Session C6: Issues in Animal Research

Chairs: Derek Fry (UK) and Ken Shapiro (USA)

C6: The Validity/Ethics Antinomy in Animal Research
Kenneth J. Shapiro. Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Washington Grove, MD 20880, USA. kshapiro@psyeta.org.

I examine the question of inter-species extrapolability through application of the versions of the dilemma first posed by Singer. To the degree that inter-species individuals are similar, extrapolation may be valid but may not be ethical; to the degree different, invalid but ethical. If different, extrapolation is unlikely to be valid, as validity is the measure of the correspondence between model and modeled. I reject LaFollette and Shanks' claim that difference, in principle, invalidates an inter-species mode. Rather, I argue that validity is both an empirical question and a limited criterion for seeing the usefulness of animal models. Further, inter-species extrapolability often is confounded by the artificiality and stress of the laboratory setting. The impact of selective breeding and genetic manipulation of the subjects also is discussed. If inter-species individuals are similar in morally relevant attributes, then both or neither individual belongs to the moral community, depending on the requisite defining attribute selected. I conclude that assessment by the broad measure of productive generativity suggests the inutility of a significant proportion of animal research and that most deontological and utilitarian ethics exclude most animal model research.

C6: Can Studies of Invertebrates Help Us Formulate Policy on Which Species Should be Protected in Experiments?
Chris M. Sherwin. UFAW Research Fellow, Centre for Behavioural Biology, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, University of Bristol, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK. chris.sherwin@bristol.ac.uk.

Policy and legislation relating to animal welfare require that a cut-off point is applied to the species they seek to protect. This cut-off varies between countries and cultures, although several use the in/vertebrate "divide." Is this a cut-off of convenience, or is there sound scientific justification? It is a popular notion that compared to vertebrates, invertebrates have a reduced capacity to experience suffering. But, suffering is a negative mental state--a private experience--and, as such, it cannot be measured directly. When assessing the capacity of an animal to experience suffering, we usually involve the principle of argument-by-analogy. But, by closely examining the responses of invertebrates, it can be seen that they often behave in a strikingly analogous manner to vertebrates. Published studies show that invertebrates have complex memory and learning, perform appropriately in motivation studies, and exhibit behavioral and physiological responses indicative of pain. The similarity of these responses with those of vertebrates might indicate a level of consciousness or suffering that is not popularly attributed to invertebrates. This suggests that animal welfare policy decisions on applying a cut-off at the in/vertebrate divide may not be as justified as we might like to think.

C6: Expanding the Three R's to Meet New Challenges in Humane Animal Experimentation
C.A. Schuppli, D. Fraser, and M. McDonald. Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Center for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. schuppli@interchange.ubc.ca.

The Three R's principles, proposed over 40 years ago, have become widely accepted for the governance of humane animal experimentation. They have remained valuable partly because they are simple, straightforward principles that capture the key ethical issues that have traditionally arisen in animal-based research. However, new developments in animal ethics and animal welfare science, together with new forms of biological research, present new challenges. These include: (1) an emphasis on enriched environments and other means of improving the quality of life for research animals, (2) sanctity-of-life positions, holding that certain animals should be exempted, on principle, from any harmful research, (3) research involving genetic alteration, often involving large numbers of animals and unpredictable consequences, and (4) animals bred deliberately as models of certain disease states. These issues are not readily covered by the Three R's as traditionally defined, or they require trade-offs between two or more of the three. While it might be possible to extend and redefine the Three R's to incorporate these new issues, it may be more fruitful to develop additional guiding principles to supplement the Three R's.

C6: Animal Experimentation and Ethics: The Cpcsea Makes Waves in India
Sonya Ghosh, Shiranee Pereira, Maneka Gandhi, Syed Qadri, and Prema Veeraghavan. CPCSEA, c/o AWBI, 3rd Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Tiruvanimyur, Chennai-600 041, India. CPCSEA@eth.net.

The Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals is a statutory body formed by the Act of the Indian Parliament under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Formed in 1964, it was revived in 1998 under the committed Chairpersonship of Maneka Gandhi. In the last two years, CPCSEA has bettered the life of animals in laboratories across India. This Committee includes members of the scientific community, regulatory authorities, and animal activists. CPCSEA functions with a brilliant network of volunteers who liaise with the laboratories.

For the first time in India:

1. Over 600 laboratories have been registered with CPCSEA.
2. IACUC's have been formed in every laboratory; however, they are only empowered to approve research project proposals that use rats, mice, guinea pigs, or rabbits.
3. Projects that use canines, ovines, bovines, or primates can only be conducted if approved by the panel of scientific experts constituted for this purpose.
4. Guidelines on laboratory animal care and practice have been formulated and are enforced.
5. A Protocol for the production of immunobiologicals from equines has been formulated and ratified by the Supreme Court of India.
6. The CPCSEA has been deliberating on alternatives and working out modalities to introduce alternatives in basic/regulatory research and education, keeping with the international scenario.
7. The CPCSEA works on a priority to rescue used laboratory animals. The CPCSEA, to date, has homed and rehabilitated over 300 beagles, 100 equines, and 200 primates, as well as numerous cattle, cats, birds, rabbits, and mice.
8. The CPCSEA proactively trains and guides scientific and non-scientific personnel on issues of alternatives and laboratory animal welfare.
9. The CPCSEA has legally fought issues on laboratory animal care and use and has helped bring about verdicts that favored alternatives and animal welfare.

C6: Ethical Use of Experimental Animals
H. Gürtler, J.L. Ottesen, and K. Skydsgaard. Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark. hg@novonordisk.com.

Animal experimentation and testing are today a necessary part of the discovery and development of new drugs. The use of experimental animals is, however, a source of concern for the public in general. To ensure broad acceptance of the use of experimental animals by society, it is important to demonstrate due respect for the animals by ensuring high ethical and welfare standards. A Novo Nordisk guide to the ethical use of experimental animals has been made which addresses the many ethical challenges in animal research. According to the guide, Novo Nordisk aims at setting high ethical and welfare standards in relation to animal experimentation and testing; for example, by performing ethical reviews of experiments, integrating the principles of the Three R's in all processes and procedures, housing animals according to their needs, providing appropriate training and socialization of the animals, and ensuring well-trained, caring staff, who have empathy with animals. Novo Nordisk strives to ensure high awareness and adherence to our ethical standards internally and externally. We also seek to ensure transparency and openness about our involvement in animal experimentation and testing through comprehensive reporting and dialogue with key stakeholders.