Session C: “A Mouse Cannot Say Exactly How They Feel”: Research Participants’ Views on Non-Human Animal Research
Sub-theme
Research and Theory
Keywords
nonhuman animal research, Phase I clinical trials, healthy volunteers, drug development
Start Date
12-10-2018 1:30 PM
End Date
12-10-2018 2:45 PM
Abstract
The development of pharmaceuticals requires the participation both of non-human animals and humans to provide evidence that a new therapy is safe and efficacious. Bridging laboratory studies and large-scale clinical trials are Phase I trials that are conducted on healthy volunteers. Such participants are typically the first humans to test the safety and tolerability of investigational drugs, helping to determine whether subsequent trials with affected patients are warranted. As part of the consent process for Phase I trials, prospective healthy volunteers are provided with information about the prior animal testing in order to inform them about the potential risks of their participation. As part of a larger longitudinal qualitative study, we interviewed 130 healthy volunteers about their perceptions of animal research. We asked them to reflect on why drugs are tested on non-human animals and how animal testing affects their views of the risks to them of participating. We found that participants often engaged in moral reasoning about the ethics of animal testing, as they frequently asserted that such research is a necessary evil for the advancement of medicine. Many also felt that such testing ensured their own safety in clinical trials, positing that animals are exposed to much greater risks (e.g., unknown risks and higher doses) than are healthy volunteers. Others, however, were less sanguine that previous testing on animals lessened their own drug-related risk, citing the myriad differences between human and non-human animal systems. More importantly, participants often understood their own role in drug development by comparing what healthy volunteers offer researchers that laboratory animals cannot—a voice in describing any adverse effects of the drug they experience. In so doing, participants seem to engage in a process of identifying with non-human animals, which we argue helps to explain their moral qualms about animal research. This paper contributes to the conference sub-theme of “Research and Theory” as it aims to unpack the views of people who are inadvertent stakeholders in the non-human animal research enterprise.
Session C: “A Mouse Cannot Say Exactly How They Feel”: Research Participants’ Views on Non-Human Animal Research
The development of pharmaceuticals requires the participation both of non-human animals and humans to provide evidence that a new therapy is safe and efficacious. Bridging laboratory studies and large-scale clinical trials are Phase I trials that are conducted on healthy volunteers. Such participants are typically the first humans to test the safety and tolerability of investigational drugs, helping to determine whether subsequent trials with affected patients are warranted. As part of the consent process for Phase I trials, prospective healthy volunteers are provided with information about the prior animal testing in order to inform them about the potential risks of their participation. As part of a larger longitudinal qualitative study, we interviewed 130 healthy volunteers about their perceptions of animal research. We asked them to reflect on why drugs are tested on non-human animals and how animal testing affects their views of the risks to them of participating. We found that participants often engaged in moral reasoning about the ethics of animal testing, as they frequently asserted that such research is a necessary evil for the advancement of medicine. Many also felt that such testing ensured their own safety in clinical trials, positing that animals are exposed to much greater risks (e.g., unknown risks and higher doses) than are healthy volunteers. Others, however, were less sanguine that previous testing on animals lessened their own drug-related risk, citing the myriad differences between human and non-human animal systems. More importantly, participants often understood their own role in drug development by comparing what healthy volunteers offer researchers that laboratory animals cannot—a voice in describing any adverse effects of the drug they experience. In so doing, participants seem to engage in a process of identifying with non-human animals, which we argue helps to explain their moral qualms about animal research. This paper contributes to the conference sub-theme of “Research and Theory” as it aims to unpack the views of people who are inadvertent stakeholders in the non-human animal research enterprise.
