Abstract
Viewed at the microscopic level of each individual laboratory, it may appear that researchers work in accordance with the three R’s, choosing the appropriate animal model, aiming to get the smallest sample size needed for any experiment, and continuing to improve the techniques and knowledge extraction. However, turning to the macroscopic level of the entire field, we find mismatches between the individual intentions and overall outcomes. The chapter offers an analysis inspired by the groundbreaking work of Schelling on emergent patterns of macro-behavior as a function of micro-motives. The challenge will be to shift from agency at the microscopic level to agency at the macroscopic level. Such a shift would enable researchers to address, among other things, the key scientific problem of sample size.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baggini, J. (2005/2006). The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten. 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher. New York: A Plume Book.
Bennett, A. J., & Ringach, D. L. (2016). Animal research in neuroscience: A duty to engage. Neuron, 92, 653–657.
Button, K. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2014). Incentivising reproducible research. Cortex, 51, 107–108.
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., et al. (2013a). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365–376.
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., et al. (2013b). Confidence and precision increase with high statistical power. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 585–586.
Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145–153.
Editorial. (1999). Science and terrorism in Europe. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 99–100.
Editorial. (2015). Inhumane treatment of nonhuman primate researchers. Nature Neuroscience, 18, 787.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.
Frey, R. G. (2011). Utilitarianism and animals. In T. L. Beauchamp & R. G. Frey (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics (pp. 172–197). New York: Oxford University Press.
Friston, K. (2012). Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers. NeuroImage, 61, 1300–1310.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1244–1248.
Hauser, O. P., Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., & Nowak, M. A. (2014). Cooperating with the future. Nature, 511, 220–223.
Holder, T. (2014). Standing up for science: The antivivisection movement and how to stand up to it. EMBO Reports, 15(6), 625–630.
Hubel, D. H. (2009). The way biomedical research is organized has dramatically changed over the past half-century: Are the changes for the better? Neuron, 64, 161–163.
Kuhn, S. (2017). Prisoner’s dilemma. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/prisoner-dilemma/.
Newport, F., & Himelfarb, I. (2013, May 20). In U.S., record-high say gay, lesbian relations morally OK. GALLUP News. Available at: http://news.gallup.com/poll/162689/record-high-say-gay-lesbian-relations-morally.aspx.
Olsson, I. A. S., Franco, N. H., Weary, D. M., & Sandøe, P. (2012). The 3Rs principle: Mind the ethical gap! ALTEX Proceedings, 1/12, Proceedings of WC8, 29, 333–336.
Quinlan, P. T. (2013). Misuse of power: In defence of small-scale science. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 585.
Roelfsema, P. R., & Treue, S. (2014). Basic neuroscience research with nonhuman primates: A small but indispensable component of biomedical research. Neuron, 82, 1200–1204.
Rollin, B. E. (2017). The ethics of animal research: Theory and practice. In L. Kalof (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies (pp. 345–363). New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959/1992). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Wheathampstead: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. Available at: ALTWEB http://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/books/humane_exp/foreword.
Schelling, T. C. (1978/2006). Micromotives and Macrobehavior. Fels Lectures on Public Policy Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton.
Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—Or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30–34.
Tannenbaum, J., & Bennett, B. J. (2015). Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: The need for clarity in definition and purpose. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 54, 120–132.
Understanding Animal Research. (2017, September 6). Numbers of animals. Available at: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/animals/numbers-animals/.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2017, June 27). Annual report animal usage by fiscal year. Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service. Available at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/reports/Annual-Report-Animal-Usage-by-FY2016.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lauwereyns, J. (2018). A Mismatch Between Micro-motives and Macro-behavior. In: Rethinking the Three R's in Animal Research. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89300-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89300-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89299-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89300-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)