Abstract
A short review of the history of US animal welfare legislation and discussion of the views of animal liberationists, who want to abolish (most) biomedical research using animals, and reformist animal welfarists, who hold that a suitably reformed use of animals would make the use of animals in research ethically acceptable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is required by the 1985 animal welfare act and also by OLAW. For an account of the mandated IACUCs (see Haynes 2008).
- 2.
AALAS was formerly known as the Animal Care Panel.
- 3.
Rollin (2006) notes that prior to the 1986 amendment, scientists using animal in research tended to think that animals did not feel pain.
- 4.
The three Rs came out of Russell and Burch (1992).
- 5.
The distinction between “animal welfarists,” who argue that a suitably reformed use of animal in science would be acceptable, and “animal liberationists,” who argue against any use, is explored by (Jasper and Nelkin 1992). I would argue that if animal welfare is properly conceptualized, then there is no significant difference between these two positions.
- 6.
There is a long history of scientists claiming that only animals with high levels of welfare make good models.
- 7.
- 8.
The costs to these animals varies with the care given them, the reduced levels of welfare they experience, the shortness of their lives, and the limitations imposed on those animals that are bred with specific defects to be used as models for certain diseases. Most animals are terminated after their use.
- 9.
It is estimated that between 100 and 200 million animals are used in research worldwide (Sandoe and Christiansen 2008).
- 10.
Greek (2000) and Greek and Greek (2002), for example, argue that it is actually counterproductive to use animals as models for humans (penicillin was originally rejected because of its negative effects on the animal models used to test it) (see Greek 2000; Greek and Greek 2002; Sharpe 1988). Greek (2000) devotes Chapter 8 to discussing more productive alternatives to using animal models. For a different view, see (Sandoe and Christiansen 2008), where the authors list what they consider to be the benefits of using animal models.
- 11.
The theories that they identify are the objective theory, which identifies welfare with the possession of certain qualities or benefits, regardless of how the possessor assesses their merits, and two versions of subjective theories: hedonism and preference satisfaction. Each of these theories has its disadvantages (see Sumner 1996). For a persuasive objective theory of animal welfare (see Nussbaum 2004).
- 12.
In many cases, the professionals in question seems to be veterinarians, who tend to equate welfare with good health.
- 13.
Simple preference tests that some animal welfare scientist have appealed to to determine the best care conditions fail because they only give their subjects the opportunity to choose between two, or at most, a few conditions, and they do not allow for the fact that preferences may be based on oppressive socialization. For an account of these tests and some of their limitations when used for determining welfare for farm animals (see Haynes 2008).
- 14.
Note the difference between calling someone a care-taker and a care giver, As Kheel (2004) points out, care-taking implies taking care of someone’s property for them.
- 15.
- 16.
I personally am unable to make sense of this question, since it can only be asked by those alive and not by those not alive, so any answer is prejudiced by the fact that one is alive.
- 17.
- 18.
This was the House version of the bill enacted into law as part of PL 99-198 (The Food Security Act of 1985) that amended the previous Animal Welfare Act and its amendments. The hearings on this bill were the only hearings held. It was the Senate version [S.2100] that was reported out of conference as the recommended version and it added several features not included in the House version, including the requirement that dogs receive adequate exercise and nonhuman primates be housed in an environment adequate to promote their psychological well-being.
- 19.
Loew refers to hearings held in 1981 by Mr. Walgren and in 1982 by Mr. Waxman in which many other aspects of animal experimentation are discussed. See the Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology on October 13 and 14, 1981 conducted by Walgren, and another conducted by Waxman on the Walgren Bill – Lab Animals – before the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, December 9, 1982.
- 20.
See Francione (1996) for various criticisms of the 1985 act.
- 21.
Until this amendment, scientists using animals tended to discount the fact that pain even existed in animals. After the amendment, this practice ceased and pain was taken seriously, but “distress” was not given official recognition by APHIS until 2 years ago (see Rollin 2006).
- 22.
For a critical account of efforts by the research community to define psychological well-being (see Haynes 2008).
References
Appleby, M. C. (1999). What should we do about animal welfare? Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Bayles, M. D. (1981). Professional ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. (1986). Guidelines for lay members of animal care committees. Nepean, Ontario: CFHS.
Clingerman, K., Gleason, S., & Swanson, J. (1988). Animal welfare legislation: Bills and public laws. AWIC series #8. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Dresser, R. (1990). Institutional animal committees: Theory and practice (Chap. 4). In B. E. Rollin & M. L. Kesel (Eds.), The experimental animal in biomedical research. Vol. 1. A survey of scientific and ethical issues for investigators. Boston, MA: CRC Press.
Greek, C. R. (2000). Sacred cows and golden geese: The human cost of experiments on animals. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Greek, C. R., & Greek, J. S. (2002). Specious science: How genetics and evolution reveal why medical research on animals harms humans. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Francione, G. (1996). Rain without thunder: The ideology of the animal rights movement. Philadephia, PA: Temple University Press.
Francione, G. (2004). Animals – property or persons? (pp. 108–142). In C. R. Sunstein & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal rights: Current debates and new directions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Garner, R. (1998). Political animals. Animal protection politics in Britain and the United States. London: Macmillan.
Glosser, J. W. (1990). Responsibility of the regulator to the regulated community. Journal of Medical Primatology, 19, 1–8.
Haynes, R. P. (2008). Animal welfare. Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. New York: Springer Science.
Jasper, J. M., & Nelkin, D. (1992). The animal rights crusade. The growth of a moral protest. New York: The Free Press.
Kheel, M. (2004). Vegetarianism and ecofeminism (pp. 327–341). In S. F. Sapontzis (Ed.), Food for thought: The debate over eating meat. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Laboratory Animal Science. (1987, January). Effective animal care and use committee (special issue).
Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Beyond ‘compassion and humanity’: Justice for nonhuman animals (pp. 299–320). In C. R. Sunstein & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal rights: Current debates and new directions. New York: Oxford University Press.
OPRR/ARENA. (1992). Institutional animal care and use committee guidebook. NIH Publication No. 92–3415.
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment), U.S. Congress. (1986). Alternatives to animal use in research, testing and education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Prentice, E., Jameton, A., Antonson, D., & Zucker, I. (1988). Prior ethical review of animal versus human subjects research. Investigative Radiology, 23(9), 695–697.
Radford, M. (2001). Animal welfare law in Britain. Regulation and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rollin, B. E. (2006). Science and ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowan, A. N. (1990). Section IV. Ethical review and the animal care and use committee. Hastings Center Report, (special supplement, May/June), 19–24.
Russell, W. M., & Burch, R. L. (1959, 1992). The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen, London: UFAW.
Sandoe, P., & Christiansen, S. B. (2008). Ethics of animal use. Chichester: Blackwell.
Sapontzis, S. F. (1987). Morals, reason, and animals. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Sharpe, R. (1988). The cruel deception: The use of animals in medical research. Wellingsborough, UK: Thorsons.
Singer, P. (1979). Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
Sumner, L. W. (1996). Welfare, happiness, and ethics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Other Sources
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA Subchapter A – Animal Welfare, pp. 7–40.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Part 3 – Standards, pp. 19–78.
Animal Welfare Legislation: Bills and Public Laws, 1990. AWIC Series #4, January, 1991.
Animal Welfare Legislation: Bills and Public Laws, 1989. AWIC Series #2, January, 1990.
Animal Welfare Legislation: Bills and Public Laws 1980 – October 1988. (Includes the Animal Welfare Act and its amendments. AWIC, October 1988.)
Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976 PL 94-279.
Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 PL 89-544.
Animal Welfare Act of 1970 PL 91-579.
Animal Welfare Act of 1985 (PL 99-198, Title 17, Subtitle F).
Animal Welfare Act of 1970. Report on HR Hearing.
Animal Welfare Act. As Amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–2157).
Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 32, pp. 6471–6476 (environmental enhancement).
Federal Register. Vol. 55. No. 158. (August 1990). 9 CFR, Part 3 Proposed Rules), pp. 33449–33531).
Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 49. (March 15, 1989). 9CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3. Animal Welfare; Proposed Rules, pp. 10821–10954.
Federal Register. Vol. 54, No. 168. (August 31, 1989), Part IV. Department of Agriculture 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3. Animal Welfare; Final Rules, pp. 36112–36163.
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 32. ( February 15, 1991). Part II, Department of Agriculture 9CFR, Part 3, Animal Welfare; Standards; Final Rules. pp. 6426–6505.
Health Research Extension Act of 1985, PL 99-158. Sect. 495 (animals in research).
Improved Standards for laboratory animal act; and enforcement of the animal welfare act by the animal and plant health inspection service. Hearing on H. R. 5725, pp. 1–73.
Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994. P.L. 103-238. Excerpts in AWIC Newsletter 5, 2: 8.
Report by the U.S. General Accounting Office. (May 16, 1985). Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Committee of Appropriations United State Senate. The Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Program.
Review of U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Hearing before the subcommittee of Department of Operations, Research, and foreign agriculture of the committee on agriculture, House of Representative. July 7, 1988 (100–197).
Summary of USDA Requirements for IACUC Review (as published in Federal Register, August 31, 1989) v. 54: 168, pp. 36152–36153).
Congress, U. S. (1985). Text of Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act. Congressional Record, 131(175), H12335–H12336.
U.S. Congress. (1985). Health Research Extension Act of 1985. Public Law 99–158, November 20, 1985.
U.S. Congress. (1992) House Committee on Armed Services Report 102–527, on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1993.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1989, August 31, Thursday). Federal Register 54(168), 36112–36163.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Haynes, R. (2010). Animals in Research. In: Comstock, G.L. (eds) Life Science Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8792-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8792-8_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8791-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8792-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)