Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change最新文献

{"title":"Rethinking the 3Rs: From Whitewashing to Rights","authors":"C. Blattner","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_007","url":null,"abstract":"Few other issues have prompted as many legislators to adopt legal instruction on the \"proper\" use of non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) in medical and scientific research. Today, the 3Rs ( replacement, reduction, and refinement of animals in scientific procedures) are globally accepted by a vast majority of states (Blattner, 2014); and prominent international organizations, such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2018, Article 7(8)(3)) and the Council of Europe (Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, 1986, Articles 6(2), 7 and 8). Widespread acceptance of the 3Rs is a notable achievement, since animal law is a relatively young field oflaw, and at­ titudes about the human-animal relationship diverge sharply across societies. As progressive as this established body of law appears, the rules govern­ ing research on animals-especially the 3R maxim that dominate this legal landscape-suffer from regulatory failure. First, and most importantly, de­ spite widespread commitment to replace and reduce animals in research, the number of animals used for experimental purposes worldwide is now the same as it was in the 1980s ( the number dropped in the 1990s and 2000s but has been rising ever since; Bayne et al., 2015, p. 3; European Commission, 2013; Taylor, 2013; Taylor et al., 2008; Taylor and Rego, 2016). Second, though the principle of refinement demands that the severity of experiments be dimin­ ished, countries are reporting a rising number of research procedures done on animals who are forced to endure the most severe experiments ( e.g., Neue Zurcher Zeitung, 2016). There is reason to believe that refinement, which seeks to ameliorate the conditions of animals used for a research procedure, fails to fulfill their basic welfare needs. For example, pursuant to the United States' Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, a pig who weighs up to 50kg can be housed for up to five years on 15 square feet ( o.gm2), without any","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"247 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114435765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ethics, Efficacy, and Decision-making in Animal Research","authors":"L. Hansen, K. Kosberg","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_012","url":null,"abstract":"Few would disagree with the ethical contention that if cruelty to animals is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. In fact, it is not only wrong, but in most states in the us, it is a crime, a felony no less. And yet, intentionally inflicting pain and suffering upon animals, which meets Webster's definition of cruelty, is routinely countenanced when vivisection (from the Latin vivi, to be alive, and secare, to cut) is performed under license for biomedical research. Decid­ ing to embrace, or reject, or limit animal research demands our best ethical judgment; and it is complicated by factual disputes over the extent to which it benefits human health. Three issues combining facts and ethics need to be considered. First, to what extent does animal research deliver on its promise to improve human health? Second, if the goal of public investment ( e.g., tax dollars spent by the National Institute of Health, NIH) on animal research is to improve human health, are we getting sufficient return for the billions spent,","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"43 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113991251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When Is an Alternative Not an Alternative? Supporting Progress for Absolute Replacement of Animals in Science","authors":"C. Redmond","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_028","url":null,"abstract":"Despite a great deal of talk about \"alternatives\" to animal testing, and \"replac­ ing\" animal use, there are no clearly agreed upon definitions for these terms. This has led to extensive numbers of animals used and accepted as \"alterna­ tives\"-including zebrafish, invertebrates, animal tissues, embryos, sera, and animals' eyes-despite the obvious fact that they will suffer and/or be killed for these methods. Instead, there is a confusing array of reference to live ani­ mals, vertebrates, and mammals being termed as \"less sentient\" or \"conscious\" species. Much of the discussion on alternatives is still based around Russell and Burch's (1959) 3Rs; although few, if any, of the definitions currently in use match their original writings, which were designed to be a foundation for fu­ ture discussions. In the European Union (Eu), Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes defines its aim as represent­ ing \"an important step towards achieving the final goal of full replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific and educational purposes, as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so\" (European Parliament, 2010, Recital 10 ). Al­ though this is a progressive step forward compared to previous legislation, use of the word live is often overlooked, as are so many other obstacles to a true end to all animal use in laboratory research. Talk of \"replacing animal testing\" and \"alternatives\" comes with little discussion about what those phrases actually mean; while researchers continue to use animal sera, tissues, and live animals that are perceived as less sentient. This chapter addresses some of the areas in which animals are still used within \"alternatives\" -based research and calls on animal welfare and in vitro or­ ganizations to lead the debate and encourage absolute replacement of animal","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130798835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Refinement on the Way Towards Replacement: Are We Doing What We Can?","authors":"Kathrin Herrmann","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_002","url":null,"abstract":"Russell and Burch introduced the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal experimentation in 1959 in their groundbreaking book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, to eradicate inhumanity to­ wards non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals). They utilized the term inhumanity to indicate negative mental states experienced by animals used in research and the procedures that cause such mental states. Their goal was to avoid the use of animals wherever possible and to improve significantly the treatment of the animals still deemed indispensable, while improving the quality of scientific and medical research and testing (Russell and Burch, 1959 ). Since the 1990s, the 3Rs have slowly gained more acceptance within the animal research community. They have been recognized by organizations such as the Council of Europe (1986) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (2018), and they have been implemented in law in several countries, for example in Germany and in the UK (Herrmann, Kopemik and Biedermann, 2009; Zurlo, Rudacille and Goldberg, 1996). Today, the principles are not only embedded in legislation in the European Union (Eu) but around the world (Bayne et al., 2015). In the EU, Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes came into effect in 2013, thereby requiring all EU Member States to implement the","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"222 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133422663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Moral Status of Animal Research Subjects in Industry: A Stakeholder Analysis","authors":"Sarah Kenehan","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_009","url":null,"abstract":"The use of non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) in research and testing is a widely accepted practice in many industries. Millions of ani­ mals each year are subjected to painful procedures that include everything from physical mutilation to drug addiction. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), over 820,812 animals were experimented on in the United States in 2016 (USDA, 2017), though this count does not in­ clude rats, mice, or birds, and dubiously relies solely on the self-reporting of laboratories (Humane Society of the United States, 2011; Keen, 2019, Chapter 10 in this Volume). Estimates suggest that a more accurate count one that includes rats, mice, and birds brings the number closer to 25 million total animals used in the United States (Humane Society of the United States, 2013). These numbers raise many questions, not least of which is whether this prac­ tice is prima facie immoral. But this is not the broader question that I address in this chapter. Instead, I look at the continued use of animals for experiments from the point of view of business ethics, in particular, through the lens of stakeholder theory. Specifically, I argue that animals as research subjects are stakeholders in the corporations that practice animal experimentation, and this status demands that their interests be considered with the interests of other stakeholders. Importantly, while this chapter discusses issues of interest to a broader phi­ losophy audience, it is, nonetheless, situated in a volume whose purpose is, in part, to motivate practical paradigm change in the way that animal advocates think about their work. Not unlike other scholars, my own work is shaped by my personal experiences: I am a philosopher by training and an animal advocate outside the walls of the academy, so my concern for animals is both theoretical and pragmatic. As such, the practical import of this chapter speaks most obvi­ ously to people like me, i.e., advocates who are also academics. In particular,","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124666276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Increasing the Transparency of Animal Experimentation: An Australian Perspective","authors":"Monika Merkes, Rob Buttrose","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_010","url":null,"abstract":"It has been argued that citizen stakeholders would be well served by greater transparency. The Transparency Register of the European Union (eu) (2016), for example, states that “Transparency is [...] a key part of encouraging European citizens to participate more actively in the democratic life of the eu”. But why is transparency in non-human animal (hereinafter referred to as animal) research desirable, or indeed vital? Hadley (2012) argues that the public finance much animal research but do not know what impact their taxes and donations have on animals. Furthermore, he suggests that, since “people enjoy the benefits of animal research when they consume pharmaceuticals or undergo surgical procedures that prolong or improve the quality of their lives, it seems reasonable to inform them of the costs to animals for which their consumer choices are to some extent causally responsible” (Hadley, 2012, p. 105). Good governance is another reason for transparency in animal research. Thus, McLeod and Hobson-West suggest that one of the key themes “in the science governance literature is the linking of transparency and public trust (or mistrust)” (2015, p. 792). Varga et al. concur that “more transparency will increase","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128519767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Wasted Money in United States Biomedical and Agricultural Animal Research","authors":"J. Keen","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_011","url":null,"abstract":"Biomedical and agricultural animal research uses millions of experimental animals and dozens of animal species each year by choice, precedent, or regu­ latory mandate in basic and applied life science research and toxicity testing of drugs, chemicals, and consumer products. Animal research is a large compo­ nent of the international us$270 billion government-subsidized, biomedical industrial ecosystem (Chakma et al., 2014). In the United States (us) and pre­ sumably elsewhere, about half of these funds support animal research and testing (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2012 ). Each year at least 115 million experimental animals (mostly mice and likely a sig­ nificant underestimate) are used worldwide (Akhtar, 2015). The status quo ani­ mal research environment provides \"ecosystem services\" to a large number of inter-dependent \"species\", including governments, academia, biotechnology, agri-food and pharmaceutical industries, and publishers. Losers in this system are the conscripted animals (for \"labor\") and taxpayers (for \"capital\"). Animal research squanders precious public and private monies directly, in­ directly, by opportunity cost, and by unintended negative consequences. There is no doubt that biomedical and agricultural animal research have delivered societal dividends. Nevertheless, the questionable benefit-cost ratio and the unquestionable negative repercussions of animal research are enormous for taxpayers, patients, and the public at large. Precise animal research investments and attendant waste are impossible to ascertain, in part because the research community and the us government obfuscate financial and animal use data. However, estimated us tax dollars wasted on animal use in biomedical and","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131296098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recent Developments in Alternatives to Animal Testing","authors":"Katy Taylor","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_025","url":null,"abstract":"At least 115 million animals are thought to be used for scientific purposes every year, worldwide (Taylor et al., 2008). Animals are typically used to test whether an intervention will cause harm to humans or other animals of the same or different species, i.e. safety testing; or whether it will work, i.e. efficacy test­ ing. Interventions can include testing substances (such as cosmetic products, industrial chemicals, drugs, pesticides, food additives, and biocides ); medical devices; surgical techniques; environmental changes; or other ways of altering the physiology and/or behavior of a live animal. Safety testing is highly regu­ lated and is often done after any efficacy testing, if necessary, to finally check that an intervention is safe for humans and/or other animals to use. Efficacy testing is less formalized and often occurs in universities as ideas are tested in live animals as a \"proof of concept\", often prior to the development of actual interventions to help humans or other animals. Methods that replace techniques that use live animals, or methods of test­ ing substances without live animal use, are known as alternatives, replacements or non-animal methods. Some prefer the term advanced technologies given the fact that they often rely on more sophisticated technology and are more hu­ man-relevant than the animal test they replace (see Langley et al., 2015). There have been efforts to replace animal tests since the 1960s. Significant progress initially came in replacing animals used to diagnose human disease; to produce biological drugs ( such as vaccines); and to safety test batches of these drugs as they were produced. Concerns about safety were the initial driver for this, as drugs produced using animal material could be contaminated with animal diseases. However, cost, efficiency, and the need for swifter and more accurate predictions also played a part. Some of the earliest replacements are, in fact, no longer referred to as such, as they are now standard practice. For example, the","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132002044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How Can the Final Goal of Completely Replacing Animal Procedures Successfully Be Achieved?","authors":"Christiane Baumgartl-Simons, Christiane D. Hohensee","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_004","url":null,"abstract":"2373. [ online] Available at: https:/ /www.mattek.com/reference-library/ identification-of-endocrine-disruptors-using-an-organotypic-vaginal-tissue­ model/ [Accessed 6 August 2017 ]. Ayehunie, S., Landry, T., Hayden, P. and Klausner M. ( 2016 ). Pre-validation of in vitro in vivo assays for vaginal irritation. In: Society of Toxicology 2016 Annual Meeting. [ online] Available at: https:/ /www.mattek.com/join-us-at-sot-2016/ [ Accessed 6 August 2017 ] . Baumgartl-Simons, C. (2017). Das Ende muss endlich wirksam verfolgt werden. Tierrechte, 02, p. 4. [ online] Available at: https:/ /www.tierrechte.de/images/stories/ Presse_und_Magazin_Tierrechte/Magazin_2-17 _.pdf [ Accessed nJanuary 2018] . BfR(2017a) .NationalerAusschussTierschutzgesetz-EJR. [ online ]Availableat:http:/ /www .bfr.bund.de/ de/nationaler_ausschuss_tierschutzgesetz.html [ Accessed 2 August 2017] . Kathrin Herrmann and Kimberley Jayne 978-90-04-39119-2 Downloaded from Brill.com11 /11 /2019 09:57:0BPM via free access 116 BAUMGARTL-SIMONS AND HOHENSEE BfR (2017b). Fragen und Antworten zum Deutschen Zentrum zum Schutz von Versuch­ stieren (B/3R). [ online] Available at: http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/fragen-und­ antworten-zum-deutschen-zentrum-zum-schutz-von-versuchstieren-bf3r.pdf [ Accessed 4 August 2017 ] . BMBF (20n). Bekanntmachung des Bundesministeriums far Bi/dung und Forschung von Richtlinien zur Forderung ,,e:Bio lnnovationswettbewerb Systembiologie\" Vom 17. Dezember 2010. [ online] Available at: https:/ /www.bmbf.de/foerderungen/ bekanntmachung.php?B=6o8 [ Accessed 4 August 2017 ] . BMBF (2015a). Bekanntmachung des Bundesministeriumsfar Bildung und Forschung von Richtlinien zur Forderung der \"Multilateralen Zusammenarbeit in Computational Neuroscience: Deutsch/and USA Israel Frankreich\" Vom 16. Juli 2015. [ online] Available at: https:/ /www.bmbf.de/foerderungen/bekanntmachung-1068.html [ Accessed 4 August 2017 ] . BMBF ( 2015b ). Bekanntmachung: Richtlinie zur Forderung von ''Altemativmethoden zum Tierversuch': Bundesanzeiger vom 24.12.2015. [ online] Available at: https:/ /www. bmbf.de/foerderungen/bekanntmachung.php?B=n24 [ Accessed 6 August 2017 ] . BMBF ( 2016). Lebenswissenschaftliche GrundlagenforschungALtemativenzum Tierver­ such. [ online] Available at: https:/ /www.bmbf.de/de/altemativen-zum-tierversuch -412.html [ Accessed 6 August 2017 ] . Buchmann Institute for Molecular Life Sciences (2017). BMLS Drug Delivery and 3R-models. [ online] Available at: https:/ /www.bmls.de/Drug_Delivery_and-3R­ Models/people.html [Accessed 6 August 2017 ] . Bundesministerium fiir Justiz und Verbraucherschutz ( 2017 ) . §46 TierSch Vers VEinzel­ norm. [ online] Available at: http://www.gesetze-im-intemet.de/tierschversv/_46. html [ Accessed 4 August 2017 ] . Bundesministerium fiir Wirtschaft und Energie (2017). Forderdatenbank Inhalts­ verzeichnis. [ online] Available at: http://www.foerderdatenbank.de/Foerder-DB/ Navigation/Foerderrecherche/inhaltsverzeichnis.html?get=ea6079646dcbaffo","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114175529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Potential of Organ on Chip Technology for Replacing Animal Testing","authors":"M. Wilkinson","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_027","url":null,"abstract":"The term organ on a chip is used to describe the latest stage of development of in vitro cell culture technology. Figure 26.1 shows its steady development since the 1960s. Each step forward has improved our ability to model human-clinical response to new drugs or therapies and has enabled safety risk assessment of existing cosmetics, personal care products, or other chemicals in the environ­ ment. Scientific evidence that the predictive power of in vitro tests is superior to the use of animals will trigger a major shift in the way that medical research, in many areas, is carried out. In this emerging field, some researchers also refer to organ on a chip as a microphysiological system. As yet, there are few agreed upon standards or definitions for the latest developments .","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124443084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}