Seminar I: Ethical analysis of a study case Research on animals (Chapter 3) Derar Al-smadi Karthik Devaraj Harri Geiger Dorothee Vallot Lisa Toller

Presentation of the problem First part Presentation of the problem

Background on animal experiments Purpose Provides new knowledge Benefits human being For the sake of animals themselves Paradox “We use (non human) animals in experiments, because they are sufficiently like us (to achieve relevant results) – and since they are sufficiently different from us (to allow us to motivate the suffering we cause)” Different values and norms for different times and cultures How the responsability should be exercised?

Background on animal experiments Common perception that animal experiments are needed for development and research Ethics review Harmonisation of EU research on animal welfare Ethics comittees weight the expected importance of the experiment against the expected suffering of the animal Swedish legislation only applicable in Swedish territory...

Study case We strongly suspect that an endangered species have something that could possibly cure a dangerous prominent disease in humans. We are not allowed to do experiments with these animals in Sweden but we have collaborators from another project in another country where it could be allowed.

What to do? Pitch the idea abroad but not taking part in the research Collaborate and make the experiments abroad Not share the idea with anyone Find an alternative to conduct this research

Second part Analysis

Pitch the idea abroad but not taking part in the research Ethical problems or conflicts? Potential harm on ecosystem and animals but not by us Research led by another group with less ethical restrictions Who is affected and how? Ecosystem and animals- by extinction of animal. No research output for us and our institution Potential benefits for human beings Optimisation? Adaptation? Success? Success for another group / our collaborators Altruism

Collaborate and make the experiments abroad Ethical problems or conflicts? Experiments not allowed in Sweden but abroad (Moral problem but follows the law) People suffering from the disease Endangered species harvesting (ecosystem problems) Animal suffering Who is affected and how? Beneficial for humans Suffering of endangered species and risk of extinction Own reputation amoung other researchers Optimisation? Adaptation? Success? Make empirical research on non-animal models to collect data before applying the research on animals Minimize the number of animals used Make sure the group abroad respects certain ethical rules

Not share the idea with anyone Ethical problems or conflicts? There will be no help to those suffering from the disease No harm on animal neither ecosystem Research potentially led by another group worse animal suffering (if they have “worse” ideas on what is okay to do in the name of science)? Credits to another group Who is affected and how? People suffering from the disease (no cure) Authorities (will not have to take stand in the matter) No research output and credits for the group Optimisation? Adaptation? Success? Discussion with trusted co-workers/study of literature could give new ideas on alternative research

Find an alternative to conduct this research Ethical problems or conflicts? Wasting valuable time to find another way even though a solution might be “around the corner” There might not be another solution Research potentially led by another group worse animal suffering (if they have “worse” ideas on what is okay to do in the name of science)? Credits to another group in the short-term Who is affected and how? People suffering from the disease (no short-term cure) Research group might not find a good path Optimisation? Adaptation? Success? Advertisement of ethically sound research based on animal research Funding to encourage more ideas not to harm ecosystem no animals Computer models to increase the success probability

Values involved and effects on those? Law and regulation Morally sound Animal suffering Impact on environment / ecosystem Fighting prominent disease Own reputation Institution benefits Score No sharing No violation Good for environment / ecosystem but not for humanity No (except if someone else has the idea) Endangered species not put at risk No cure No risk of bad reputation but no chance of fame No 9 Collaborate and make the experiments abroad No obvious violation Not good for environment/ecosystem but for humanity and conflicts with own/country values Idirect implication in it Endangered species put at risk Potential short-term cure risk of bad reputation amoung researchers but not for the public and chance of fame Chance of more funding + collaboration but share of credits 7 Alternative to conduct the research Good for environment / ecosystem but no short-term solution for humanity No (except if someone else takes the idea) Maybe long-term cure Very good reputation amoung researchers and public but risk of never finding anything Chance of more funding but risk of failure 11 Pitch the idea abroad Not good for environment/ecosystem but for humanity Not under our hands but implication in it 6

Decision We decide to find an alternative to the study!