Ethics and Evidence Regarding Animal Subjects Research: Splitting Hares–or Swallowing Camels?

  • Gail A. Van NormanEmail author


Nonhuman animals are the subject of medical research, industrial testing and educational projects in human efforts. Modern biological research has produced information that challenges assumptions that animals lack characteristics that make them deserving of moral standing, and the success of modern animal subjects research in medicine is commonly overstated. Public opinion in favor of animal research is conditional and waning. This chapter will discuss the ethical principles surrounding use of nonhuman animal subjects, research that challenges basic assumptions about the utility of nonhuman animal subjects research, and ethical obligations of researchers, editors and reviewers with regard to nonhuman animal subjects research.


Animal Research Ethics 


  1. 1.
    National Institute of Health. Regulations and ethical guidelines. Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, vol. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1949. p. 181–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lauerman JF. Animal research. Harvard Magazine, Jan–Feb 1999;48. Accessed 26 Apr 2015.
  3. 3.
    Harrison P. Descartes on animals. Philos Quart. 1992;42:219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nicholas Malebranche. In: Rodis-Lewis G, editor. Oeuvres completes, vol. II. Paris: J. Vrin; 1958–1970. p. 394.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Waal F. The ape and the sushi master; reflections of a primatologist. New York: Basic Books; 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor AH, Hunt GR, Holtzhalder C, Gray RD. Spontaneous metatool use by new Caledonian crows. Curr Biol. 2007;17:1504–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tanner JE, Patterson FG, Byrne RW. The development of spontaneous gestures in zoo-living gorillas and sign-taught gorillas: from action and location to object representation. J Devel Process. 2006;1:69–122.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pepperberg IM, Carey S. Gray parrot number acquisition: the inference of cardinal value from ordinal position on the numeral list. Cognition. 2012;125:219–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byrne RW, Barnard PJ, Davidson I, Janik VM, McGrew WC, Miklosi A, et al. Understanding culture across species. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8:341–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferkin MH, Combs A, delBarco-Trillo J, Pierce AA, Franklin S. Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, have the capacity to recall the “what”, “where”, and “when” of a single past event. Anim Cogn. 2008;11:147–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marino L, Connor RC, Fordyce RE, Herman LM, Hof PR, Lefebvre L, et al. Cetaceans have complex brains for complex cognition. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:e139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plotnik JM, de Waal FB, Reiss D. Self-recognition in an Asian elephant. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(45):17053–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prior H, Schwarz A, Gunturkun O. Mirror-induced behavior in the magpie (Pica pica): evidence of self-recognition. PLoS Biol. 2008;6:e202.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pilley JW, Reid AK. Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents. Behav Processes. 2010;86:184–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rollin BE. Animal research: a moral science. Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep. 2007;8:521–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kant I. The groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (trans: Gregor MJ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. p. 428.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korsgaard C. Fellow creatures: kantian ethics and our duties to animals. Tanner Lectures Human Values. 2005;25:77–110.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jecker NS. Animal subjects research part I. Do animals have rights? In: Van Norman G, Jackson S, Rosenbaum S, Palmer S, editors. Ethics in anesthesiology: a case-based textbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 168–73.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schardein JL. Drugs as teratogens. Cleveland: CRC Press; 1976. p. 5, 49.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Changing the face of medicine: Dr. Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda. Last reviewed 5 Dec 2013. Accessed 27 Apr 2015.
  21. 21.
    Overview of animals in scientific research fact sheet. Nov 16, 2006. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Disease Control and prevention: CDC in the News. Accessed 16 May 2015.
  22. 22.
    Steffee CH. Alexander Fleming and penicillin. The chance of a lifetime? NC Med J. 1992;53:308–10.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Attarwala H. TGN1412: from discovery to disaster. J Young Pharm. 2010;2:332–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    NatureNews. TGN1412 drug trial leaves patient with terminal cancer. 2006. Accessed 21 Apr 2015.
  25. 25.
    Dennis C. Cancer: off by a whisker. Nature. 2006;442:739–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ. 2004;328:514–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? BMJ. 2002;324:474.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA. 2006;296:1731–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2007;334:197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Litchfield Jr JT. Symposium on clinical drug evaluation and human pharmacology. XVI. Evaluation of the safety of new drugs by means of tests in animals. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1962;3:665–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heywood R. Target organ toxicity II. Toxicol Lett. 1983;18:83–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salsburg D. The lifetime feeding study in mice and rats–an examination of its validity as a bioassay for human carcinogens. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1983;3:63–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heywood R. Clinical toxicity–could it have been predicted? Post-marketing experience. In: Lumley CE, Walker S, editors. Animal toxicity studies: their relevance for man. Lancaster: Quay; 1990. p. 57–67.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sankar U. The delicate toxicity balance in drug discovery. Scientist. 2005;19:32.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gura T. Cancer models: systems for identifying new drugs are often faulty. Science. 1997;278:1041–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Greek R, Pippus A, Hansen LA. The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling. BMC Med Ethics. 2012;13:16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Burns R. Animals in research. Acad Med. 1989;62:780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Institute of Medicine and National Research Council committee on the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research. Principles guiding the use of chimpanzees in research. In: Altevogt BM, Pankevich DE, Shelton-Davenport MK, et al., editors. Chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research: assessing the necessity. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 2011. p. 27.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    National Institutes of Health news and events. Statement by NIH director Dr. Francis Collins on the Institute of Medicine report addressing the scientific need for the use of chimpanzees in research. 2011. Accessed 16 May 2015.
  40. 40.
    Institute of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (US) committee on the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research. International policies guiding chimpanzee use. In: Altevogt BM, Pankevich DE, Shelton-Davenport MK, Kahn JP, editors. Chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research: assessing the necessity. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press (US); 2011. Table 3. p. 18–9.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Anderson LC, Ballinger MB, Bayne K, Bennett BT, Bernhardt DB, Brown MJ, et al. In: Pitts M, Bayne K, Anderson LC, et al., editors. Institutional animal care and use committee guide book. Applied research ethics national association/office of laboratory animal welfare; 2002. p. 17–8, 27–30, 43–51, 53–7, 65–70, 87–90. Accessed 30 May 2015.
  42. 42.
    Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Great Britain. Accessed 27 Apr 2015.
  43. 43.
    European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Strasbourg, 18.III.1986 (amended Dec 2, 2005 to reflect formation of the European Union). Accessed 27 Apr 2015.
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
    Bishop LJ, Nolen AL. Animals in research and education: ethical issues. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2001;11(1):91–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Statistics of scientific procedures on living animals: Great Britain 2013. Home Office. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. London. 2014. Accessed 30 May 2015.
  47. 47.
    Russell W, Burch R. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd; 1959.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gates JE. Committee Chair, Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Lecture: Institutional animal care and use committee, general information. 2013. Accessed 16 May 2015.
  49. 49.
    Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MF, Cuthill IC, Fry D, et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One. 2009;4:e7824.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Osborne NJ, Payne D, Newman ML. Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the 3Rs. Am J Bioeth. 2009;9:55–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rowan AN. Animals, science, and ethics—section IV. Ethical review and the animal care and use committee. Hastings Cent Rep. 1990;20:s19–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Houde L, Dumas C, Leroux T. Ethics: views from IACUC members. Altern Lab Anim. 2009;37:291–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hansen LA. Institutional animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity. J Med Ethics. 2013;39:188–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pifer L, Shimizu K, Pifer R. Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Soc Animals. 1994;2:95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Post derby tragedy, 38 % support banning animal racing. The Gallup Organization. 2008. Accessed 30 May 2015.
  56. 56.
    Wilke J, Saad L. Older Americans’ moral attitudes changing. The Gallup Organization. 2013. Accessed 30 May 2015.
  57. 57.
    Abbot A. Biomedicine: the changing face of primate research. Nature. 2014;506:24–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Department of Biomedical EthicsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations