Skip to main content
View expanded cover

Neuroethics and Nonhuman Animals pp 271–286Cite as

The Trouble with Animal Models in Brain Research

Part of the Advances in Neuroethics book series (AIN)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on two problems, or “troubles,” with animal models used in neuroscientific research: the failure of many animal models to yield useful and beneficial information and the ethical dilemma built into claims about the similarity-based usefulness of an animal model, which is especially acute in the context of brain-related research. There are well-documented problems with validity and reproducibility, resulting in the failure of animal research to translate to humans. This chapter will focus in particular on the well-known and well-studied failure of animal models in stroke research. The essentially Utilitarian cost/benefit claim that human benefits justify harms to animals in research is threatened if those benefits consistently fail to materialize and, indeed, if there is the potential for significant harm to humans, including opportunity costs, wasted resources, and risks to human research subjects. An honest reckoning of the costs, harms, and benefits of animal research is unlikely to support the status quo because very little research will be useful or needed, and thus very little will be ethically justifiable.

Keywords

  • Animal models
  • Animal research
  • Research ethics
  • Neuroscience
  • Stroke
  • Dogs

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_16
  • Chapter length: 16 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-31011-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Consider an analogy. Five-day weather forecasts are accurate 90% of the time (https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/). But imagine the opposite were true, and they were wrong 90% of the time. That would give us good reason to distrust the reliability of weather forecasts, and it would give the field of meteorology good scientific reasons to reconsider or justify its methodologies. Most of the time, inaccurate weather forecasts do not endanger lives. The 90% failure of animal research to translate to humans does endanger human life and safety and results in nonbeneficial harms to animals, both of which threaten the scientific and ethical justification for continuing to use animal models.

  2. 2.

    t-PA was developed using a rabbit model of thromboembolic stroke [27]. The drug was FDA-approved in 1996.

  3. 3.

    The STAIR guidelines for testing drugs require (1) that the drug should have been tested in both transient and permanent occlusion models, (2) reproducibility, with efficacy demonstrable in at least 2 independent laboratories, (3) evidence for efficacy based both on histological and behavioral outcome measures, (4) characterization of a therapeutic time window relative to the time of onset of the ischemic injury during which the drug is effective, and (5) evidence for efficacy in at least 2 species, 1 of which is a cat or primate [10].

  4. 4.

    As reported by Bath et al. [31], the animals used were 9 mice, 544 rats, 32 marmosets, and 89 rabbits, totaling 674 animals. Published results for animal studies in rats and marmosets were positive.

  5. 5.

    If possessing some subset or quantity of these traits or abilities is enough to matter morally, then it must be possible that nonhumans, whether animal or nonanimal (e.g., extraterrestrials, robots, or AIs), qualify.

  6. 6.

    Berns’ research with dogs is not invasive or harmful. The dogs are trained through positive reinforcement to enter the fMRI machine and to remain still during scanning, but they are never restrained or sedated and are free to get up and leave if they do not want to participate [42].

References

  1. Ferdowsian HR, Gluck JP. The ethical challenges of animal research: honoring Henry Beecher’s approach to moral problems. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24(4):391–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000067.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Matthews RA. Medical progress depends on animal models – doesn’t it? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(2):95–8. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2007.070164.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Regalado A. First monkeys with autism created in China. MIT Technology Review. MIT; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Watson KK, Platt ML. Of mice and monkeys: using non-human primate models to bridge mouse- and human-based investigations of autism spectrum disorders. J Neurodev Disord. 2012;4(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1866-1955-4-21.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2009;4(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-4-2.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Garner JP. The significance of meaning: why do over 90% of behavioral neuroscience results fail to translate to humans, and what can we do to fix it? ILAR J. 2014;55(3):438–56.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Xu S-y, Pan S-y. The failure of animal models of neuroprotection in acute ischemic stroke to translate to clinical efficacy. Med Sci Monit Basic Res. 2013;19:37.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Henderson VC, Kimmelman J, Fergusson D, Grimshaw JM, Hackam DG. Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001489.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, Sterk PJ, Noorden CFJ, Bouter LM. Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences, and potential solutions. PLoS One. 2012;7:e43404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043404.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Savitz SI. Methodological quality of animal studies of neuroprotective agents currently in phase II/III acute ischemic stroke trials. Stroke. 2009;40(2):577–81.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sena ES, Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(3):e1000344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Würbel H. Ideal homes? Housing effects on rodent brain and behaviour. Trends Neurosci. 2001;24(4):207–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01718-5.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hawkes N. Poor quality animal studies cause clinical trials to follow false leads. BMJ. 2015;351:h5453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5453.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Akhtar A. The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24(4):407–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher M, Feuerstein G, Howells DW, Hurn PD, Kent TA, Savitz SI, et al. Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations. Stroke. 2009;40(6):2244–50.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH, Howells DW. 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann Neurol. 2006;59(3):467–77.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ahmed SH. Validation crisis in animal models of drug addiction: beyond non-disordered drug use toward drug addiction. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010;35(2):172–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.005.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Markou A, Chiamulera C, Geyer MA, Tricklebank M, Steckler T. Removing obstacles in neuroscience drug discovery: the future path for animal models. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;34:74. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2008.173.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prescott MJ, Lidster K. Improving quality of science through better animal welfare: the NC3Rs strategy. Lab Anim. 2017;46(4):152.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Mogil JS. Animal models of pain: progress and challenges. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10:283. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2606.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Xiong Y, Mahmood A, Chopp M. Animal models of traumatic brain injury. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(2):128.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gardiner K, Fortna A, Bechtel L, Davisson MT. Mouse models of Down syndrome: how useful can they be? Comparison of the gene content of human chromosome 21 with orthologous mouse genomic regions. Gene. 2003;318:137–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1119(03)00769-8.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahmed SH. The science of making drug-addicted animals. Neuroscience. 2012;211:107–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.08.014.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hyman SE, Malenka RC. Addiction and the brain: the neurobiology of compulsion and its persistence. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:695. https://doi.org/10.1038/35094560.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nestler EJ, Hyman SE. Animal models of neuropsychiatric disorders. Nat Neurosci. 2010;13:1161. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2647. https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2647#supplementary-information

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Stroke Treatments. National Stroke Association. 2019. https://www.stroke.org/we-can-help/survivors/just-experienced-stroke/stroke-treatments/. Accessed 22 May 2019.

  27. Green AR, Odergren T, Ashwood T. Animal models of stroke: do they have value for discovering neuroprotective agents? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2003;24(8):402–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Cook DJ, Tymianski M. Nonhuman primate models of stroke for translational neuroprotection research. Neurotherapeutics. 2012;9(2):371–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-012-0115-z.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Traystman RJ. Animal models of focal and global cerebral ischemia. ILAR J. 2003;44(2):85–95.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gawrylewski A. The trouble with animal models. The Scientist. 2007;21(7):45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bath P, Gray L, Bath A, Buchan A, Miyata T, Green A. Effects of NXY-059 in experimental stroke: an individual animal meta-analysis. Br J Pharmacol. 2009;157(7):1157–71.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bekoff M. What it’s like to be a dog. Psychol Today. 2017;

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pound P, Nicol CJ. Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0193758. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193758.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kant I. Lectures on ethics. The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Noë R, Hammerstein P. Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1994;35(1):1–11.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Bshary R, Schäffer D. Choosy reef fish select cleaner fish that provide high-quality service. Anim Behav. 2002;63(3):557–64. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1923.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  37. Bailey J, Pereira S. Advances in neuroscience imply that harmful experiments in dogs are unethical. J Med Ethics. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103630.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Andrews K, Comstock G, Crozier G, Donaldson S, Fenton A, John T, et al. Chimpanzee rights: the Philosophers’ brief. New York: Routledge; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Beauchamp TL, Wobber V. Autonomy in chimpanzees. Theor Med Bioeth. 2014;35(2):117–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-014-9287-3.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Degrazia D. Human-animal chimeras: human dignity, moral status, and species prejudice. Metaphilosophy. 2007;38(2–3):309–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2007.00476.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  41. Albuquerque N, Guo K, Wilkinson A, Savalli C, Otta E, Mills D. Dogs recognize dog and human emotions. Biol Lett. 2016;12(1) https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0883.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Andics A, Gábor A, Gácsi M, Faragó T, Szabó D, Miklósi Á. Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs. Science. 2016;353(6303):1030–2.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hare B, Tomasello M. Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9(9):439–44.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Berns GS, Brooks AM, Spivak M. Functional MRI in awake unrestrained dogs. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e38027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038027.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Berns G. Dogs are people, too. The New York Times. 2015 October 5, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bekoff M. Play signals as punctuation: the structure of social play in canids. Behaviour. 1995;132(5):419–29.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  47. Bekoff M. Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, forgiveness, and morality in animals. Biol Philos. 2004;19(4):489–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/sBIPH-004-0539-x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Brosnan SF. Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Soc Justice Res. 2006;19(2):153–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00022136.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  49. Anderson JR, Bucher B, Chijiiwa H, Kuroshima H, Takimoto A, Fujita K. Third-party social evaluations of humans by monkeys and dogs. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;82:95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.003.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chijiiwa H, Kuroshima H, Hori Y, Anderson JR, Fujita K. Dogs avoid people who behave negatively to their owner: third-party affective evaluation. Anim Behav. 2015;106:123–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.05.018.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  51. Zu Q-Q, Liu S, Xu X-Q, Lu S-S, Sun L, Shi H-B. An endovascular canine stroke model: middle cerebral artery occlusion with autologous clots followed by ipsilateral internal carotid artery blockade. Lab Investig. 2013;93:760. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.2013.65. https://www.nature.com/articles/labinvest201365#supplementary-information

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Atchaneeyasakul K, Guada L, Ramdas K, Watanabe M, Bhattacharya P, Raval AP, et al. Large animal canine endovascular ischemic stroke models: a review. Brain Res Bull. 2016;127:134–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2016.07.006.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Harman E. The moral significance of animal pain and animal death. In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, editors. The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, National Research Council. Guidance for the description of animal research in scientific publications. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  55. CIOMS. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. CIOMS; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bateson P, Johansen-Berg H, Jones DK. Review of research using non-human primates. London: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Many thanks to Pandora Pound for her helpful and generous comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Bioethics and Humanities, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    L. Syd M Johnson

  2. Humanities Department, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA

    L. Syd M Johnson

Authors
  1. L. Syd M Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Syd M Johnson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Bioethics and Humanities, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Dr. L. Syd M Johnson

  2. Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Dr. Andrew Fenton

  3. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Dr. Adam Shriver

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Johnson, L.S.M. (2020). The Trouble with Animal Models in Brain Research. In: Johnson, L., Fenton, A., Shriver, A. (eds) Neuroethics and Nonhuman Animals. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31010-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31011-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)