The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research

Despite all the benefits, the use of animals in biomedical research is still a subject of debate with respect to its true value. The sensitivity of the community and the interest of scientists who work in the field of laboratory animal science and welfare have clearly demonstrated that the use of animals in biomedical research must be conducted under specific scientific, legal and ethical rules. The ethical justification of a research project starts from its initial designing phase until its completion and the review of the obtained results. Justification of the necessity of the project and the need to use animals in the interests of human or animal health, the importance of conducting a pilot study and a systematic review of previously published animal research on the topic, and the availability of the proper facilities, equipment and personnel are the main issues of concern in the ethical review of a research project. The ethical justification of the proposed project by the scientists themselves involves team-work, and should be a sustainable rather than a one-off procedure. This justification reflects the interest and the responsibility of scientists to reduce the number of animals, refine the procedures, and possibly replace animals in their research projects. The end-results of the ethical review process will be the creation of a trust relationship between scientists and society.

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 2014

In the relatively short time since 2006-when Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics published an issue on moral issues relevant to the use of nonhuman animals in research [1]-significant changes have occurred for nonhuman animals in many quarters. Public sentiment, new policy initiatives, and scientific studies of nonhuman animals' capacities have all influenced the ways in which nonhuman animals are perceived and treated in research. Today, a large body of information is available for use in decision making about the acceptability of using nonhuman animals in research. The articles in this issue assess how moral argument and empirical studies stand to guide animal research policies and practices in future years. Many in bioethics have come to regard issues of animal research as a subfield of research ethics, bringing it closer to human research ethics. Animal ethics, like public health ethics, has struggled for recognition in bioethics. As the contributions to this issue show, some in bioethics who initially focused on human research ethics have now devoted significant time to animal research ethics, and some who started

Journal of Animal Ethics, 2018

Animals are used in biomedical research to study disease, develop new medicines, and test them for safety. As the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics’ review Normalising the Unthinkable acknowledges, many great strides in medicine have involved animals. However, their contribution has not always been positive. Decades of attempts to develop treatments for diseases including asthma, cancer, stroke, and Alzheimer’s using animals have failed to translate to humans, leaving patients with inadequate treatments or without treatments at all. As Normalising the Unthinkable points out, we have to confront the fact that animal research may have hindered progress, at least in some respects. For example, animal tests have been shown to have very little ability to predict the safety of medicines for human patients. A dramatic illustration of this failing is TGN1412, which almost killed 6 clinical trial volunteers in 2006, after crab-eating macaques showed the drug to be safe, even at massive doses. ...

Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie, 2015

The study aims to present the main ethical dilemmas that research on animals raised for anyone involved in this process, starting from the idea that there are rights of animals to be known and respected. The evolution of medicine is inextricably linked to the production of new drugs, the occurrence of surgical techniques; none of these can be possible without the study of experimental animals, in vivo experimentation being part of the process of medical research. The article analyzes the main ethical dilemmas related to the use of animals in medical research, in the current legislative context and historical perspective of achieving such studies. The use of animals in medical research must be conducted in accordance with clearly established moral rules, which facilitate reducing to the maximum the negative effects on the animals, avoiding unnecessary suffering to them and especially to facilitate progress achievement with the minimum possible animals sacrificed.

EMBO reports, 2007

2015

This paper is a brief summary of a report by the working group of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, which offers a new assessment of whether animal experiments can be justified morally. The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics was founded in 2006 to pioneer ethical perspectives on animals through academic teaching, research, and publication. The centre is independent, and is not under the aegis, control, or sanction of the University of Oxford. The centre comprises an international fellowship of more than ninety academics drawn from the sciences and the humanities, and more than one hundred academic advisers.

It is argued that using animals in research is morally wrong when the research is nontherapeutic and harmful to the animals. This article discusses methods of moral reasoning and discusses how arguments on this and other bioethical issues might be defended and critiqued. A basic method of moral argument analysis is presented and used to show that common objections to the view that "animal research is morally wrong" fail: ie, common arguments for the view that "animal research is morally permissible" are demonstrably unsound or in need of defense. It is argued that the best explanations why harmful, nontherapeutic research on human beings is wrong, ie, what it is about humans that makes such experimentation wrong, apply to many animals as well. Thus, harmful and nontherapeutic animal experimentation is wrong for reasons similar to the reasons that harmful and nontherapeutic human experimentation is wrong.

Scientific American, 1997

F or the past 20 years, we have witnessed an intense but largely unproductive debate over the propriety and value of using animals in medical and scientific research, testing and education. Emotionally evocative images and simple assertions of opinion and fact are the usual fare. But we do not have to accept such low standards of exchange. Sound bites and pithy rhetoric may have their place in the fight for the public's ear, but there is always room for dispassionate analysis and solid scholarship. When it comes to animal research, there is plenty of reason for legitimate dispute. First, one has to determine what values are being brought to the table. If one believes animals should not be used simply as means to ends, that assumption greatly restricts what animal research one is willing to accept. Most people, though, believe some form of cost-benefit analysis should be performed to determine whether the use of animals is acceptable. The costs consist mainly of animal pain, distress and death, whereas the benefits include the acquisition of new knowledge and the development of new medical therapies for humans. There is considerable disagreement among scientists in judging how much pain and suffering occur in the housing and use of research animals. More attention is at last being given to assessing these questions and to finding ways of minimizing such discomfort. Developing techniques that explicitly address and eliminate animal suffering in laboratories will reduce both public and scientific uneasiness about the ways animals are used in science. At present, indications are that public attention to the animal research issue has declined somewhat; however, the level of concern among scientists, research institutions, animal-rights groups and those who regulate animal use remains high. There is also much room to challenge the benefits of animal research and much room to defend such research. In the next few pages, you will find a debate between opponents and supporters of animal research. It is followed by an article that sets out the historical, philosophical and social context of the animalresearch controversy. We leave it to you to judge the case.

2019

2015

Animal research has long been a source of biomedical aspirations and moral concern. Examples of both hope and concern are abundant today. In recent months, as is common practice, monkeys have served as test subjects in promising preclinical trials for an Ebola vaccine or treatment 1 , 2 , 3 and in controversial maternal deprivation studies. 4 The unresolved tension between the noble aspirations of animal research and the ethical controversies it often generates motivates the present issue of the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. As editors of this special section, we hope that these original and timely articles will push the professional discussion of animal research ethics in a positive direction that will benefi t research scientists and others interested in moral problems in animal research. We also look forward to a day when animal research will genuinely meet both appropriate scientifi c and appropriate ethical criteria-criteria that themselves can be improved by critical scrutiny. Animal research-that is, the use of live animals as experimental subjects in biomedical and behavioral fi elds of learning-has been deeply entrenched for well over half a century. One signal development was the enactment in the late 1930s of federal product safety legislation in the United States and other nations that required animal testing of food, drugs, and medical devices prior to use by human subjects or consumers. 5 Another development was the publication of codes of research ethics that called for animal research prior to human research. The Nuremberg Code, published by an American military tribunal in 1947-48 after scrutiny of Nazi medical atrocities, stated that experiments involving the use of human subjects should be "based on the results of animal experimentation." 6 The Declaration of Helsinki, fi rst published in 1964, reaffi rmed this assumption and added, rather imprecisely, that "the welfare of animals used for research must be respected." 7 Against the background of such statements, the institutionalization and widespread acceptance of animal research in the twentieth century rested on two basic assumptions, one factual and one moral. The factual assumption was that animal research is suffi ciently reliable as a basis for predicting the effects of drugs, products, and other materials on human beings that animal trials can be expected to yield signifi cant scientifi c conclusions and medical benefi ts to humanity.