Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics and Evidence Regarding Animal Subjects Research: Splitting Hares–or Swallowing Camels?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Ethical Issues in Anesthesiology and Surgery

  • 786 Accesses

Abstract

Nonhuman animals are the subject of medical research, industrial testing and educational projects in human efforts. Modern biological research has produced information that challenges assumptions that animals lack characteristics that make them deserving of moral standing, and the success of modern animal subjects research in medicine is commonly overstated. Public opinion in favor of animal research is conditional and waning. This chapter will discuss the ethical principles surrounding use of nonhuman animal subjects, research that challenges basic assumptions about the utility of nonhuman animal subjects research, and ethical obligations of researchers, editors and reviewers with regard to nonhuman animal subjects research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term “conservative” in this context is meant merely to convey a theory that is more restrictive and is not related to any political ideology or framework.

References

  1. National Institute of Health. Regulations and ethical guidelines. Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, vol. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1949. p. 181–2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lauerman JF. Animal research. Harvard Magazine, Jan–Feb 1999;48. http://harvardmagazine.com/1999/01/mice.html. Accessed 26 Apr 2015.

  3. Harrison P. Descartes on animals. Philos Quart. 1992;42:219–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nicholas Malebranche. In: Rodis-Lewis G, editor. Oeuvres completes, vol. II. Paris: J. Vrin; 1958–1970. p. 394.

    Google Scholar 

  5. De Waal F. The ape and the sushi master; reflections of a primatologist. New York: Basic Books; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Taylor AH, Hunt GR, Holtzhalder C, Gray RD. Spontaneous metatool use by new Caledonian crows. Curr Biol. 2007;17:1504–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tanner JE, Patterson FG, Byrne RW. The development of spontaneous gestures in zoo-living gorillas and sign-taught gorillas: from action and location to object representation. J Devel Process. 2006;1:69–122.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pepperberg IM, Carey S. Gray parrot number acquisition: the inference of cardinal value from ordinal position on the numeral list. Cognition. 2012;125:219–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Byrne RW, Barnard PJ, Davidson I, Janik VM, McGrew WC, Miklosi A, et al. Understanding culture across species. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8:341–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferkin MH, Combs A, delBarco-Trillo J, Pierce AA, Franklin S. Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, have the capacity to recall the “what”, “where”, and “when” of a single past event. Anim Cogn. 2008;11:147–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Marino L, Connor RC, Fordyce RE, Herman LM, Hof PR, Lefebvre L, et al. Cetaceans have complex brains for complex cognition. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:e139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Plotnik JM, de Waal FB, Reiss D. Self-recognition in an Asian elephant. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(45):17053–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Prior H, Schwarz A, Gunturkun O. Mirror-induced behavior in the magpie (Pica pica): evidence of self-recognition. PLoS Biol. 2008;6:e202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Pilley JW, Reid AK. Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents. Behav Processes. 2010;86:184–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rollin BE. Animal research: a moral science. Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep. 2007;8:521–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kant I. The groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (trans: Gregor MJ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 428.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Korsgaard C. Fellow creatures: kantian ethics and our duties to animals. Tanner Lectures Human Values. 2005;25:77–110.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jecker NS. Animal subjects research part I. Do animals have rights? In: Van Norman G, Jackson S, Rosenbaum S, Palmer S, editors. Ethics in anesthesiology: a case-based textbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 168–73.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schardein JL. Drugs as teratogens. Cleveland: CRC Press; 1976. p. 5, 49.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Changing the face of medicine: Dr. Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda. Last reviewed 5 Dec 2013. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_182.html. Accessed 27 Apr 2015.

  21. Overview of animals in scientific research fact sheet. Nov 16, 2006. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Disease Control and prevention: CDC in the News. http://www.cdc.gov/news/2006_11/animal_care/factsheet_ar_general.htm. Accessed 16 May 2015.

  22. Steffee CH. Alexander Fleming and penicillin. The chance of a lifetime? NC Med J. 1992;53:308–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Attarwala H. TGN1412: from discovery to disaster. J Young Pharm. 2010;2:332–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. NatureNews. TGN1412 drug trial leaves patient with terminal cancer. 2006. http://www.naturalnews.com/019928_drug_trials_TGM1412.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2015.

  25. Dennis C. Cancer: off by a whisker. Nature. 2006;442:739–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ. 2004;328:514–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? BMJ. 2002;324:474.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA. 2006;296:1731–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2007;334:197–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Litchfield Jr JT. Symposium on clinical drug evaluation and human pharmacology. XVI. Evaluation of the safety of new drugs by means of tests in animals. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1962;3:665–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heywood R. Target organ toxicity II. Toxicol Lett. 1983;18:83–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Salsburg D. The lifetime feeding study in mice and rats–an examination of its validity as a bioassay for human carcinogens. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1983;3:63–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Heywood R. Clinical toxicity–could it have been predicted? Post-marketing experience. In: Lumley CE, Walker S, editors. Animal toxicity studies: their relevance for man. Lancaster: Quay; 1990. p. 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sankar U. The delicate toxicity balance in drug discovery. Scientist. 2005;19:32.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gura T. Cancer models: systems for identifying new drugs are often faulty. Science. 1997;278:1041–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Greek R, Pippus A, Hansen LA. The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling. BMC Med Ethics. 2012;13:16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Burns R. Animals in research. Acad Med. 1989;62:780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council committee on the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research. Principles guiding the use of chimpanzees in research. In: Altevogt BM, Pankevich DE, Shelton-Davenport MK, et al., editors. Chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research: assessing the necessity. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 2011. p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  39. National Institutes of Health news and events. Statement by NIH director Dr. Francis Collins on the Institute of Medicine report addressing the scientific need for the use of chimpanzees in research. 2011. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2011/od-15.htm. Accessed 16 May 2015.

  40. Institute of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (US) committee on the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research. International policies guiding chimpanzee use. In: Altevogt BM, Pankevich DE, Shelton-Davenport MK, Kahn JP, editors. Chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research: assessing the necessity. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press (US); 2011. Table 3. p. 18–9.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Anderson LC, Ballinger MB, Bayne K, Bennett BT, Bernhardt DB, Brown MJ, et al. In: Pitts M, Bayne K, Anderson LC, et al., editors. Institutional animal care and use committee guide book. Applied research ethics national association/office of laboratory animal welfare; 2002. p. 17–8, 27–30, 43–51, 53–7, 65–70, 87–90. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guidebook.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2015.

  42. Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Great Britain. http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321.htm. Accessed 27 Apr 2015.

  43. European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Strasbourg, 18.III.1986 (amended Dec 2, 2005 to reflect formation of the European Union). http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/123.htm. Accessed 27 Apr 2015.

  44. United States department of agriculture animal and plant health inspection service. Research Facility Annual Reports. Last modified 11 Dec 2014. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/banner/help/!ut/p/a1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOK9_D2MDJ0MjDwtzD0MDDzd_L28nVyCjQ1cDIEKIpEVuAdbuhp4-oW5-Vr4mBt7e5kTp98AB3A0IKQ_XD8KVQkWF4AV4LGiIDc0wiDTUREAfqAG8w!!/?1dmy&urile=wcm%3apath%3a%2FAPHIS_Content_Library%2FSA_Our_Focus%2FSA_Animal_Welfare%2FSA_Obtain_Research_Facility_Annual_Report%2F. Accessed 27 Apr 2015.

  45. Bishop LJ, Nolen AL. Animals in research and education: ethical issues. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2001;11(1):91–112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Statistics of scientific procedures on living animals: Great Britain 2013. Home Office. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. London. 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/327854/spanimals13.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2015.

  47. Russell W, Burch R. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd; 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gates JE. Committee Chair, Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Lecture: Institutional animal care and use committee, general information. 2013. http://slideplayer.com/slide/3729983/. Accessed 16 May 2015.

  49. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MF, Cuthill IC, Fry D, et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One. 2009;4:e7824.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Osborne NJ, Payne D, Newman ML. Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the 3Rs. Am J Bioeth. 2009;9:55–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rowan AN. Animals, science, and ethics—section IV. Ethical review and the animal care and use committee. Hastings Cent Rep. 1990;20:s19–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Houde L, Dumas C, Leroux T. Ethics: views from IACUC members. Altern Lab Anim. 2009;37:291–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hansen LA. Institutional animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity. J Med Ethics. 2013;39:188–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pifer L, Shimizu K, Pifer R. Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Soc Animals. 1994;2:95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Post derby tragedy, 38 % support banning animal racing. The Gallup Organization. 2008. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107293/PostDerby-Tragedy-38-Support-Banning-Animal-Racing.aspx. Accessed 30 May 2015.

  56. Wilke J, Saad L. Older Americans’ moral attitudes changing. The Gallup Organization. 2013. http://www.gallup.com/poll/162881/older-americans-moral-attitudes-changing.aspx. Accessed 30 May 2015.

  57. Abbot A. Biomedicine: the changing face of primate research. Nature. 2014;506:24–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Department of Biomedical Ethics, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Gail A. Van Norman MD

Authors
  1. Gail A. Van Norman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gail A. Van Norman MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Anesthesiology, The University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Barbara G. Jericho

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van Norman, G.A. (2015). Ethics and Evidence Regarding Animal Subjects Research: Splitting Hares–or Swallowing Camels?. In: Jericho, B. (eds) Ethical Issues in Anesthesiology and Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15949-2_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15949-2_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15948-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15949-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation