Navigation auf uzh.ch

Suche

Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine (IBME)

New publication: The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: Why Harm-Benefit Analysis and Its Emphasis on Practical Benefit Jeopardizes the Credibility of Research.

New Commentary by Herwig Grimm, Matthias Eggel, Anna Deplazes-Zemp and Nikola Biller-Andorno:  “The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: Why Harm–Benefit Analysis and Its Emphasis on Practical Benefit Jeopardizes the Credibility of Research.” Animals 2017, 7(9), 70; doi:10.3390/ani7090070

Abstract:

It is our concern that European Union Directive 2010/63/EU with its current project evaluation of animal research in the form of a harm–benefit analysis may lead to an erosion of the credibility of research. The HBA assesses whether the inflicted harm on animals is outweighed by potential prospective benefits. Recent literature on prospective benefit analysis prioritizes “societal benefits” that have a foreseeable, positive impact on humans, animals, or the environment over benefit in the form of knowledge. In this study, we will argue that whether practical benefits are realized is (a) impossible to predict and (b) exceeds the scope and responsibility of researchers. Furthermore, we believe that the emphasis on practical benefits has the drawback of driving researchers into speculation on the societal benefit of their research and, therefore, into promising too much, thereby leading to a loss of trust and credibility. Thus, the concepts of benefit and benefit assessment in the HBA require a re-evaluation in a spirit that embraces the value of knowledge in our society. The generation of scientific knowledge has been utilised to great benefit for humans, animals, and the environment. The HBA, as it currently stands, tends to turn this idea upside down and implies that research is of value only if the resulting findings bring about immediate societal benefit.

Link 

admin