Balancing animal welfare and assisted reproduction: ethics of preclinical animal research for testing new reproductive technologies

Abstract

In the field of medically assisted reproduction (MAR), there is a growing emphasis on the importance of introducing new assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) only after thorough preclinical safety research, including the use of animal models. At the same time, there is international support for the three R’s (replace, reduce, refine), and the European Union even aims at the full replacement of animals for research. The apparent tension between these two trends underlines the urgency of an explicit justification of the use of animals for the development and preclinical testing of new ARTs. Considering that the use of animals remains necessary for specific forms of ART research and taking account of different views on the moral importance of helping people to have a genetically related child, we argue that, in principle, the importance of safety research as part of responsible innovation outweighs the limited infringement of animal wellbeing involved in ART research.

From lab to fertility clinic

“…Our impression is that researchers in the field of ART often face difficulties receiving permission for human embryo research when data from prior animal studies, more specifically: studies using animal embryos, are lacking. This is ethically problematic in so far as it may lead to a waste of valuable research time and money, but also because it violates a core principle of the ethics of animal research, namely that the inevitable impact on animal wellbeing should be proportional to the importance of the benefits to be gained through that research (Jans et. al., 2018).…”

“…Preclinical animal research for testing new ARTs has a relatively low impact on the wellbeing of animals, as compared to animal research in other contexts, such as certain forms of cancer or burns research (Jans et. al., 2018).…”

“…Whereas the use of persons as 'mere means' is morally unacceptable, this does not hold for beings below this threshold: using them for entirely instrumental purposes can be acceptable under conditions (Jans et. al., 2018).…”

“…If the use of animals with more complex needs yields significantly more robust data on safety and efficacy, the use of such animals may be more proportional. Using animals with simpler needs for research when it is known that these models do not yield robust data should even be regarded as ethically problematic in so far as this violates a core principle of the ethics of animal research, namely that the inevitable adverse impact on animal wellbeing should be proportional to the importance of the benefits to be gained through that research (Jans et. al., 2018).…”

“…At the same time, animal research is morally sensitive as well, as is reflected in the growing support of the so-called 3Rs, calling researchers to 'replace, reduce, refine' the use of research animals wherever possible (NC3Rs, 2018). Interestingly, the ethical framework for animal research insists that animals may only be used for research questions that cannot be answered through other means (Jans et. al., 2018).…”