Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the Goal Justify the Methods? Harm and Benefit in Neuroscience Research Using Animals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethical Issues in Behavioral Neuroscience

Part of the book series: Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences ((CTBN,volume 19))

Abstract

The goal of the present chapter is to open up for discussion some of the major ethical issues involved in animal-based neuroscience research. We begin by approaching the question of the moral acceptability of the use of animals in research at all, exploring the implications of three different ethical theories: contractarianism, utilitarianism, and animal rights. In the rest of this chapter, we discuss more specific issues of neuroscience research within what we argue is the mainstream framework for research animal ethics, namely one based on harm–benefit analysis. We explore issues of harms and benefits and how to balance them as well as how to reduce harm and increase benefit within neuroscience research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this chapter, we use the word ‘society’ to refer to a wider public in the industrialized countries.

  2. 2.

    See Chapter “Telos, Conservation of Welfare, and Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering of Animals” of this book for an extensive discussion on animal consciousness.

  3. 3.

    In this context, it is interesting to note that NIH recently announced it will only fund clinical trials in psychiatry which address underlying biological mechanisms (Reardon 2014). Although it is too early to tell whether this will affect how and which animal models are used in this field, this measure may contribute further to raising the validity requirements in this field of research.

References

  • Abdi S, Haruo A, Bloomstone J (2004) Electroconvulsive therapy for neuropathic pain: a case report and literature review. Pain Physician 7:261–263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allen C (2004) Animal pain. Noűs 38:617–643

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association APA (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edn. American Psychiatric Association, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • APC (2003) Review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research. Report of the cost-benefit working group of the animal procedures committee. Home Office, Communication Directorate, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Arluke A, Sanders CR (1996) Regarding animals. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Animal Welfare Act (1999) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/latest/DLM49664.html)

  • Baker M, Kale R, Menken M (2002) The wall between neurology and psychiatry. BMJ 324:1468–1469

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson P (1986) When to experiment on animals. New Scientist 109:30–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne K, Howard BR, Kurosawa TM, Nájera MEA (2011) An overview of global legislation, regulation and policies. In: Hau J, Schapiro SJ (eds) Handbook of laboratory animal science: essential principles and practices, vol 1, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, pp 39–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Boomkamp SD, Riehle MO, Wood J et al (2012) The development of a rat in vitro model of spinal cord injury demonstrating the additive effects of Rho and ROCK inhibitors on neurite outgrowth and myelination. GLIA 60:441–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C et al (2013) Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14:365–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • CCAC (1993) Guide to the care and use of experimental animals. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • CCAC (1997) CCAC guide to protocol review. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen C (1997) Do animals have rights? Ethics and behavior. Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley NA, Sena E, Goehler J et al (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in the design of experimental stroke studies—a metaepidemiologic approach. Stroke 39(3):929–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Delpire VC, Mepham TB, Balls M (1999) A proposal for a new ethical scheme addressing the use of laboratory animals for biomedical purposes. Altern Lab Anim 27:869–881

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresser R (1989) Developing standards in animal research review. J Am Vet Med Assoc 194:1184–1191

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dresser R (1999) Community representatives and nonscientists on the IACUC: what difference should it make? ILAR J 40(1):29–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESF-EMRC (2009) Position on the proposal for a directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, 2nd edn, March 2009. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/AnimalsProtection_2ndEd.pdf. Accessed Feb 2014

  • European Commission Expert Working Group. Examples to illustrate the process of severity classification, day-to-day assessment and actual severity assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/examples.pdf. Accessed Jan 2014

  • Fawcett JW, Asher RA (1999) The glial scar and central nervous system repair. Brain Res Bull 49:377–391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • FELASA (2005) Principles and practice in ethical review of animal experiments across Europe: a report prepared by the FELASA working group on ethical evaluation of animal experiments

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton A (2014) Can a chimp say “no”? Reenvisioning chimpanzee dissent in harmful research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 23:130–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fili L, Schwab ME (2012) The rocky road to translation in spinal cord repair. Ann Neurol 72:491–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsman B (1993) Research ethics in practice: the animal ethics committees in Sweden 1979–1989. In: The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg (eds) Studies in research ethics no. 4. Centre for Research Ethics, Goteborg

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco NH, Olsson IAS (2012) How sick must your mouse be? An analysis of Huntington’s disease research using animal models. ATLA Altern Lab Anim 40:271–283

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilron I, Watson CP, Cahill CM, Moulin DE (2006) Neuropathic pain: a practical guide for the clinician. CMAJ 175:265–275

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham K (2002) A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives. J Appl Anim Welfare Sci 5:75–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grau J (2002) Learning and memory without a brain. In: Bekoff M, Allen C, Burghardt GM (eds) The cognitive animal. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 325–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagelin J, Hau J, Carlsson HE (2003) The refining influence of ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden. Lab Anim 37:10–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Handy CR, Krudy C, Boulis N, Federici T (2011) Pain in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a neglected aspect of disease. Neurol Res Int 2011:403808

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding EJ, Paul ES, Mendl M (2004) Animal behaviour: cognitive bias and affective state. Nature 427:312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houde L, Dumas C, Leroux T (2009) Ethics: views from IACUC members. ATLA 37:291–296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ideland M (2009) Different views on ethics: how animal ethics is situated in a committee culture. J Med Ethics 35:258–261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • International Animal Research Regulations, Impact on Neuroscience Research, Workshop Summary, Institute of Medicine (US); National Research Council (US) (2012) National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz DM, Berger-Sweeney JE, Eubanks JH et al (2012) Preclinical research in Rett syndrome: setting the foundation for translational success. Dis Models Mech 5:733–745

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Langford DJ, Bailey AL, Chanda ML et al (2010) Coding of facial expressions of pain in the laboratory mouse. Nat Methods 7:447–449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Langley CK, Aziz Q, Bountra C et al (2008) Volunteer studies in pain research–opportunities and challenges to replace animal experiments: the report and recommendations of a focus on alternatives workshop. Neuroimage 42(2):467–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lever TE, Gorsek A, Cox KT et al (2009) An animal model of oral dysphagia in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Dysphagia 24:180–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lever TE, Simon E, Cox KT et al (2010) A mouse model of pharyngeal dysphagia in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Dysphagia 25:112–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lipska B (2004) Using animal models to test a neuro developmental hypothesis of schizophrenia. J Psychiatry Neurosci 29(4):282–286

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ludolph AC, Bendotti C, Blaugrund E et al (2007) Guidelines for the preclinical in vivo evaluation of pharmacological active drugs for als/mnd: Report on the 142nd enmc international workshop. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 8:217–223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ludolph AC, Bendotti C, Blaugrund E et al (2010) Guidelines for preclinical animal research in als/mnd: a consensus meeting. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 11:38–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lund TB, Mørkbak MR, Lassen J et al (2012) Painful dilemmas: a study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits. Public Underst Sci 0:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLellan CL, Paquette R, Colbourne F (2012) A critical appraisal of experimental intracerebral hemorrhage research. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 32:612–627

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macleod M, Sandercock P (2005) Systematic reviews improve clinical research design—can they help improve animal experimental work? RDS News Winter, pp 8–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendl M, Burman OHP, Parker RMA, Paul ES (2009) Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Appl Anim Behav Sci 118:161–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micale V, Kucerova J, Sulcova A (2013) Leading compounds for the validation of animal models of psychopathology. Cell Tissue Res 354:309–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morton DB, Hau J (2011) Welfare assessment and humane endpoints. In: Hau J and Schapiro SJ (eds) Handbook of laboratory animal science: essential principles and practices, vol 1, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL, pp 535–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005) The ethics of research involving animals. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson IAS, Franco NH, Weary DM, Sandøe P (2011) The 3Rs principle: mind the ethical gap! Altex 29, Special Issue. In: Proceedings of WC8. (http://www.altex.ch/en/index.html?id=90)

  • Olsson IAS, Sandøe P (2010) “What’s wrong with my monkey?” An ethical perspective on germline transgenesis in marmosets. Transgenic Res 19:181–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orlans FB (1996) Invasiveness scales for animal pain and distress. Lab Animal 25(6):23–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlans FB (1997) Ethical decision making about animal experiments. Ethics Behav 7:163–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plous S, Herzog H (2001) Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science 293:608–609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Porter DG (1992) Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356:101–102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon S (2014) NIH rethinks psychiatric trials. Nature 507:288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson CA, Flecknell PA (2005) Anaesthesia and post-operative analgesia following experimental surgery in laboratory rodents: are we making progress? Altern Lab Anim 33(2):119–127

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rollin MDH, Rollin BE (2014) Crazy like a fox: validity and ethics of animal models of human psychiatric disease. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 23:140–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudge JS, Silver J (1990) Inhibition of neurite outgrowth on astroglial scars in vitro. J Neurosci 10:594–3603

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell W, Burch R (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schapiro KJ (1998) Animal models of human psychology: Critique of science, ethics and policy. Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuppli CA (2011) Decisions about the use of animals in research: ethical reflection by Animal Ethics Committee Members. Anthrozoos 24(4):409–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuppli CA, Fraser D (2005) Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. J Med Ethics 33(5):294–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PMW et al (2010) Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 8(3):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shettleworth SJ (2010) Clever animals and killjoy explanations in comparative psychology. Trends Cogn Sci 14(11):477–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singer P (1975) Animal liberation. Avon Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaje LH, Smith JA, Ewbank R et al (1998) Advancing refinement of laboratory animal use. Lab Anim 32:137–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JA, Boyd KM (1991) Lives in balance. The ethics of using animals in biomedical research. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon JA, Tarnopolsky MA, Hamadeh MJ (2011) One universal common endpoint in mouse models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. PLoS One 6:e20582

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen A, Moffat K, Thomson C, Barnett SC (2008) Astrocytes, but not olfactory ensheathing cells or schwann cells, promote myelination of CNS axons in vitro. GLIA 56:750–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stafleu FR, Tramper R, Vorstenbosch J, Joles JA (1999) The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: a proposal for a system to support decision-making. Lab Anim 33:295–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stafleu FR (1994) The ethical acceptability of animal experiments as judged by researchers. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddendorf T, Corballis MC, Collier-Baker E (2009) How great is great ape foresight? Anim Cogn 12(5):751–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Worp HB, de Haan P, Morrema E et al (2005) Methodological quality of animal studies on neuroprotection in focal cerebral ischaemia. J Neurol 252:1108–1114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voipio H-M, Kaliste E, Hirsjärvi P et al (2004) Nordic-European workshop on ethical evaluation of animal experiments. Scand J Lab Anim Sci 31:251–267

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Woolf CJ (2004) Dissecting out mechanisms responsible for peripheral neuropathic pain: implications for diagnosis and therapy. Life Sci 74:2605–2610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willner P (1997) Validity, reliability and utility of the chronic mild stress model of depression: a 10-year review and evaluation. Psychopharmacology 134:319–329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yalcin I, Bohren Y, Waltisperger E et al (2011) A time-dependent history of mood disorders in a murine model of neuropathic pain. Biol Psychiatry 70:946–953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yeates JW (2010) Death is a welfare issue. J Agric Environ Ethics 23:229–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editors of this book for the challenge to write this chapter, the opportunity to publish it and for constructive comments on previous versions of the text. This work was funded by FEDER funds through the Operational Competitiveness Programme—COMPETE and by National Funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia under the projects FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-037277 (PEst-C/SAU/LA0002/2013), FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029527 (PTDC/MHC-ETI/4890/2012), and Projeto “NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000001—Neurodegenerative disorders” cofinanciado pelo Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (ON.2—O Novo Norte), ao abrigo do Quadro de Referência Estratégico Nacional (QREN), através do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) e por fundos nacionais através da FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory Animal Science Group, IBMC–Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro & I. Anna S. Olsson

Authors
  1. Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Anna S. Olsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Anna S. Olsson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Grace Lee

  2. National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Judy Illes

  3. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Frauke Ohl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vieira de Castro, A.C., Olsson, I.A.S. (2014). Does the Goal Justify the Methods? Harm and Benefit in Neuroscience Research Using Animals. In: Lee, G., Illes, J., Ohl, F. (eds) Ethical Issues in Behavioral Neuroscience. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, vol 19. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2014_319

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation