The Historical Roots of the Science of Laboratory Animal Welfare in the US

Abstract

In this chapter, I will describe some of the organizations that undertook to set standards for animal care higher than observed in many institutions, at the same time that they argued for the rights of scientists to use animals in their research. Their goals were not unlike those of UFAW, but they were less neutral than UFAW purported to be about the ethics of using animals. They were clearly vivisectionists and held anti-vivisectionists in distain. My sense is that they were somewhat less radical than UFAW in the sorts of reforms that they were in favor of, but they echoed the theme, “Good science requires animals that were well-off.” They clearly perceived the importation of UFAW backed reforms urged by Gesell, the father of the founder of the US based Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), as unwelcome. They clearly resisted the terminology “animal welfare,” though often referred to animal well-being. It is also worth noting that their use of the word “animal care” tended to refer specifically to how animals were housed and not how they were used in the actual studies.1 The 1985 animal welfare act reflects the influence of the Animal Welfare Institute (it is called animal welfare, not animal well-being), but the mandated institutional self-regulation by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees in its choice of terminology reflects both the influence of the Animal Care Panel and the AWI urged extension to animal use as well. In what follows, I will give a brief historical description of a number of these reformists organizations, all of which supported the use of animals in research. My chief source for many of these organizations is 50 Years of Laboratory Animal Science, edited by Charles W. McPherson and Steele F. Mattingly, Sheridan Books, 1999 (here after M&M). This commemorative volume has 23 chapters, each with it own author. The first chapter is entitled “The Architectonic of Laboratory Animal Science.” The goal of this science, according to the author of this chapter, is to provide more information about humane care. An additional source is Clark (1991). I will begin with the Animal Care Panel, and go on to give some historical descriptions of other non-governmental organizations, some of which evolved out of the Animal Care Panel, as well as some governmental organizations that co-operated with the non-governmental ones. All of these can be thought of a part of the animal welfare movement. Here is a list of these organization together with the appropriate acronyms that I will use to refer to them: I am including HSUS and PRM& R because these organizations were less clearly opposed to the use of animals in research than most other animal protective organizations, but they also were not affiliated with user institutions, like the other groups were. One further note here. In calling this chapter the historical roots of the science of laboratory animal welfare, I do not mean to imply that there emerged a “science of animal welfare” that was mandated to study animal welfare in the more formal way that the scientists involved in farm animal welfare studies self-consciously called themselves “animal welfare scientists.” Most of the organizations I am going to describe appeared to think that there was already an adequate body of animal welfare information that was scientifically based, and this was acquired by animal users and veterinarians.