Companion Animals as Technologies in Biomedical Research

Journal of Moral Theology, 2014

HoST, 2019

In the multiple overlapping fields that make up the history of science and technology it is widely understood that society, nature, science, and technology, are so thoroughly entangled that conceiving of any one of these as a discrete domain is untenable. Histories of science and technology are thus histories of mediations, inscriptions, enactments, and materialisations of social and political relations, and scientific and technological objects and practices are assemblages of "social" and "natural" or human and nonhuman entities, forces and actants. What is still often backgrounded, however, in the relational ontologies that inform studies of these human-nonhuman entanglements, is what we might provisionally refer to as nonhuman nonhumans, that is to say, living nonhumans such as nonhuman animals, as distinct from the human nonhumans of technologies and scientific objects. Whereas the latter can still conceivably be thought of as essentially human constructs, ultimately deriving their agency and meaning from human social actors, this is far more problematic with reference to living nonhumans such as nonhuman animals. In this sense mainstream histories of science and technology are

Ethics & Behavior, 1991

It is correctly asserted that the intensity of the current debate over the use of animals in biomedical research is unprecedented. The extent of expressed animosity and distrust has stunned many researchers. In response, researchers have tended to take a strategic defensive posture, which involves the assertation of several abstract positions that serve to obstruct resolution of the debate. Those abstractions include the notions that the animal protection movement is trivial and purely anti-intellectual in scope, that all science is good (and some especially so), and the belief that an ethical consensus can never really be reached between the parties. It is widely held that the current debate on the use of animals in research is unprecedented with respect to its intensity and to the extent that it has captured the public consciousness (Dewsbury, 1990). The debate is elaborated regularly in newspaper articles, editorials, personal help columns (e.g., "Dear Abby"), news magazine cover stories, television specials, and prestigious professional journals in a variety of specialties. It has also been stated by Dr. Charles McCarthy, Director of the Office of Protection from Research Risks, that Congress has received more mail on this issue than any other topic in the entire history of the country (C. R. McCarthy, personal communication, January 15, 1988). Although many authors (e.g., Feeney, 1987) have drawn attention to the similarities between the current debate and the vivisection arguments of the past century, these comparisons fail to capture the broader issue base of the present concerns. Additional questions relating to the use of and treatment of animals in product testing, clothing, sport hunting, entertainment, and intensive agriculture have been raised and related to the general topic of environmental relationships and the meaning and importance of the human-animal bond (

In our research centre, we are experiencing communication upon animal welfare in laboratory experiments over seminars and focus groups. The aim of this article is to present our observations and analysis after a four-year experience. First, we suggest a typology of the research community: scientists, experimenters and animals. Second, we propose our vision of the individual's ethics within the research community, which depend mostly on the physical proximity to animals. The scientists are responsible for the experimental protocols they have designed, but they do not always feel responsible for the welfare of the animals, depending on how far they are(stay) from them. On the contrary, experimenters (and particularly animal keepers) feel morally responsible towards animals and, for their own ethical evaluation, they need information on the aims and data of the experience they are involved in. Animal keepers have a pivotal role between animals and scientists. As experts in zootechny and ethology, they are able to translate the first's behaviour into data for the second. They guarantee the quality of the experiment and, since aware of animal welfare, they are also warrant of its ethics. We conclude with several propositions for education and training among the research community and argue for the acknowledgment of the specific tacit knowledge of animal keepers.

Pharmacology & Toxicology, 1997

2009

EMBO reports, 2007

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.

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.

ILAR Journal, 2019

The principal investigator is an expert on the topic under investigation. The veterinarian is an expert in the health and wellness of an animal. But what, exactly, can ethicists add to discussions about animal research? This special issue of the ILAR Journal considers how contemporary ethics scholarship can be relevant to animal research. The articles were selected to highlight how clear thinking about values and the implications of those values can inform which research is conducted and how it is conducted.