Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1339–1355 | Cite as

To Regulate or Not to Regulate? The Future of Animal Ethics in Experimental Research with Insects

  • Christopher B. FreelanceEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Regulatory ethical frameworks governing animal experimentation are a hallmark of modern biology. While most countries have ethical standards regarding the use of animals for scientific purposes, experiments involving insects are not included in these standards. With studies in recent years suggesting that insects may possess faculties akin to emotive states, there is growing discussion surrounding the ethical implications of scientific experimentation involving insects. This paper explores some of the current evidence for the ability of insects to experience emotive states and highlights how current formal animal experimentation ethics frameworks are unnecessary for governing the use of insects for scientific purposes. At its conclusion, this paper discusses ways in which scientists can, and should, uniformly maximise the welfare of insects used in their experiments in a way that is of benefit to their science as well as to the dignity and welfare of their study organisms.

Keywords

Animal welfare Insects Ethics 3Rs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Mark Elgar and Kathrine Handasyde from The University of Melbourne and Sally Sherwen, Sarah Frith and Kate Pearce from Zoos Victoria for insightful discussions that improved the manuscript. The author is grateful to Bob Wong from Monash University for comments on a draft of the manuscript. No funding was received for this work. The author is supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program.

References

  1. Adamo, S. A. (2016). Do insects feel pain? A question at the intersection of animal behaviour, philosophy and robotics. Animal Behaviour, 118, 75–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes (2013). (8th ed.). Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
  3. Balcombe, J. P., Barnard, N. D., & Sandusky, C. (2004). Laboratory routines cause animal stress. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 43(6), 42–51.Google Scholar
  4. Barron, A. B., & Klein, C. (2016). What insects can tell us about the origins of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(18), 4900–4908.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520084113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateson, M., Desire, S., Gartside, Sarah E., & Wright, Geraldine A. (2011). Agitated honeybees exhibit pessimistic cognitive biases. Current Biology, 21(12), 1070–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlile, N., Priddel, D., & Honan, P. (2009). The recovery programme for the Lord Howe Island Phasmid (Dryococelus australis) following its rediscovery. Ecological Management & Restoration, 10, S124–S128.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00450.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carruthers, P. (2007). Invertebrate minds: A challenge for ethical theory. Journal of Ethics, 11(3), 275–297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-007-9015-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costello, M. J., Beard, K. H., Corlett, R. T., Cumming, G. S., Devictor, V., Loyola, R., et al. (2016). Field work ethics in biological research. Biological Conservation, 203(Supplement C), 268–271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunn, R. R. (2005). Modern insect extinctions, the neglected majority. Conservation Biology, 19(4), 1030–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00078.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication. (2017). (2.0 ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Fry, D. (2012). How different countries control animal experiments outside recognized establishments. In Altex proceedings: Proceedings of 8th world congress on alternatives and animal use in the life sciences (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 309–313).Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, W. T., Gonzalez, C. R., Fernandez, C., Ramasamy, L., Tabachnik, T., Du, R. R., et al. (2015). Behavioral responses to a repetitive visual threat stimulus express a persistent state of defensive arousal in Drosophila. Current Biology, 25, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (2014). United Kingdom: Home Office.Google Scholar
  14. Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching (2018). Animal Behaviour, 135, I–X,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.10.001.
  15. Hoff, H. E. (1936). Galvani and the pre-Galvanian electrophysiologists. Annals of Science, 1(2), 157–172.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00033793600200131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lockwood, J. A. (1987). The moral standing of insects and the ethics of extinction. The Florida Entomologist, 70(1), 70–89.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3495093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macht, M., & Mueller, J. (2007). Immediate effects of chocolate on experimentally induced mood states. Appetite, 49(3), 667–674.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mason, G. J. (2010). Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(12), 713–721.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miquel, J., Lundgren, P. R., Bensch, K. G., & Atlan, H. (1976). Effects of temperature on the life span, vitality and fine structure of Drosophila melanogaster. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, 5, 347–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-6374(76)90034-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., & Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9(8), e1001127.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan, C. L. (1903). An introduction to comparative psychology. London: W. Scott.Google Scholar
  22. Paul, E. S., Harding, E. J., & Mendl, M. (2005). Measuring emotional processes in animals: The utility of a cognitive approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 29(3), 469–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perry, C. J., Baciadonna, L., & Chittka, L. (2016). Unexpected rewards induce dopamine-dependent positive emotion-like state changes in bumblebees. Science, 6307, 1529.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf4454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pimm, S. L., & Raven, P. (2000). Biodiversity: Extinction by numbers. Nature, 6772, 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Priddel, D., Carlile, N., Humphrey, M., Fellenberg, S., & Hiscox, D. (2003). Rediscovery of the ‘extinct’ Lord Howe Island stick-insect (Dryococelus australis (Montrouzier)) (Phasmatodea) and recommendations for its conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12(7), 1391–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023625710011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramenghi, L. A., Webb, A. V., Shevlin, P. M., Green, M., Evans, D. J., & Levene, M. I. (2002). Intra-oral administration of sweet-tasting substances and infants’ crying response to immunization: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Biology of the Neonate, 81(3), 163–169.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000051529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (2015). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.Google Scholar
  28. Redak, R. A. (2000). Arthropods and multispecies habitat conservation plans: Are we missing something? Environmental Management, 26, S97–S107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental Technique. London: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.Google Scholar
  30. Sengupta, P. (2013). The laboratory rat: Relating its age with human’s. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4(6), 624–630.Google Scholar
  31. Singer, P. (2016). Sting in the tail. New Scientist, 232(3094), 20–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(16)31838-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sneddon, L. U., Elwood, R. W., Adamo, S. A., & Leach, M. C. (2014). Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal Behaviour, 97, 201–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steneck, N. H. (2011). The dilemma of the honest researcher. EMBO Reports, 12(8), 745.  https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steneck, N., Mayer, T., & Anderson, M. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity. Paper presented at the 2nd world conference on research integrity, Singapore,Google Scholar
  35. Stork, N. E., McBroom, J., Gely, C., & Hamilton, A. J. (2015). New approaches narrow global species estimates for beetles, insects, and terrestrial arthropods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7519–7523.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502408112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Humboldt, A. (1807). Jagd und Kampf der electrischen Aale mit Pferden. Aus den Reiseberichten des Hrn. Freiherrn Alexander v. Humboldt. Annalen der Physik, 25(1), 34–43,  https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.18070250103.
  37. Wulf, A. (2016). The invention of nature: The adventures of Alexander Von Humboldt, the lost hero of science. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BioSciencesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.The Bronowski Institute of Behavioural NeuroscienceColiban Medical CentreKynetonAustralia

Personalised recommendations