Text-Only Site |Campus Map |A to Z |Directory
 
UAA Logo
UAA Home > Research > Research Integrity & Compliance > IACUC > Moral & Ethical Considerations
Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee
Printer Friendly
Moral and Ethical Considerations for the Use of Animals

Objective: To introduce the moral and ethical considerations of animal use, particularly in a research setting, and the directed concerns of opponents to animal use in research, teaching, and testing.

Contents:

  • Introduction and the Use of Animals
  • Classification of Animal Use by the Scientific Community
  • Animal Welfare Movement
  • Animal Rights and Antivivisection Movement
  • Alternatives to Animals
  • Ethics of Animal Experimentation (the 3R's)
  • Need for Control
  • Reference List

Introduction and the Use of Animals

The purpose of this section is not to convince you that animals should be used in research, teaching, and diagnostics but to stimulate discussion and thought about how we use animals. If you are taking this web-based course, you are presumably involved or plan to be involved in some protocol or project that uses animals. Therefore, you already recognize the importance of animal use at some level (hopefully not too narrow!). It is absolutely critical for individuals who use animals for one or more purposes to give some thought to how animals are used in general and to guard against hypocrisy in your personal feelings toward animal use. For example, it is alarmingly common for people working in biomedical research to view aspects of wildlife management or wildlife research with some disdain. The idea of placing a cannula into a rat's brain is justifiable since the intent is to advance medical knowledge yet trapping a marten in a leghold trap for a mark-recapture study might be considered cruel. Likewise, it is equally common for individuals conducting wildlife research to consider some procedures used in biomedical research as barbaric. It depends entirely upon your personal experience, how you justify your own animal use, and whether or not you believe the propaganda published about animal cruelty and abuse - there is a lot of misinformation! For most of us, we are well aware that the "animal rights" portrayal of our own use of animals is incorrect. Therefore, it is safe to assume that ALL their reports and so-called "fact" sheets are incorrect. In previous classes I have asked my students to list how humans use animals. The exercise was primarily to get students thinking about animal use from a variety of viewpoints and to recognize that acceptable animal use is very diverse. The other important component of this exercise was to get students thinking about how different forms of animal use is regulated and where abuses, if any, might occur. This resulted in what I think is a fairly exhaustive listing of different ways in which humans use animals. If you can think of a form of animal use that we missed please let me know and I will add it to the list. As a society we have decided that some uses are simply wrong, animal fighting is an obvious example. However, our society has decided that there are many, many uses of animals that are acceptable. As a researcher what should you do? Claiming that animals have rights is quite inappropriate. This is a real quagmire that is best avoided, regardless of your personal sentiment. How you deal with the semantics is a very personal issue and I don't expect you to alter your philosophy towards animals. Nevertheless, claiming that animals have rights places you in the same camp as the terrorists who "liberate" research animals and send nasty letters and e-mails to animal users like you and me. Many individuals that I have met who claim that animals have rights really don't adhere to the animal rights philosophy at all. They have the misguided idea that animal welfare is achieved by an animal rights philosophy - this is not so! Most people understand that humans use animals, they simply expect animals to be used in a humane fashion. The individuals who truly believe in animal rights want to stop all use of animals no matter how important or useful to humans.

Classification of Animal Use by the Scientific Community

  • research: use of live vertebrates to answer specific research questions.
  • teaching: use of live vertebrates to illustrate principles or techniques to students that cannot be be done using non-animal alternatives.
  • testing: safety and efficacy testing of compounds by assessing the effects they have on animals prior to use on humans (not done at UAF)
  • diagnostics: use of live vertebrates for the diagnosis of diseases (i.e. mice are used in rabies and botulism diagnostics; however, research is progressing to develop tests that do not use live animals)

Biomedical vs. Non-medical: Use of animals, particularly in research is often identified as to whether it is biomedical research or non-medical research. Some feel that animal use is more easily justified if it will directly lead to knowledge about improving human or animal health. However, non-medical is equally valuable because it increases our knowledge about living organisms. Moreover, some research that might initially be considered non-medical can lead to discoveries that will contribute to medical research.

Basic vs. Applied: Justification of your use of animals is paramount in protocol review and for obtaining funding to conduct your research. A third classification of research tends to be whether it is basic or applied. Again, for animal protocol reviews this distinction is irrelevant, Your goal is to justify what you are proposing; however, some feel that applied research is easier to justify and, for some funding sources, they require an applied component to your research prior to funding.

Animal Welfare Movement

Whatever your affiliation with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, always consider the positive aspects of animal welfare in every type of animal use that you are involved with. Promotion of a high standard of care and animal well-being results in high quality scientific results and maximizes the use of sparse research dollars. It is also extremely important from a University Relations viewpoint to let the public who supports us know that we treat our animals in a humane fashion.

Be fairly open about your work and try to give a positive outlook. Remember to provide information in a judicious manner because, taken out of context, some animal research activities can be wrongly portrayed as cruel. This applies to every form of animal use including pet ownership! It is important to maintain dialogue with animal welfare groups and to be proactive in educating the public in the humane care and use of animals. Concealing or being overly secretive about the research we do only fosters suspicion that we have something to hide and that we are abusing animals. We must get the message out that it is possible to use animals and still care and feel compassion for them. Many individuals still think that researchers can "do whatever they want to animals". This is obviously not true but is a common viewpoint despite the fact that animal research is one of the most heavily regulated form of animal use in the United States.

Don't ignore "attacks" on other uses of animals because you might be next. Be tolerant of other viewpoints. It is worth the time to read about some of the animal rights organizations and to explore their philosophies.

Almost every scientific organization that uses animals in research or conducts research upon animals has set out a resolution. Be sure to read the resolution set by your own scientific organization.

There are many good Animal Welfare Organizations that promote the humane use of animals. Consider membership in organizations like these rather than Animal Rights organizations.

Animal Rights and Antivivisection Movement

For those of you who feel that the current animal rights movement has led to all the current legislation and the "new sense of morality towards animals" - think again. Russell and Burch's The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique which describes the 3 R's discussed below were published in 1959, the Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1967, and the NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals was first published in 1963. All these milestones addressing the welfare of animals used in research occurred long before the current animal rights movement was started with the 1974 publication of Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation. It is incorrect to state that animal activism has no effect on legislation and attitudes towards animals; however, animal welfare is an issue long promoted by many individuals within the scientific community.

The hypocritical outlook of animal rights has clouded the important issues. Excellent examples of this hypocrisy can be found in many places. Visit the Animal Research Facts area at the Foundation for Biomedical Research web site.

Of course the anti-vivisection movement has been around since the late 1800's. The common statement from then is still prevalent: "We must stop the use of animals because we have learned all we can from research conducted on animals." Thankfully, the scientific community and the public supporting animal research did not listen to these misguided people or we would have missed all the major medical breakthroughs of the last century and our standard of living would not have advanced as it has! If you are unsure about this, read "The Payoff from Animal Research" at the Foundation for Biomedical Research web site. Think of what is still to be discovered!

Today's Animal Rights/Animal Liberation Movement:

  • Philosophy is centered on speciesism, a term coined in 1974 by Peter Singer. Speciesism compares human dominance of animals to racism. A particularly disgusting comparison that trivializes centuries of human suffering.
  • Their primary agenda is to stop all use of animals.
  • Basic philosophy is extremely superficial and inconsistencies are easily identified.
  • The Animal Rights movement is well organized and well funded. Animal Rights organizations are better at handling the media than researchers and research institutions including almost all major universities.
  • Donations are usually obtained under the guise of animal welfare. Mailings solicit donations to improve the living conditions or treatment of animals but don't be fooled - their primary agenda is to end all use of animals.
  • Dissemination of propaganda. Civil disobedience is a common tactic used by mainstream organizations.
  • Mainstream organizations and more militant outfits like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorism (vandalism, theft, and death threats).

For your entertainment and so you can see what is being said about you, visit the web sites for some of the Animal Rights organizations (never download anything from these sites!):

Visit Animal Rights.Net for some essays critical of the animal rights movement.

Alternatives to Animals

The use of animals in biomedical research and quite a lot of basic biological research is only permitted if there are no acceptable non-animal alternatives. This is most applicable to the use of animal models for human disease or for the study of specific physiological mechanism. However, it is common in basic biological research, wildlife research, or agricultural research that the whole animal or some group of animals is the object of study. For studies like this, contemplation of non-animal alternatives seems rather foolish, however, the researcher is still obliged to justify their use of animals and to consider alternatives to any procedures that may cause even momentary pain or suffering.

The issue of alternatives is a very important one and absolutely must be addressed in the IACUC Assurance of Animal Care form. This topic will be addressed in more detail when we go over the form itself.

There have been considerable advances in recent years to establish non-animal alternatives for biomedical research or, at the very least, to replace studies that previously used "higher" organisms with creatures lower on the phylogenetic scale. Many invertebrate and fish models provide alternatives to the use of rodents, cats, dogs, and even non-human primates. However, non-animal alternatives or use of animals lower on the phylogenetic scale cannot entirely replace live vertebrates in biomedical research but it can reduce the numbers used.

For more information on alternatives:

Ethics of Animal Experimentation

As a researcher or an individual using animals in a research, teaching, or diagnostic setting you are expected to fully justify your use of animals and adhere to Russell and Burch's 3 R's: reduction, refinement and replacement.

  • Reduction refers to the appropriate use of sample size. This is primarily aimed at using the fewest number of animals necessary to obtain statistically valid results. However, use of too few animals is also considered a waste of animal life.
  • Refinement refers to the requirement that you use the most refined methods and techniques available. For example, you may no longer immobilize wildlife using paralytics - there are currently much better methods to capture wildlife.
  • Replacement has a few meanings depending on the type of research you are doing. From a biomedical research perspective you are expected to, whenever possible, replace the use of live vertebrates with species lower on the phylogenetic scale or to replace the use of living creatures with computer models, cell culture techniques, or cadavers. Another component of replacement or the use of alternatives is tied in with "refinement". Whenever possible, you are expected to replace painful procedures that may cause animal suffering with non-painful procedures.

Need for Control

All the control or oversight currently in place today revolves around the Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training. Read these nine principles and you will have a basic understanding of the moral issues in question and the basis for all the animal care requirements that you are subject to.

There are many Acts, Regulations and Guidelines governing the use of animals in the United States and we are required to work in accordance with all of them. If you feel the urge to complain - don't bother. It is a waste of time and energy for you and the poor person who has to listen to you. If you wish to change things then I strongly encourage you to get involved with your own scientific organization and work to bring about change. There is already an effort to reduce the regulatory burden but it will take involvement from researchers.

References

This list contains a wide variety of articles, books and letters but it is by no means complete. There has been quite a bit written in the scientific literature and in the popular press. This gives you a starting point but you are strongly advised to keep up with what is published. It will affect you! If you find a good article or book then please let me know and I will include it here.

  1. Blakemore C: Misguided thinking on animals. Nature 1989;339:414.
  2. Bowman P: Institutional animal care and use committee review of wildlife field research. Lab Animal 1989;18:28-30.
  3. Britt D: Ethics, ethical committees and animal experimentation. Nature 1984;311:503-506.
  4. Calne R: Can medicine advance without experiments on animals. 52nd Stephen Paget Memorial Lecture, 14 November 1983. Conquest 1984;173:1-4.
  5. Caplan AL: Rights language and the ethical treatment of animals. In Practice 1978;126-135.
  6. Carnell P: Alternatives to Factory Farming. London,UK, Earth Resources Research Ltd., 1983.
  7. Clarke SRL: The Nature of the Beast-Are Animals Moral. London, UK, Oxford University Press, 1982.
  8. Cooper T, Stucki JA: Commentary on "animal research--for and against: a philosophical, social, and historical perspective.". Perspect Biol Med 1983;27:18.
  9. Cotton FA: Opposition to research centers. Science 1988;241:147.
  10. Culliton BJ: Nobelists back animal research. Science 1989;244:524.
  11. Davies B: Savage Luxury: The Fight to Save the Baby Seals. New York, Ballantine Books, 1970.
  12. Dawkins MS: Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. New York, NY, Chapman and Hall, 1980.
  13. Dawkins MS: From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behav Brain Sci 1990;13:1-61.
  14. Dodds WJ, Orlans FB: Scientific Perspectives on Animal Welfare. Don Mills, Ont., Academic Press Canada, 1983.
  15. Duggan JM: Resource allocation and bioethics. Lancet 1989;1:772-773.
  16. Fox MA: The Case for Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective. Berkeley,LA, University of California Press, 1993.
  17. Fox MW: A call for common understanding of animal welfare, animal rights, and animal well-being. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990;196:832-833.
  18. Fox MW, Mickley LD, (Editors): Advances in animal welfare science 1986/87. Washington D.C., The Humane Society of the United States, 1987.
  19. Franklin J: Guinea Pig Doctors: the Drama of Medical Research Through Self-examination. New York,NY, William Morrow and Co., 1984.
  20. Gastel B: Presenting Science to the Public. Philadelphia, I.S.I. Press, 1983.
  21. Gavin TA, Haas CA: Why field biologists mark free-ranging vertebrates for scientific study. ILAR News 1989;31(2):17-24.
  22. Good RA: The value of animal research. Science 1990;248:538
  23. Grandy JW: Wildlife managers and the animal protectionist movement. Renewable Resources Journal 1986;Autumn:5-23.
  24. Gribetz S: Farm animals of Sweden gain rights. Lab Anim 1989;18(1):8-9.
  25. Gribetz S: Sweden's animal protection act: an update. Lab Anim 1989;18:7
  26. Gribetz S: Four states tackle the dog-pound issue. Lab Anim 1989;18:7
  27. Griffin DR: Animal Thinking. Cambridge,MA, Harvard University Press, 1984.
  28. Hannah HW: Animal rights and the veterinarian. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990;196:718-719.
  29. Hardy DT: America's New Extremists: What You Need to Know about the Animal Rights Movement. Washington, D.C., Washington Legal Foundation, 1991.
  30. Harvard University's Office of Government and Community Affairs: The Animal Rights Movement in the United States: Its Composition, Funding Sources, Goals, Strategies and Potential Impact on Research. Clarks Summit, PA, Society for Animal Rights, Inc., 1982.
  31. Herscovici A: The Animal Rights Controversy. Toronto, CBC Enterprises (Macmillan), 1985.
  32. Hoff C: Immoral and moral uses of animals. New England Journal of Medicine 1980;302:115-118.
  33. Holden C: New focus on replacing animals in the laboratory. Science 1982;1:35.
  34. Howard-Jones N: A CIOMS [Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences] ethical code for animal experimentation. WHO Chronicle 1985;39:51-56.
  35. Hoyt JA: Animal activism. Science 1989;243:1419-1420.
  36. Lutts RH: The Nature Fakers: Wildlife, Science and Sentiment. Golden, CO, Fulcrum Publishing, 1990.
  37. Markell DL: The case for revising our laws on animal experimentation. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 1981;2:87-95.
  38. Meischke HRC, Begbie RA: Philosophical and moral aspects of the use of animals in experimentation. Australian Veterinary Association Yearbook 1981;232-237.
  39. Miller HB, Williams WH: Ethics and Animals. Clifton,NJ, Humanic Press, 1983.
  40. Multiple: Ethical issues concerning the use of animals in agriculture and scientific research. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada on 12 and 13 June 1979. Animal Regulation Studies, 1980. 
  41. Multiple: Animals in research. New perspectives in animal experimentation. Chichester, UK, John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
  42. Multiple: Animal welfare and animal rights: is there a choice. California Veterinarian 1983;37:3-104.
  43. National Research Council: Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1988.
  44. Nicoll CS, Russell SM: Analysis of animal rights literature reveals the underlying motives of the movement: ammunition for counter offensive by scientists. Endocr 1990;127:985-989.
  45. Nyman J: Moral issues in the use of animals in experimental research from the Renaissance to the twentieth century. Animal Regulation Studies 1979;2:31-35.
  46. Osborn CA, Theisen LK: The bioethics of animal research: questions to consider. California Veterinarian 1987;41:13-14.
  47. Paget GE: Animal experiment. The ethical questions. Biologist 1978;25:145-147.
  48. Paton W: Man and Mouse: Animals in Medical Research. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1984.
  49. Porta M, Nyberg CR, Boast C: Laboratory animal welfare: keeping up. Lab Anim 1989;18:21-27.
  50. Powledge TM: Locking up the lab. Science 1989;6 (supplement):1,6-7.
  51. Regan T: All That Dwell Therein. Berkeley,LA, University of California Press, 1982.
  52. Regan T: The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley,LA, University of California Press, 1983.
  53. Remetta J: Animal welfare advocate speaks out. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1989;194:1522
  54. Rollin BE: Animal rights and human morality. Buffalo, Prometheus Books, 1981.
  55. Rollin BE, Kesel ML: The Experimental Animal in Biomedical Research, Volume 1: A Survey of Scientific and Ethical Issues for Investigators. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, Inc., 1990.
  56. Rowan AN: Alternatives to laboratory animals in biomedical programmes. Animal Regulation Studies 1977;1:103-128.
  57. Rowan AN: Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. Washington, DC., Institute for the Study of Animal Problems, 1979.
  58. Rowan AN: Of Mice, Models and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research. Albany,NY, State University of New York Press, 1984.
  59. Rowan AN, Rollin BE: Animal research--for and against: a philosophical, social, and historical perspective. Perspect Biol Med 1983;27:1
  60. Rowsell HC: Public concern and the animal welfare profiteer. CALAS Newsletter 1984;16:106,111-115.
  61. Rowsell HC: Animal care and use committees and the public concern. Lab Anim Sci 1987;Special Issue:122-124.
  62. Russell WMS, Burch RL: The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London, UK, Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1959.
  63. Sainsbury D: Farm animal welfare. London, William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, 1986.
  64. Salt HS: Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. London,UK, Centaur Press, 1980.
  65. Schwarz RH: Animal research: A position statement. Science 1989;244:1128
  66. Sindemann CJ: Winning the Games Scientists Play. New York,NY, Plenum Press, 1982.
  67. Singer P: Animal liberation. New York, Avon Books, 1975.
  68. Smith DR: Dooming animals to no life at all. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990;196:833
  69. Smith SJ, Evans M, Sullivan-Fowler M, et al: Use of animals in biomedical research. Archives of Internal Medicine 1988;148:1849-1853.
  70. Sun M: Fang Lizhi: Speaking out for human rights. Science 1989;244:417-418.
  71. Tax S: Hunter-gatherers and humane living. Science 1988;241:149
  72. Thelestam M, Gunnarsson A: The ethics of animal experimentation. Proceedings of the second CFN symposium held in Stockholm, Sweden, August 12-14, 1985. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 1986;128:269pp.
UAA Logo
© Copyright 2008, University of Alaska Anchorage
Page Updated: 1/23/08  By:  Rachel Waters
About UAA | Contact Us | University of Alaska System | Use Policy