The Wild Animal as a Research Animal

  • Jac. A.A. Swart
Article

Abstract

Most discussions on animal experimentation refer to domesticated animals and regulations are tailored to this class of animals. However, wild animals are also used for research, e.g., in biological field research that is often directed to fundamental ecological-evolutionary questions or to conservation goals. There are several differences between domesticated and wild animals that are relevant for evaluation of the acceptability of animal experiments. Biological features of wild animals are often more critical as compared with domesticated animals because of their survival effects. An important issue is what is called here “natural suffering”: the suffering from natural circumstances. Should this type of suffering be taken into account when suffering from experimentation is evaluated? As an answer, it is suggested that ``natural functioning'' should be considered as an additional standard in the evaluation of wild animal experimentation. Finally, two topics related to the ecological context are considered. Firstly, the often inevitable involvement of non-research animals in wild animal experimentation, and secondly, the eco-centric approach to nature conservation. According to the latter position, animals are subordinated to ecosystems. All these aspects make the evaluation of wild animal experiments much more complex than experiments with domesticated animals. Preliminary scores are proposed to deal with these aspects. It is argued that this should not lead to a more complex governmental regulation, since an effective maintenance and control are hard to realize and one may loose the cooperation of researchers themselves. In addition, non-governmental professional organizations such as research societies and funding organizations play a pivotal role.

animal experimentation animal welfare domesticated animals field biological research natural functioning natural suffering wild animals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anonymous, “Guide Lines for the Treatment of Animals in Behavioural Research and Teaching,” Animal Behaviour65 (2003), 249-255.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, P., “When to Experiment on Animals?” New Scientist1496 (1986), 30-32.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, P., “Assessment of Pain in Animals,” Animal Behaviour42 (1991), 827-839.Google Scholar
  4. Bekoff, M., “Experimentally Induced Infanticide: The Removal of Birds and Its Ramifications,” The Auk110 (1993), 404-406.Google Scholar
  5. Boon, D., Teksten en toelichting Wetgeving dierenwelzijn(Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, 1999).Google Scholar
  6. Brom, F. W. A., Onherstelbaar verbeterd. Biotechnologie bij dieren als een moreel probleem(Van Gorcum; Utrecht: Centrum voor Bio-ethiek en Gezondheidsrecht, Assen, 1997).Google Scholar
  7. Callicott, J. B. “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again,” in J. B. Callicott (ed.), Defense of Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy(State University of New York Press, Albany, 1989), pp. 49-59.Google Scholar
  8. Cock Buning, T. de and T. Theune, “A Comparison of Three Models for Ethical Evaluation of Proposed Animal Experiments,” Animal Welfare3 (1994), 107-128.Google Scholar
  9. Elwood, R. W., “Ethical Implications of Studies on Infanticide and Maternal Aggression in Rodents,” Animal Behaviour42 (1991), 841-849.Google Scholar
  10. Fraser D., D. M. Weary, E. A. Pajor, and N. Millican, “A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns,” Animal Welfare6 (1997), 187-205.Google Scholar
  11. Heeger, R. and F. Brom, “Intrinsic Value and Direct Duties: From Animal Ethics to Environmental Ethics,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics14 (2001), 241-252.Google Scholar
  12. Howard, W. E., “Animal Research is Defensible,” Journal of Mammalogy74 (1993), 234-235.Google Scholar
  13. Huntingford, F. A., “Some Ethical Issues Raised by Studies of Predation and Aggression,” Animal Behaviour32 (1984), 210-215.Google Scholar
  14. Klaver, I., J. Keulartz, H. van den Belt, and B. Gremmen, “Born to be Wild: A Pluralistic Ethics Concerning Introduced Large Herbivores in the Netherlands,” Environmental Ethics24 (2002), 3-21.Google Scholar
  15. Koolhaas, J. M., S. M. Korte, S. F. de Boer, B. J. van der Vegt, C. G. van, Reenen, H. Hopster, I. C. de Jong, M. A. W. Ruis, and H. J. Blokhuis, “Coping Styles in Animals: Current Status in Behavior and Stress-Physiology,” Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews23 (1999), 925-935.Google Scholar
  16. McConway, K., “The Number of Subjects in Animal Behaviour Experiments: Is Still Still Right?” in M. A. Dawkins and M. Gosling (eds.), Ethics in Research on Animal Behaviour(Academic Press, London, 1992), pp. 35-38.Google Scholar
  17. Ministry VWS, “Dierproeven in Nederland,” Documentatie15 (2000).Google Scholar
  18. Musschenga, A. W., “Naturalness: Beyond animal Welfare,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics15 (2002), 171-186.Google Scholar
  19. Nesse, R. M., “Proximate and Evolutionary Studies of Anxiety, Stress and Depression: Synergy at the Interface,” Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews23 (1999), 895-903.Google Scholar
  20. Piek H., De omgang met dieren. Richtlijnen voor verantwoord omgaan met dieren in natuurgebieden van Natuurmonumenten(Vereniging Natuurmonumenten, 's-Graveland, 2000).Google Scholar
  21. Porter, D. G. “Ethical Scores for Animal Experiments,” Nature356 (1992), 101-102.Google Scholar
  22. Price, E. O., “Behavioural Development in Animals Undergoing Domestication,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science65 (1999), 245-271.Google Scholar
  23. Regan, T., The Case for Animal Rights(Routhledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1983).Google Scholar
  24. 34713, consulted: December 3rd, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. Rijssen, P. van, Research on the Wild Animals Put to the Test(Section Science & Society, Haren, 2002).Google Scholar
  26. Russel, W. M. S. and R. L. Burch, The Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques(Methuen, London, 1959).Google Scholar
  27. Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal,” in T. Regan and P. Singer (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2nd edn. (Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, 1989), 73-86.Google Scholar
  28. Singer, P. “Animal Liberation,” The New York Review of Bookssection 20 (1973), 17-21.Google Scholar
  29. Still, A. W., “On the Number of Subjects Used in Animal Behaviour Experiments,” Animal Behaviour30 (1982), 873-880.Google Scholar
  30. Swart, J. A. A., H. J. van der Windt, and J. Keulartz, “Valuation of Nature in Conservation and Restoration,” Restoration Ecology9 (2001), 230-238.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, P. W., Principles of Ethics. An Introduction(Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, 1975).Google Scholar
  32. Tramper, R., Ethische richtlijnen. Richtlijnen voor het omgaan met zelfstandig levende dieren in de terreinen van Staatsbosbeheer(Staatsbosbeheer, The Hague, 1999).Google Scholar
  33. VandeVeer, D., “Interspecific Justice,” Inquiry22 (1979), 55-79.Google Scholar
  34. Vorstenbosch, J. M. G., F. R. Stafleu, E. A.M. J. Eckelboom, F. Krijger, R. Tramper, M. de Jonge, and B. M. J. de Kanter-Loven. Grenzen en Gradaties. Over zeer ernstig ongerief van dieren en essentiële behoeften van mens en dier in het kader van de beoordeling van dierexperimenten(Centrum voor Bio-ethiek en Gezondheidsrecht, Utrecht, 1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jac. A.A. Swart
    • 1
  1. 1.Section Science and Society, Department of BiologyGroningen UniversityHarenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations