An Introduction to Animal Research Ethics

Sam Garner, M. BioethicsSamual.garner@gmail.com

Macaque inhalation anthrax study

• 24 cynomolgus macaques exposed to anthrax.

• Macaques experienced: lethargy, diarrhea, fever, bacteremia, inappetance, vomiting, respiratory distress, pain.

• 10 of 12 animals in control group died w/o treatment over the course of 4 days.

• All remaining animals were killed at the end of the study.

• Necropsy showed significant vascular and organ pathology.

Henning, Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 2012

Where Are We Going?

• Things to note

• The nature of the debate

• Why does this matter?

• A brief history of ideas

• Justification of animal research and critique

• Case study

• Concluding remarks and discussion

Things to Note

• Bracket the science and focus on the ethics.

• Bracket other animal issues.

• Distinguish between blaming individuals and thinking critically about a practice.

• I’ll use the term ‘animal’ as a shorthand for non-human animal.

The Nature of the Debate

One end: research with non-human

animals is beneficial

and critical to advancing biomedical science for

human health and is

therefore justified.

The other end:

Animals are owed utility-

trumping strong rights and are not instruments of science.

Why Does This Matter?

• IOM Report: “Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity”

• Changing regulatory landscape abroad

• Public opinion

• Scientific community opinion polls

• Legal rights for chimps

• This is the biomedical paradigm

A Brief (Select) History of Ideas

Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki

• Require animal experimentation before moving to humans.

Russell and Burch

• “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique”

• Introduced the 3 Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement.

Contemporary Philosophy

Animal Experimentation: Justification and Critique

The Justification

• Animal research is beneficial/useful/necessary and, therefore, justified.

Ethics and Moral Status

Ethics is centrally concerned with protecting and/or promoting interests.

Moral status is to be morally considerable because you matter in your own right. We have an obligation to consider your interests.

How much do animals matter?

• Do they count just as much as people? If so, why? (Equal Consideration)

• Do they count for less? If so, why? (Unequal Consideration)

Equal Consideration (EC)

• To consider the comparable interests of animals and humans with equal moral weight.

• Argument from marginal cases: if we have strong obligations to non-paradigm humans, then we must have similar obligations to non-humans with similar capacities.

• Strong rights (Regan)

• Utilitarianism (Singer)

Unequal Consideration (UC)

• To consider the interests of animals with less weight because they are the interests of animals.

• Argument from species

• Moral agency and contractarianism

• Carl Cohen ‘of a kind’

• Social bondedness view (Midgely/Brody)

Questions

• If animals count for less, does that equate to weaker prohibitions against harm? (A lesser harm is not necessarily a justifiable harm).

• If animals count for less, how beneficial to human health must the science be? Would basic research be acceptable? Or only some preclinical?

• Should there be limits to the amount of harm we can cause animals (or risk thresholds)?

• How should we view animal research ethics in light of our approach to human research ethics (more rights-based view)?

Recap: Case Study

• Do you think the inhalation anthrax macaque study was justifiable? If so, why? If not, why not?

Suggested Reading

• Carl Cohen and Tom Regan, The Animal Rights Debate, 1999.

• David DeGrazia, Taking Animals Seriously, 1996.

• Jeremy Garrett, The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy, 2012.

• Andrew Knight, The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments, 2011.

• Samual.garner@gmail.com

Thank you