Introduction: Toward a coherent ethic of reserach involving laboratory
animals. ILAR 40 (1): 001.
[Reviewer's Note - Any parts of this introductory article which recapped
specific articles published in this ILAR issue were not reviewed as other
LABSG members will be summarizing these articles for the LABSG list.] Biomedical
ethics as a discipline has burgeoned during the second half of the 20th
century. Biomedical ethics has become a part of philosophy departments,
medical schools, and science departments throughout the US and western
Europe. Dramatic advances in the biological sciences and growth of science-based
technology have turned hypothetical problems into critical ones and have
provided urgency in resolving old problems. Combined public and private
funds support more than $40 billion worth of biomedical research each year.
Problems facing bioethicists include: the abortion issue, moral propriety
of fetal research, human in vitro fertilization, use of "fertility drugs,"
research involving cognitively impaired patients, manipulations of the
human genome, "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" orders, management of intractable pain
with life-threatening doses of palliative drugs, and HMO directives on
health care. No issue except possibly the abortion question has generated
more heated controversy than the appropriate use of laboratory animals.
At one extreme, those opposed to animal use in research have used civil
disobedience and violence to support their views. Nearly 80% of the public
endorse the humane use of animals in research. Consequently, care and use
of laboratory animals is among the most strictly regulated industries in
the US. There is at present no widely accepted, comprehensive moral theory
pertaining to research involving laboratory animals ethical theories pertaining
to laboratory animals has lagged behind the development of human medical
ethics.
Questions:
What do the following acronyms stand for? AAR; AAVS; ABR; ALDF; ALF;
APL; ARENA; HSUS; PRIM&R.
Answers:
AAR = Attorneys for Animal Rights or Action for Animal Rights
AAVS = American Anti-Vivisection Society
ABR = Association for Biomedical Research
ALDF = Animal Legal Defense Fund
ALF = Animal Liberation Front; ALL = Animal Liberation League
APL = Animal Protection League
ARENA = Applied Research Ethics National Association
HSUS = Humane Society of the United States
PRIM&R = Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research.
Roots of Concern with nonhuman animals in biomedical ethics.
ILAR 40 (1): 003.
This paper attempts to explore the history of the movement to improve
the treatment of animals. The American animal rights movement has its origins
in the British antivivisection societies. Up until the mid-1800's, it was
generally accepted that animals did not feel pain. Philosophers began to
question that ("The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk?
but can they suffer? - Bentham). Britian also had a long-standing tradition
of keeping pets, and this may have utlimately led to the organized opposition
to cruelty to animals.
Martin's Act (the Act to Prevent Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle)
passed in 1822 and was the first British law to portect animals. Ultimately
it covered dogs, bears, roosters, sheep, and bulls. The Royal Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in 1824. The Cruelty to
Animals Act of 1876 established requirements for investigators using animals
in research. The Humanitarian League was formed in 1891 to encourage the
participation of men in the animal cruelty debate. The Victorian era seems
to have been particularly sensitive to the pain of others.
World War I brought medical advances that were due, in large part,
to the use of animals. This slowed the force of the antivivisectionists.
America lagged behind some, similar laws were passed about 2 years
after those in Britian. The ASPCA was formed in 1866. The years between
WWI and the 1960's showed no progress for antivivisectionists. In the 1960's,
the increased concern for the environment and writings such as "Animal
Machines" and "Silent Springs" brought the concern for animals to the forefront.
PETA and ALDF were founded in the 1980's.
Despite the changing philosophical environment, regulatory changes
were catalyzed by a few, well-publicized cases of animal abuse. NIH and
ILAR developed the Guide in 1963. 1966 saw the passage of the AWA. OPRR
and PHS had little bite in the early 60's and 70's. This was due to the
lack of central vivaria and veterinarians with authority over the programs.
Where these factors were present, strong programs existed. Otherwise, things
tended to be more disjointed and done however the researcher desired. The
Silver Spring monkeys and University of Pennsylvannia Head Injury Clinic
baboons were catalysts for change in OPRR's handling of animal research
regulations.
Questions:
1. What do the following stand for?
a. PETA
b. ALF
c. SPCA
d. OLAW
2. Which two high profile animal projects were catalysts for changes
in animal research regulations?
Answres:
1. a. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
b. Animal Liberation Front
c. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
d. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (formerly OPRR)
2. Silver Springs Monkeys and U Penn's head injury studies.
Bioethics, animal research and ethical theory. ILAR 40 (1):
015.
Overview of animal ethis - similar to "Roots of Concern"
Utilitarianism - an action is right if and only if it produces a better
balance of benefits and harms than available alternative actions (looks
at the consequences of our actions).
Speciesism - coined by Singer; humans cannot discriminate against animals,
or privilege humans, merely because they belong to a particular species.
Deontology - insists that some actions may be right even if the consequences
are not good, or as good as they could be, while other actions are ethically
wrong even though they would produce good consequences (ie. lying to you
even if it would make both of us happy). Also called Kantian theory or
rights based theory.
No questions
How and Why animals matter. ILAR 40 (1): 022.
This article is very difficult to relate to and understand as a scientist
and veterinarian. Furthermore, I doubt that any of it could be applicable
to board certification. It is a review of our encounters with animals and
looks at 3 philosophers views of the human and animal relationship. The
following is a digest version of the article and paraphrases the author
(Donnelley). The views expressed are the authors and not my own. Abridged
Summary: The Moral concerns for animals in laboratory research settings
are not new. Fundamental moral issues of pain, suffering, distress, death,
and respect have long been recognized by animal care and use committees
and researchers who have acknowledged the importance of guidelines for
laboratory animal care. Yet our basic attitudes and moral stances toward
animals remain a crucial and ongoing issue, for these motivate our behavior
and concern toward animals--how we follow guidelines and what standards
are used. Animals matter to us within particular contexts of human interests,
purposes, and concerns; frameworks of thought and action; and situations
requiring moral judgment and response. These contexts are as numerous as
the various opportunities for thought and action that involve both ourselves
and animals. Holistic reflection about our interrelatedness with each other,
with animals, and with nature is, understandably, absent from many of our
somewhat provincial laboratory settings. Nevertheless, if we are to live
morally coherent lives, we need a robust philosophy that persuasively interprets
the dynamic whole in which humans, animals, and nature exist and interact.
Animal Encounters In the Laboratory: Who or what is the animal (such as
a mouse or frog) in laboratory research? First and foremost, it is an object
of physiological or behavioral inquiry. It primarily "matters" because
it is the practicing scientist's object of scientific curiosity. In the
heat of scientific activity, the animal is essentially a physiological
or behavioral system unconnected with the environing world. It is an isolated
representative or model of physiological, behavioral, or animal (biological)
existence. Animal Encounters in the Home: The situation described above
changes significantly when the scientist or technician leaves the laboratory
and goes home, where many of us encounter animals as pets. Encounters with
domestic pets are very different from a scientist's involvements with laboratory
animals. In the 2 contexts, the animals exist and matter for human beings
in decidedly different ways, and the human actors are animated by dissimilar
interests, feelings, and thoughts. Both the humans and the animals exist
within different webs of human meanings and values. Central to the world
of homes and families are the values of care, concern, and responsibility
for one another; and pets fit integrally into this world. Thus, our feelings
of concrete responsibility for the care of domestic pets are characteristically
different than they are for laboratory animals. Animal Encounters in the
Wild: In addition to human and animal experiences of a domestic nature,
encounters with animals in the wild, outside the "human city," constitute
other philosophically and ethically significant experiences. These encounters
are particularly important because the animals again matter differently
and play, or can play, a decidedly different role in determining the terms
of the human experience and the particular context or web of meanings and
values. Human interests and activities become more and more attuned to
animals and animate being within the natural world. Philosophic Reflections:
The philosophical reflections on animals in the wild that follow are intended
to explore the question, Why do animals matter to us? Our reflections may
enable us to take a moral stance that we, both as members of the human
family and as researchers, can embrace. The reflections are derived, at
least in part, from the thought of Charles Darwin, Aldo Leopold, Alfred
North Whitehead, and Han Jonas. In a nutshell, Darwin's doctrine of evolution
involves the evolution of all life and organic species from a common origin
via genetic and behavioral variation and natural selection. Each individual
organism is genetically and phenotypically unique, different from all the
others. These fundamental themes of individuality, particularity, and diversity
are the backbone of the evolutionary story. The patron saint of modem conservation
ethics (protection of the natural environment), Aldo Leopold, is famous
for his land ethic and for defining the human good and bad in terms of
our impact on the "integrity, stability, and beauty" of the biotic community
or the land. Earlier in the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead made a
similar philosophic and particularly telling move. Whitehead was particularly
interested in what the reigning modern science and philosophy Whitehead
rediscovered a significant, valuable, and meaningful nature--instances
of life (including human and animal individuals) interconnected and aiming
individually and collectively at particular worldly achievements and intensities
of experience. From quite a different mood and philosophic perspective,
Hans Jonas also revolted against the hegemony of modem materialist science.
He found his way to a philosophy of organic life that philosophically,
morally, and spiritually rehabilitated humans and nature and that served
as a basis for envisioning important ethical responsibilities to the human
and natural future. In a philosophic countermove similar to Whitehead's,
Jonas denies that materialist science needs to turn philosophical and metaphysical
and interpret reality according to its own partial and abstract conceptual
scheme. Final Reflections of the Author: These Darwinian, naturalist, perspectives
place laboratory animal research and its supporters in an interesting moral
situation. Neither Leopold, Whitehead, nor Jonas opposes the use of animals
for morally legitimate human purposes, including scientific research. Indeed,
a Darwinian evolutionary and ecological nature lends powerful support for
legitimate scientific uses of animals. These three philosophers of organic
nature provide us with clues to understanding why either humans and animals
are, taken together, morally significant, or neither humans nor animals
have any significance. If we want to argue that laboratory animal research,
which produces advances in human knowledge and benefits to both humans
and animals, is a moral enterprise, then--assuming we wish to live morally
coherent lives--we must treat laboratory animals with genuine concern,
care, and respect. In short, by philosophically coming to appreciate that
humans, animals, and nature are intricately interwoven in a single morally
significant reality, we can begin to see the outlines of an overall moral
outlook or perspective that comprehends or includes humans, animals, and
nature. The task then becomes to judge and coordinate our relative obligations
to humans, animals, nature, and their worldly future within this overall
framework of moral thought.
Questions:
1) Name 3 philosophers that have contributed theories on human-animal
relationships?
2) Who was the scientist who revolutionized the origin of species?
3) What was the authors conclusion in this article?
Answers:
1) Aldo Leopold, Alfred North Whitehead, Hans Jonas
2) Charles Darwin
3) Who knows?
Community representatives and nonscientists on the IACUC: What
difference should it make? ILAR 40 (1): 029.
Regulatory provisions for community members and non-scientists on the
IACUC:
AWA (should represent general community values), Health Research Extension
Act, PHS Policy. Other countries with similar requirements include Sweden,
Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, and Australia.
Surveys have revealed that most laymembers are comfortable with their position, but that they are not effective (themselves or the IACUCs on which they serve) at improving the welfare of laboratory animals.
There is no meaningful guidance to lay members if the regulations are
examined. The lay member often serves as a "constant reminder of the outside
world" to whom the institution is responsible. The institution should do
its part to ensure that its lay members are adequately educated.
Questions:
1. List two other countries that require the use of a community member.
2. What is the purpose of the lay member(s)?
3. T/F Lay member(s) should be adequately trained.
Answers:
1. Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Australia
2. Be representative (constant reminder) of outside world.
3. True
US laws and norms related to laboratory animals. ILAR 40 (1):
034.
The laws, policies, guidelines, and practices pertaining to laboratory
animal research in the United States are complex. The Animal Welfare Act
(AWA) and the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals (PHS Policy) provide the basis for the laws related to the care
and use of laboratory animals in the United States. Both of these regulatory
documents are based on the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
(Guide). The burden of responsibility is placed upon the institution to
implement the performance standards in the Guide to comply with the standards
that come with AAALAC accreditation. In addition, ILAR publishes periodicals
to help define some of the laws and guidelines to help the institution
provide a high-quality of animal care and humane use of animals in research.
Animal Welfare Act (AWA 9 CFR Subchapter A) The Laboratory Animal Welfare
Act was passed in 1966 and initially covered only the care and transportation
of animals and made provisions to prevent the sale of stolen animals. Since
1966, there have been several amendments that provide detailed protection
for laboratory animals. The most recent amendment was passed in 1985. The
provisions are now complex and cover not only the care and transportation
of animals but also broad aspects of use and justification of the use of
animals in research. The species subject to the AWA regulations are "any
live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or
any other warm-blooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for
use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes...."
Laboratory-bred rats and mice and birds are currently exempted from the
AWA regulations. One provision of the AWA is that each institution must
have an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) and must have
at least three members, including one laboratory animal veterinarian and
one member who has no affiliation with the institution. The IACUC must
approve all proposed experiments before they are initiated, review the
institution's animal care and use program at least once every 6 months,
inspect the animal facilities at least once every 6 months, and submit
a report on each inspection to the responsible official. The US Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Animal Care
(APHIS/AC) administers the AWA. Inspectors conduct unannounced inspections
at least once a year. When minor violations of the AWA are found and cited,
the institution has the opportunity to correct the problem within a reasonable
time frame. However, major violations can lead to substantial fines and
suspension of registration. USDA published a request for public comment
in January 1999 regarding the regulation of rats, mice, and birds (Federal
Register 1999).
PHS Policy (PL 99-158 Health Research Extension Act, 1785) Compliance
with the PHS Policy and adherence to the standards in the Guide are conditions
for eligibility of institutions to receive federal funding for animal research.
The PHS Policy was issued in 1971, revised in 1986, and reprinted in 1996.
The Policy is administered by the Office for Protection from Research Risks
(OPRR) within the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The
PHS Policy applies to all vertebrate animals and to all institutions that
use vertebrates in research sponsored by the PHS. The National Institutes
of Health (NIH) comprises one unit of the PHS and provides most of the
federal funding for individual investigator-initiated biomedical research
in the United States. Thus, PHS policy applies to most academic and research
institutions that conduct biomedical research. One major mandate of PHS
Policy is that institutions adhere to the provisions of the AWA, the Guide,
and the US Government Principles. Other mandates include record-keeping
requirements to ensure clear accountability for the quality of the animal
care program and reporting requirements to enable oversight by federal
funding agencies. PHS Policy establishes a "trust relationship" between
OPRR and each institution receiving PHS funds. It requires these institutions
to provide written assurance of compliance with PHS Policy and a detailed
explanation of the programs and procedures in place to ensure that PHS
Policy is enforced. This document is called an "institutional assurance."
PHS inspections are conducted if an institution is suspected of improprieties.
A severe and uncorrected violation of PHS Policy can result in revocation
of the institutional assurance and loss of all PHS funding to the entire
institution.
The Guide (National Research Council, 1996) The "Guide for the Care
and Use of Laboratory Animals" is a consensus document reflecting the state
of the art of scientifically based laboratory animal care and use. Produced
by ILAR, the Guide was first published by the Animal Care Panel (predecessor
of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science) at the request
of the NIH in 1963, prior to the AWA (1966) and the PHS Policy (1971).
The Guide provides guidelines for scientifically; technically, and humanely
appropriate animal care and use. The emphasis on guidelines rather than
absolute standards is an important characteristic of the Guide. The 7th
edition (1996) applies to all animals, including farm animals used in biomedical.
One of the most controversial aspects of both the Guide and the AWA regulations
is the emphasis on performance standards rather than engineering standards.
Performance standards do not prescribe rigid methods for achieving an objective,
but rather allow the use of professional judgment to develop optimal approaches
for attaining specific goals or outcomes. A performance approach allows
assessments of behavioral characteristics or physiological measures reflective
of stress to be used in developing optimal physical environments for individual
animals under specified research conditions. Implementation of the guidelines
in the Guide is provided by the IACUC.
AAALAC International The Association for the Assessment and Accreditation
of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) is a private nonprofit
organization whose mission is to promote the highest standards of laboratory
animal care. The qualifications for AAALAC International accreditation
are stringent and depend on meeting the provisions of the AWA, PHS Policy,
and the Guide. Each institution is evaluated every 3 years. Institutions
are provided a reasonable period of time to correct any deficiencies that
are detected. If deficiencies are not corrected in the requisite time period,
an institution is placed on probation; and withdrawal of accreditation
is the ultimate penalty. The AAALAC International program promotes high-quality
care of laboratory animals in research and helps to standardize the norms
of care among institutions.
ILAR The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) is a unit
of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, a
private nonprofit organization that exists to provide expert scientific
advice to the government and to the public. ILAR's mission is to develop
guidelines and to disseminate information on the "scientific, technological,
and ethical use of animals and related biological resources in research,
testing, and education". ILAR is responsible for preparing and distributing
many documents in addition to the Guide. These include detailed guidelines
for the care and use of specific species of laboratory animals. For example,
Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for Their Ethical Care, Management,
and Use (1997), Occupational Health and Safety in the Care and Use of Research
Animals (1997) and Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates (1998).
Scientists, veterinarians, IACUC members, and AAALAC use such documents
as adjuncts to the Guide.
Questions:
1) Which species are covered by the Animal Welfare Act (9 CFR Subchapter
A)?
a. Dog
b. Cat
c. Nonhuman primate
d. Guinea pig
e. Hamster
f. Rabbit
g. Rat
h. Mouse
i. Bird
2) According to the AWA, how many members comprise the IACUC?
3) T or F: Compliance with the AWA, PHS policy, and the Guide are conditions
for institutions to receive federal funding for animal research?
4) Who enforces the PHS policy?
a. USDA
b. OPRR
c. IACUC
5) A written "institutional assurance" statement establishes a trust
relationship between what 2 organizations?
a. OPRR and DHHS
b. OPRR and each institution
c. The principle investigator and NIH
6) AAALAC International reevaluates accredited institutions how often?
7) The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research is a unit of what organization?
8) What year was the Guide last published by ILAR?
Answers:
1)a-f ,
2) At least 3 members,
3) T,
4) b,
5) b,
6) every 3 years,
7) NRC (of the NAS),
8) 1996