group at the Royal Society of Biology, advisory input). The subgroup was supported throughout their work by Dr Jo Wallace and Caroline Wheeler from the Home Office Science Secretariat. Gabrielle King contributed to research on the evaluation of benefits at the University of Exeter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Gail F. Davies

Authors
  1. Gail F. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gail F. Davies.

Electronic supplementary material

Review of harm-benefit analysis in the use of animals in research

Report of the Animals in Science Committee Harm-Benefit

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davies, G.F. Harm-Benefit Analysis: opportunities for enhancing ethical review in animal research. Lab Anim 47, 57–58 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-018-0002-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-018-0002-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing