Bateson's cube is a model of the cost–benefit analysis for animal research developed by Professor Patrick Bateson, president of the Zoological Society of London.[1] [2]
Bateson's cube evaluates proposed research through three criteria:
Bateson suggested that research that does not meet these requirements should not be approved or performed, in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It is not intended as a formal model for optimal trade-offs, but rather a tool for making judicial decisions, since the three axes are not in a common currency.[3] The third criterion also does not necessarily have to be medical benefit, but could be a wider form of utility.[4]
Bateson cube has three axes measuring suffering, certainty of benefit, and quality of research. If the research is high-quality, certain to be beneficial, and not going to inflict suffering, then it will fall into the hollow section meaning research should proceed. Painful, low-quality research with lower likelihood of success will be lower back in the solid area, and should not proceed. Most research will not be clear-cut, but the guiding principle is 'hollow' should continue, 'solid' should not.