The use of animals in research entails a range of societal and ethical issues, and there is widespread consensus that animals are to be kept safe from unnecessary suffering. Therefore, harm done to animals in the name of research has to be carefully regulated and undergo ethical review for approval. Since 2013, this has been enforced within the European Union through Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. However, critics argue that the directive and its implementation by member states do not properly consider all aspects of animal welfare, which risks causing unnecessary animal suffering and decreased public trust in the system. In this pilot study, the ethical review process in Sweden was investigated to determine whether or not the system is in fact flawed, and if so, what may be the underlying cause of this. Through in-depth analysis of 18 applications and decisions of ethical reviews, we found that there are recurring problems within the ethical review process in Sweden. Discrepancies between demands set by legislation and the structure of the application form lead to submitted information being incomplete by design. In turn, this prevents the Animal Ethics Committees from being able to fulfill their task of performing a harm–benefit analysis and ensuring Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (the 3Rs). Results further showed that a significant number of applications failed to meet legal requirements regarding content. Similarly, no Animal Ethics Committee decision contained any account of evaluation of the 3Rs and a majority failed to include harm–benefit analysis as required by law. Hence, the welfare may be at risk, as well as the fulfilling of the legal requirement of only approving “necessary suffering”. We argue that the results show an unacceptably low level of compliance in the investigated applications with the legal requirement of performing both a harm–benefit analysis and applying the 3Rs within the decision-making process, and that by implication, public insight through transparency is not achieved in these cases. In order to improve the ethical review, the process needs to be restructured, and the legal demands put on both the applicants and the Animal Ethics Committees as such need to be made clear. We further propose a number of improvements, including a revision of the application form. We also encourage future research to further investigate and address issues unearthed by this pilot study.

Can nonhuman animals be used for the benefit of humans in a scientifically and morally justified manner and, if yes, how? Based on our own experiences as scholars from various academic backgrounds, we argue that this question can only be answered as an interdisciplinary and international endeavor, considering insights from research ethics and animal ethics as well as scientific and legal aspects. The aim of this article is to contribute to the foundation of the emerging field of animal research ethics. In doing so, we describe the following seven phases of animal research experiments: ethical, legal and social presumptions (phase 0), planning (phase I), review (phase II), conduct of experiments (phase III), publication/dissemination (phase IV), further exploitation of results (phase V), and evaluation (phase VI). In total, 20 key ethical, legal, and practical challenges that an ethical framework for the use of animals in research needs to address are identified and analyzed. Finally, we characterize the following four meta-challenges and opportunities associated with animal research ethics as a field: (1) moral pluralism, (2) the integration of views and positions outside the laboratory, (3) international plurality of conduct, standards, and legal norms, and (4) interdisciplinary education.

This study examines regulatory requirements concerning the ethical review of animal research in Sweden, in particular legal obligations placed on applicants, and to some extent on Animal Ethics Committees (AECs). It focuses on what information applying researchers are required to provide, to what extent submitted applications reflect the fulfilment of these requirements, and how the AECs handle the information they receive. The study emphasizes areas of concern critical for an ethical evaluation. By examining a selection of submitted applications, the study has found information about harm, benefit, and the 3Rs is often insufficient or occasionally altogether missing, thus hindering the AECs’ performance of a harm–benefit analysis (HBA) and an assessment of how the applying researcher has considered the 3Rs in their project. The authors underscore the necessity for applying researchers to include detailed, relevant, complete, and accurate information to facilitate a thorough ethical review. To facilitate a shift towards a more thorough project evaluation, the authors suggest nine action points to improve the ethical review process for the sake of applicants, evaluators (AECs), and the animals used in research. This approach will also help enhance research quality, promote transparency, and build public trust in the ethical review process.

All EU research projects involving non-human animals must undergo prior project evaluation, also known as ethical review, to safeguard animal welfare. This process is mandated by Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, to ensure that the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) are adequately addressed and that any harm to animals is justified by the expected benefits of the research. Although this ethical review and its implementation across Member States have been widely criticised, little is known about how the process is perceived by those directly involved in it: animal researchers applying for ethical approval and animal ethics committee (AEC) members reviewing such applications. This study addresses that gap. Based on questionnaire responses from Swedish animal researchers and AEC members, we found that respondents strongly value animal welfare and want the ethical review to comply with legal requirements. At the same time, respondents revealed that reviewed applications sometimes lacked important information and that 3R assessment, ethical deliberation, and a harm-benefit analysis were not performed by AECs for all reviewed projects. Despite this, many committee member respondents, particularly scientific community representatives (SCRs) and public representatives (PRs), appear overall satisfied with the review. Animal welfare organisation representatives (AWORs), however, were more critical, perceiving a gap between how the ethical review should function in theory and is implemented in practice. We argue that differences in perceptions of the ethical review process may stem from intersecting factors that shape how respondents understand its purpose, the responsibilities of participants, and key concepts. We identify a need for clearer alignment in these understandings, whilst preserving the diversity of perspectives that is central to the process. As it stands, the current system of ethical review cannot achieve this, and, as a result, some tasks and perspectives may be deprioritised in favour of others.