Skip to main content

Vulnerable Subjects? The Case of Nonhuman Animals in Experimentation

Abstract

The concept of vulnerability is deployed in bioethics to, amongst other things, identify and remedy harms to participants in research, yet although nonhuman animals in experimentation seem intuitively to be vulnerable, this concept and its attendant protections are rarely applied to research animals. I want to argue, however, that this concept is applicable to nonhuman animals and that a new taxonomy of vulnerability developed in the context of human bioethics can be applied to research animals. This taxonomy does useful explanatory work, helping to pinpoint the limitations of the 3Rs/welfare approach currently adopted in the context of animal experimentation. On this account, the 3Rs/welfare approach fails to deliver for nonhuman animals in experimentation because it effectively addresses only one element of their vulnerability (inherent) and paradoxically through the institution of Animal Ethics Committees intended to protect experimental animals in fact generates new vulnerabilities that exacerbate their already precarious situation.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an exception to this general neglect, see work within the Continental tradition by Judith Butler, Jacque Derrida, Cora Diamond, Jean-Luc Nancy, Clair Palmer, Anat Pick, Stephen Thierman, and Cary Wolfe. Within bioethics, consideration of vulnerability and animals is even more limited. The as-yet-unpublished work of Angela K. Martin will make an important contribution to theorizing animal vulnerability in bioethics.

  2. 2.

    For example, Martha Fineman’s (2008) account belongs in the former category. For Fineman animals do not rate a mention; vulnerability links to the human condition. Michael Kottow’s (2004) view belongs in the latter group since he maintains that nonhuman animals are not of a kind to be regarded as properly vulnerable in the same sense as humans.

  3. 3.

    See, for instance, Robert Garner’s (2013) book or Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s (2011) book. In this context, the contribution of Kymlicka is particularly telling; Kymlicka is a respected mainstream political philosopher who has only recently turned his attention to developing arguments regarding animals in the political community.

  4. 4.

    Animal welfare is defined as “an animal’s quality of life based on an assessment of an animal’s physical and psychological state as an indication of how the animal is coping with the ongoing situation as well as a judgment about how the animal feels.” Animal well-being is defined as “an animal’s present state with regard to its relationship with all aspects of its environment, both internal and external. It implies a positive mental state, successful biological function, positive experiences and freedom from adverse conditions” (National Health and Medical Research Council 2004, 3).

  5. 5.

    Work by Forsman and by Hagelin and colleagues (discussed in Rose 2012) investigating AECs in Sweden showed that “Refinement” of procedures was the focus of discussions (Forsman) and of any modifications to protocols (Hagelin et al.).

  6. 6.

    In their research Schuppli and Fraser (2007) describe a community-based member of an AEC who deemed it important to resign after six years so that a lay perspective could be maintained. Presumably this individual was concerned that she would become too accustomed to research and no longer be able to offer an outsider’s view.

  7. 7.

    The question of how AECs function has not received significant research attention (Rose 2012). However, work by Schuppli and Fraser (2007) supports the claim that the decisions of AECs may be skewed toward the views of scientific and institutional members rather than community ones. Jessica Gröling’s (2013) research also supports this view.

  8. 8.

    In the context of biomedical research generally, Geller et al. express a concern that a culture of compliance and rule-following inadequately prepares researchers for their practice. One of the participants in their empirical research notes that “regulations cannot possibly cover every situation, and it is in the areas that regulations do not reach where ethical problems often arise” (Geller et al. 2010, 1300).

References

  1. Beauchamp, T.L., H.R. Ferdowsian, and J.P. Gluck. 2012. Where are we in the justification of research involving chimpanzees? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22(3): 211–242.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bryant, T.L. 2007. Similarity of difference as a basis for justice: Must animals be like humans to be legally protected from humans? Law and Contemporary Problems 70: 207–254.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Donaldson, S., and W. Kymlicka. 2011. Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fineman, M.A. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Garner, R. 2013. A theory of justice for animals: Animal rights in a nonideal world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  6. Geller, G., A. Boyce, D.E. Ford, and J. Sugarman. 2010. Beyond “compliance”: The role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Academic Medicine 85(8): 1296–1302.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gröling, J. 2013. University ethical review committees and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act: Using the Freedom of Information Act as a research tool. In Proceedings of the conference Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society, ed. C. Calvert and J. Gröling, 49–62. Exeter: CPAS convenors, editors, and individual named contributors. http://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/8582/critical-perspectives-on-animals-in-society-2012-conference-proceedings.pdf.

  8. Hadley, J. 2012. Telling it like it is: A proposal to improve transparency in biomedical research. Between the Species 15(1): 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harvey, J. 2007. Moral solidarity and empathetic understanding: The moral value and scope of the relationship. Journal of Social Philosophy 38(1): 22–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kottow, M.H. 2004. Vulnerability: What kind of principle is it? Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 7(3): 281–287.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mackenzie, C., W. Rogers, and S. Dodds. 2013. Introduction: What is vulnerability and why should it matter for moral theory? In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, ed. C. Mackenzie, W. Rogers, and S. Dodds. New York: Oxford University Press.

  12. National Health and Medical Research Council. 2004. Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, 7th edition. Canberra: Australian Government. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/ea16.

  13. Pearson, N. 2004. When welfare is a curse. The Age, April 23. http://www.cyp.org.au/downloads/noel-pearson-papers/when-welfare-is-a-curse-230403.pdf.

  14. Rogers, W., C. Mackenzie, and S. Dodds. 2012. Why bioethics needs a theory of vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5(2): 11–38.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rose, M. 2011. Challenges to the development and implementation of public policies to achieve animal welfare outcomes. Animals 1(1): 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rose, M. 2012. Ethical review of the use of animals in research: A reflection on the journey. ALTEX Proceedings 1(12): 281–288.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Russell, D. 2012. Why animal ethics committees don’t work. Between the Species 15(1): 127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Russell, W.M.S., and R.L. Burch. 1959. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Satz, A.B. 2009. Animals as vulnerable subjects: Beyond interest-convergence, hierarchy, and property. Animal Law 16(2): 65–122.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schuppli, C.A., and D. Fraser. 2007. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(5): 294–301.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Thierman, S. 2011. The vulnerability of other animals. Journal for Critical Animal Studies 9(1): 182–208.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Macquarie University Research Fellowship. A version of this paper was presented at the “Minding Animals Conference” in Utrecht in 2012. Wendy Rogers and Angela K. Martin provided invaluable feedback on an earlier draft of this paper, as did the anonymous reviewers for the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, J. Vulnerable Subjects? The Case of Nonhuman Animals in Experimentation. Bioethical Inquiry 10, 497–504 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-013-9473-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Animal ethics
  • Vulnerability
  • Animal ethics committees
  • Animal experimentation