On balance: weighing harms and benefits in fundamental neurological research using nonhuman primates

Abstract

One of the most controversial areas of animal research is the use of nonhuman primates for fundamental research. At the centre of the controversy is the question of whether the benefits of research outweigh the harms. We argue that the evaluation of harms and benefits is highly problematic. We describe some common procedures in neurological research using nonhuman primates and the difficulties in evaluating the harm involved. Even if the harm could be quantified, it is unlikely that it could be meaningfully aggregated over different procedures, let alone different animals. A similar problem arises for evaluating benefits. It is not clear how benefits could be quantified, and even if they could be, values for different aspects of expected benefits cannot be simply added up. Sorting harms and benefits in three or four categories cannot avoid the charge of arbitrariness and runs the risk of imposing its structure on the moral decision. The metaphor of weighing or balancing harms and benefits is inappropriate for the moral decision about whether to use nonhuman primates for research. Arguing that the harms and benefits in this context are incommensurable, we suggest describing the moral consideration of harms and benefits as a coherent trade-off. Such a decision does not require commensurability. It must be well-informed about the suffering involved and the potential benefits, it must be consistent with the legal, regulatory and institutional framework within which it is made, and it must cohere with other judgments in relevant areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    In what follows we will refer to nonhuman animals simply as animals and nonhuman primates as primates. We refer to human primates as humans.

  2. 2.

    In Europe the use of great apes for research has been prohibited, with certain exceptions, since 2011 by the European Union Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, art. 8 para 3.

  3. 3.

    For a discussion of the three problems in the context of neuroscientific research, with a focus on rodents, see Olsson and de Castro (2015) and Animal Procedures Committee (2003).

  4. 4.

    See also Ryder's (1999) painism, although Ryder distances himself from utilitarians by rejecting the possibility of aggregating pain or pleasure.

  5. 5.

    Another approach is to use the welfare and wellbeing of the animals as a starting point and then ask how different procedures and handling of the animals affect their welfare or wellbeing. For more about the animal welfare/wellbeing approach see Nordenfelt (2006) and Australian Government (2008).

  6. 6.

    There are many variations on these categories, in the U.S.A. a scheme with effectively three categories is frequently used [the USDA pain and distress categorization (USDA 2011)]; in Europe E.U. Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes uses four severity categories, mild, moderate, severe and non-recovery (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2010, Annex VIII). For a further discussion of severity categories, albeit by now somewhat dated, see Elzanowski (2006).

  7. 7.

    For the most influential statement of the value of basic research, see Bush’s (1945) report “Science, the Endless Frontier”.

  8. 8.

    For a discussion of the failures see for example Knight’s (2011) The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. For a discussion of the success stories see for example Grieder and Strandberg (2002). For a discussion of the utility of primates as research animals see Phillips et al. (2014) and Bateson et al. (2011).

  9. 9.

    The Boyd Group, and others, have suggested a similar approach to evaluating benefits (Smith and Boyd 1991, pp. 138–147).

  10. 10.

    There are schemes based on quantification, most notably Stafleu et al. (1999).

  11. 11.

    For a list see Animal Procedures Committee (2003, Annex D).

  12. 12.

    The Bateson’s cube was originally proposed in Bateson (1986).

References

  1. Allen, C. 2004. Animal pain. Noûs 38: 617–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Animal Procedures Committee (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. London: APC.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council. 2008. Guidelines to promote the wellbeing of animals used for scientific purposes; the assessment and alleviation of pain and distress in research animals. Canberra: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bateson, P. 1986. When to experiment on animals. New Scientist 109(1496): 30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bateson, P., H. Johansen-Berg, and D.K. Jones. 2011. Review of research using non-human primates. Independent review commissioned by The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Medical Research Council (MRC) and Wellcome Trust. London, UK: BBSRC, MRC & Wellcome Trust. http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/review-research-using-nhps-pdf. Accessed 22 May 2015.

  6. Beauchamp, T.L., H.R. Ferdowsian, and J.P. Gluck. 2014. Rethinking the ethics of research involving nonhuman animals: Introduction. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35: 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bermond, B. 1997. The myth of animal suffering. In Animal consciousness and animal ethics, ed. M. Dol, S. Kasanmoentalib, S. Lijmbach, E. Rivas, and R. van den Bos, 125–143. Assen: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bermond, B. 2003. A neuropsychological and evolutionary approach to animal consciousness and animal suffering. In The animal ethics reader, ed. S.J. Armstrong, and R.G. Botzler, 99–112. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bentham, J. 1823. Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bliss-Moreau, E., J.H. Theil, and G. Moadab. 2013. Efficient cooperative restraint training with rhesus macaques. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 16: 98–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bush, V. 1945. Science, the endless frontier. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 48: 231–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carruthers, P. 2000. Phenomenal consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Desimone, R., C. Olson, and R. Erickson. 1992. The controlled water access paradigm. Ilar News 34(3): 27–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Elzanowski, A. 2006. Establishing the three Rs principle: A Plea for an International Severity Standard. ALTEX 23, Special Issue.

  15. European Commission ScientificCommitteeon Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER). 2009. The need for non-human primates in biomedical research, production and testing of products and devices. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  16. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

  17. 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. Ipswich, UK: Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA). http://www.felasa.eu/recommendations/reports/principles-and-practice-in-ethical-review-of-animal-experiments-across-euro/. Accessed 22 May 2015.

  18. Grieder, F.B., and J.D. Strandberg. 2002. The contribution of laboratory animals to medical progress: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of laboratory animal science: Essential principles and practices, 2nd ed., vol. 1, ed. J. Hau and S.J. Schapiro. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.

  19. Hackam, D.G. 2007. Translating animal research into clinical benefit. BMJ 334: 163–164. doi:10.1136/bmj.39104.362951.80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Knight, A. 2011. The costs and benefits of animal experiments. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Knight, A. 2012. Weighing the costs and benefits of animal experiments. In Altex proceedings, 1/12, Proceedings of WC8, 289–294.

  22. Koch, L., and M.N. Svendsen. 2015. Negotiating moral value: A story of Danish research monkeys and their humans. Science, Technology and Human Values 40(3): 368–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McMillan, J.L., et al. 2014. Refining the pole-and-collar method of restraint: Emphasizing the use of positive training techniques with rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 53(1): 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  24. National Research Council (NRC). 2009. Recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://nas-sites.org/animal-pain/. Accessed 28 Aug 2015.

  25. Nordenfelt, L. 2006. Animal and human health and welfare: A comparative philosophical analysis. Cambridge, MA: CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nordgren, A. 2010. For our children: The ethics of animal experimentation in the age of genetic engineering. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Olsson, I.A.S., and A.C.V. de Castro. 2015. Does the goal justify the methods? Harm and benefit in neuroscience research using animals. In Current topics in behavioral neurosciences, vol. 19, ed. M.A. Geyer, B.A. Ellenbroek, C.A. Marsden, and ThRE Barnes, 47–78. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Perel, P., et al. 2007. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ 334: 197–202. doi:10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Phillips, K.A., et al. 2014. Why primate models matter. American Journal of Primatology 76(9): 801–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Prescott, M.J., et al. 2010. Refinement of the use of food and fluid control as motivational tools for macaques used in behavioural neuroscience research: Report of a working group of the NC3Rs. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 193: 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ryder, R.D. 1999. Painism: Some moral rules for the civilized experimenter. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8: 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shanks, N., R. Greek, and J. Greek. 2009. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 4: 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shriver, A. 2006. Minding mammals. Philosophical Psychology 19(4): 433–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Singer, P. 1979. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Smith, J.A., and K.M. Boyd. 1991. Lives in the balance: The ethics of using animals in biomedical research: The report of a working party of the institute of medical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stafleu, F.R., et al. 1999. The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: A proposal for a system to support decision-making. Laboratory Animals 33: 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sughrue, M.E., et al. 2009. Bioethical considerations in translational research: Primate stroke. American Journal of Bioethics 9(5): 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. UK Home Office. 2014. Annual statistics of scientific procedures on living animals; Great Britain 2013. London: House of Commons.

    Google Scholar 

  39. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011. Guidelines for Preparing USDA annual reports and assigning USDA pain & distress categories. http://oacu.od.nih.gov/ARAC/documents/USDA_Reports.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2015.

  40. Weatherall, D. 2006. The use of nonhuman primates in research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This research was funded by the German Research Foundation DFG within the Primate Systems Neuroscience research unit (FOR 1847): Project C2 “Ethical considerations and standards”.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gardar Arnason.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arnason, G., Clausen, J. On balance: weighing harms and benefits in fundamental neurological research using nonhuman primates. Med Health Care and Philos 19, 229–237 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9663-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Coherent trade-off
  • Ethical decision making
  • Incommensurability
  • Nonhuman primates
  • Weighing harms and benefits