Decision making and the role of empathy in animal ethics committees (AECs)

Sammanfattning: Ethical evaluation of scientific studies carried out using animals is legally mandated in many countries and has been so in Sweden for over three decades. The animal ethics committees (AECs) responsible for the task have however been subjected to criticism; common critique being that the wrong issues are discussed and that the ethical evaluation is thus incomplete, that there is a lack of coherence across committees and that the committees are not as democratic as they might appear. This study investigates the view of Swedish AEC members on a number of issues in order to shed some light on the mandate and functioning of the committees, and on the grounds for ongoing criticism. In a survey and interviews AEC members and other persons connected to the committees gave their views on the AEC task in relation to their roles, the ethical evaluation per se and whether or not emotions such as empathy play any part in it. There were significant differences found between AEC member categories and several issues were encountered, many of which have been stressed in previous studies. Primarily, there seems to be different views upon what constitutes the most important ethical issues regarding research on animals, as well as whether or not all of these are fully considered in the evaluation. Relevant legislation is vague and certain highly relevant justifications and definitions are virtually non-existent. A main problem is also that estimating harm and benefit which is supposed to be the basis for the ethical analysis, is very difficult in practice. Already previous investigations such as SOU 1998:75 highlighted flaws with the ethical review process, e.g. decisions being made on unclear grounds, but also a lack of knowledge about alternative methods. These flaws were found also in this study and need to be addressed now more than ever, as the new EU directive (2010/63/EU) clearly requires comprehensive project evaluations and all member states to ensure that alternative methods are used when available. This study provides a deepened understanding of some of these issues and for some of the confusion, dissatisfaction and conflict that some of the AEC members appear to experience. In order to do this it is relevant to look at the scientific system with which the AEC evaluation is naturally linked. Although the composition of the committees is meant to provide independence and different perspectives, it seems as if scientific norms are still dominant. This is also evident in the utilitarian line of ethics advocated in the legislation. As science has traditionally valued reason and preferred “objective” ethical deliberations devoid of emotions, the utilitarian weighing of harm and benefit has been seen as a preferred way of dealing with ethical issues. However, recent scientific literature increasingly stresses emotional components as crucial for morality, which might not be included in the utilitarian model. The harm-benefit analysis also has other problems, meaning it might not be enough for a complete ethical evaluation. In addition, there are many other factors affecting ethical reasoning and decision-making, such as personality, contextual norms and group dynamics. Such factors are important to consider if we want to understand some of the difficulties the AEC members deal with in their task. Based on the findings of this and previous studies, it seems that in order for the AECs to fulfil their mandate and live up to the trust the public has put in them, there have to be certain prerequisites in place. Clear grounds for ethical reasoning, adequate information and knowledge, good group dynamics facilitating an open discussion climate and a non-judgmental atmosphere, good focus provided by the chairperson and a common ground and language that is equally accessible to all, are all factors facilitating an ideal ethical evaluation. In the light of this study, more can be done in order to achieve a satisfactory ethical review process.