Advertisement

Toward Reasonable Experimental Inquiry

  • Jan Lauwereyns
Chapter

Abstract

Here I construct an integrative view with clear and realistic proposals for the policymaking with respect to the use of animals in research. Replacement comes first, as an inherently ethical principle. Where Replacement is not possible, the use of animals should be carefully managed on the basis of collective decision-making at the level of research communities and funding agencies, not at the level of individual researchers. This proposal addresses opportunity costs via a macroscopic approach to managing research. Collective decision-making enables communities to ensure that we invest our time, money, and effort in the most optimal way. Detailed suggestions are made on how to organize the macroscopic approach, compatible with the extant research communities and thinking with the concepts of open science and big science.

Keywords

Animal ethics Opportunity cost Collective decision-making Open science Big science 

References

  1. Appenzeller, T. (2017). An unprecedented march for science. Science, 356, 356–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balls, M. (2010). The principles of humane experimental technique: Timeless insights and unheeded warnings [Special Issue]. ALTEX, 27, 19–23.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, A. J., & Ringach, D. L. (2016). Animal research in neuroscience: A duty to engage. Neuron, 92, 653–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckheit, J. B., & Donoho, D. L. (1995). WaveLab and reproducible research. In A. Antoniades & G. Oppenheim (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Statistics 103. Wavelets and Statistics (pp. 55–81). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers, C. D., Feredoes, E., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., & Etchells, P. J. (2014). Instead of “playing the game” it is time to change the rules: Registered reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond. AIMS Neuroscience, 1, 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchland, P. S. (2011). Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corning, P. (2011). The Fair Society: The Science of Human Nature and the Pursuit of Social Justice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornwall, W. (2017). Revamp animal research rules, report urges. Science, 358, 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Editorial. (2015). Inhumane treatment of nonhuman primate researchers. Nature Neuroscience, 18, 787.Google Scholar
  11. Editorial. (2018). Economics A–Z terms beginning with O. The Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/o#node-21529616. Accessed 13 Feb 2018.
  12. Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farah, M. J. (Ed.). (2010). Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Frederick, S., Novemsky, N., Wang, J., Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. (2009). Opportunity cost neglect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 553–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gandal, M. J., Haney, J. R., Parikshak, N. N., Leppa, V., Ramaswami, G., Hartl, C., et al. (2018). Shared molecular neuropathology across major psychiatric disorders parallels polygenic overlap. Science, 359, 693–697.Google Scholar
  16. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). The Ethical Brain: The Science of Our Moral Dilemmas. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goya, F. (1799/1969). Los Caprichos. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Greely, H. T., Ramos, K. M., & Grady, C. (2016). Neuroethics in the age of brain projects. Neuron, 92, 637–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grillner, S. (2014). Megascience efforts and the brain. Neuron, 82, 1209–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holder, T. (2014). Standing up for science: The antivivisection movement and how to stand up to it. EMBO Reports, 15(6), 625–630.Google Scholar
  21. Holy Bible. (2011). New International Version. Colorado Springs: Biblica. Available at: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible.
  22. Hursthouse, R. (2011). Virtue ethics and the treatment of animals. In T. L. Beauchamp & R. G. Frey (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics (pp. 119–143). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409, 860–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirby, M. D. (1986). Bioethical decisions and opportunity costs. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 2, 7–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Koch, C., & Jones, A. (2016). Big science, team science, and open science for neuroscience. Neuron, 92, 612–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. LaFollette, H., & Shanks, N. (1996). Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). Focusing in reasoning and decision making. Cognition, 49, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., et al. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800.Google Scholar
  31. Merali, Z. (2010). The large human collider. Nature, 464, 482–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Musil, R. (1937). Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag. Available at: https://archive.org/stream/MusilDerMannOhneEigenschaften.
  33. NCC Staff. (2013, August 28). 10 famous quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Constitution Daily. Available at: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-famous-quotes-from-dr-martin-luther-king-jr.
  34. Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1986). Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 348–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., et al. (2015). Promoting an open science culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rose, N. (2014). The human brain project: Social and ethical challenges. Neuron, 82, 1212–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Phillips, K. A., Bales, K. L., Capitanio, J. P., Conley, A., Czoty, P. W., ‘t Hart, B. A., et al. (2014). Why primate models matter. American Journal of Primatology, 76, 801–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roelfsema, P. R., & Treue, S. (2014). Basic neuroscience research with nonhuman primates: A small but indispensable component of biomedical research. Neuron, 82, 1200–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russell, W. M. S., & Burch, R. L. (1959/1992). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Wheathampstead: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. Available at ALTWEB: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/books/humane_exp/foreword.
  42. Schelling, T. C. (1971). On the ecology of micromotives. The Public Interest, 25, 61–98.Google Scholar
  43. Singer, P. (1981/2011). The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Singer, P. (1998). Ethics in Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  45. Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 160384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spiller, S. A. (2011). Opportunity cost consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Than, K. (2011, May 26). Densest matter created in big-bang machine. National Geographic News. Available at: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110524-densest-matter-created-lhc-alice-big-bang-space-science.
  48. The International Brain Laboratory. (2017). An international laboratory for systems and computational neuroscience. Neuron, 96, 1213–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Von Wieser, F. (1914/1927). Social Economics (A. Ford Hinrichs, Trans.). New York: Adelphi.Google Scholar
  50. Zhang, N., Ji, L.-J., & Li, Y. (2017). Cultural differences in opportunity cost consideration. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 45.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations