Abstract
An attempt was made to study the impact of clinically-observed abnormalities in mice with gallstones on the ethical admissibility of a proposed experiment using gallstone-bearing mice. Three groups of respondents completed a questionnaire based on a hypothetical protocol of a proposed experiment using gallstone-bearing mice. Differing information was given in the protocols concerning abnormalities in gallstone-bearing mice. Respondents were asked to judge, using a scoring system, the ethical admissibility of the proposed experiment and the degree of discomfort for the mice. Respondents were also asked to defend their admissibility judgements and discomfort scores. Respondents given clinical information considered the degree of discomfort to be more serious than respondents without such information. Respondents given information indicated that their estimate of discomfort was based principally on the clinical information provided. Respondents without clinical information mentioned the lack of such information as a handicap to assessing discomfort properly. Scores on ethical admissibility of the proposed experiment were found to be unaltered by the clinical information. Judgement of the ethical admissibility was based mainly on the anticipated human benefits to be gained by performing the experiment. It is stressed that the specific character of the present study does not allow generalisation of its outcome.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.