Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_013
M. Cojocaru, Philipp von Gall
The fact that countries all over the world continue to develop new regula tions for experimentation on non-human animals testament that this prac tice raises many doubts. Our aim in this chapter is to show that one important type of doubt should receive more attention: a particular type of moral doubt that could play a pivotal role in the ethical review of animal experiments. We assume that there are a range of emotions that indicate morally complex or problematic situations. When one or all of these emotions are experienced, we say that someone is experiencing moral doubt. To illustrate this point, we introduce the concept of moral doubt in the context of review processes, as they are legally required in the European Union (Eu). Independent evaluation committees review animal research proposals to advise competent authorities whether applications for animal experiments comply with the legal standards. We chose the case of Germany as an example to explain what these commit tees decide upon and the degree to which their decisions may be influenced by emotions. We develop the argument that acknowledging emotional moral doubt throughout the review process, in specific ways, may have the positive effect of fostering paradigm change in animal experimentation, as envisioned in Directive 2010/63/EU (European Parliament, 2010 ).
{"title":"Beyond Plausibility Checks: A Case for Moral Doubt in Review Processes of Animal Experimentation","authors":"M. Cojocaru, Philipp von Gall","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_013","url":null,"abstract":"The fact that countries all over the world continue to develop new regula tions for experimentation on non-human animals testament that this prac tice raises many doubts. Our aim in this chapter is to show that one important type of doubt should receive more attention: a particular type of moral doubt that could play a pivotal role in the ethical review of animal experiments. We assume that there are a range of emotions that indicate morally complex or problematic situations. When one or all of these emotions are experienced, we say that someone is experiencing moral doubt. To illustrate this point, we introduce the concept of moral doubt in the context of review processes, as they are legally required in the European Union (Eu). Independent evaluation committees review animal research proposals to advise competent authorities whether applications for animal experiments comply with the legal standards. We chose the case of Germany as an example to explain what these commit tees decide upon and the degree to which their decisions may be influenced by emotions. We develop the argument that acknowledging emotional moral doubt throughout the review process, in specific ways, may have the positive effect of fostering paradigm change in animal experimentation, as envisioned in Directive 2010/63/EU (European Parliament, 2010 ).","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"17 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":"131372507","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_006
E. McIvor
The ambition of the paradigm shift we seek is vast, and the obstacles we face are intractable. For anyone opposing the use of non-human animals (herein after referred to as animals) in research and testing, the story has been the same from the start. Legitimate concern for animals has been all-too-easily dismissed as misguided sentimentality, and powerful vested interests have claimed scientific, economic, and moral superiority. But the ground is shifting. Animal researchers accept the need to provide scientific justification for their choices, and the protection of animals is increasingly recognized as a public good. Concern among citizens has been translated into hard-and-fast rules, and scientific advances have added weight to the growing demand for change. In deciding how best to achieve the paradigm shift, the question for animal advocates is how to create the greatest change in the shortest time possible. This chapter deals with political campaigning at the European Union (Eu) level, since the adoption of the first Eu Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, and focuses on the main political developments of the past two decades. Historically, much was made of a perceived choice between presenting ethical or scientific arguments; both are powerful drivers, providing evidence that existing practice is flawed. Other chapters in this Vol ume describe aspects of those approaches in detail; similarly, the question of whether to focus on the 3Rs or replacement only is also covered elsewhere. In this chapter, a pragmatic policy focus is necessary to explore how scientific and ethical objectives can be pursued in order to move forward in the politi cal arena, making full use of existing structures and creating new opportuni ties. The stakes are high. Our vision requires a revolution in science and in the way animals are treated. Twenty-first century technology should not depend on inhumane practices, just as modern economies should not depend on the destruction of the environment or the exploitation of workers.
{"title":"Political Campaigning: Where Scientific and Ethical Arguments Meet Public Policy","authors":"E. McIvor","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_006","url":null,"abstract":"The ambition of the paradigm shift we seek is vast, and the obstacles we face are intractable. For anyone opposing the use of non-human animals (herein after referred to as animals) in research and testing, the story has been the same from the start. Legitimate concern for animals has been all-too-easily dismissed as misguided sentimentality, and powerful vested interests have claimed scientific, economic, and moral superiority. But the ground is shifting. Animal researchers accept the need to provide scientific justification for their choices, and the protection of animals is increasingly recognized as a public good. Concern among citizens has been translated into hard-and-fast rules, and scientific advances have added weight to the growing demand for change. In deciding how best to achieve the paradigm shift, the question for animal advocates is how to create the greatest change in the shortest time possible. This chapter deals with political campaigning at the European Union (Eu) level, since the adoption of the first Eu Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, and focuses on the main political developments of the past two decades. Historically, much was made of a perceived choice between presenting ethical or scientific arguments; both are powerful drivers, providing evidence that existing practice is flawed. Other chapters in this Vol ume describe aspects of those approaches in detail; similarly, the question of whether to focus on the 3Rs or replacement only is also covered elsewhere. In this chapter, a pragmatic policy focus is necessary to explore how scientific and ethical objectives can be pursued in order to move forward in the politi cal arena, making full use of existing structures and creating new opportuni ties. The stakes are high. Our vision requires a revolution in science and in the way animals are treated. Twenty-first century technology should not depend on inhumane practices, just as modern economies should not depend on the destruction of the environment or the exploitation of workers.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"6 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":"127753767","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_003
R. Greek, Lisa A. Kramer
Over time, the interpretation of science has occasionally been corrupted by vested interest groups, be they financially motivated or ego driven. Scientific consensus and widespread public beliefs usually catch up with the evidence, but this can take a very long time and often costs lives. The use of non-human animals in biomedical research and testing is a scientific endeavor and, as such, can and should be evaluated in light of the best science currently available. But facts that have been accepted in all areas of science are routinely ignored or called into question by well-funded, vested interest groups, compromising the scientific integrity of biomedical research. History is replete with examples of practices deemed scientifically viable in one era, but later abandoned as more facts about the material universe were discovered. There are also many instances of practices being rejected by the scientific establishment, in spite of the fact that they were valid based on scientific criteria. In this chapter, we discuss why science is important in the context of animal modeling, how sci entific positions are currently evaluated through the peer-review process, and how an evaluation of the science of animal modeling should be conducted now. We reach the conclusion that, in order to formally evaluate the scientific viability of animal modeling, a debate is urgently needed with experts in the relevant fields of science reviewing pro and con arguments written in position papers.
{"title":"How to Evaluate the Science of Non-human Animal Use in Biomedical Research and Testing: A Proposed Format for Debate","authors":"R. Greek, Lisa A. Kramer","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_003","url":null,"abstract":"Over time, the interpretation of science has occasionally been corrupted by vested interest groups, be they financially motivated or ego driven. Scientific consensus and widespread public beliefs usually catch up with the evidence, but this can take a very long time and often costs lives. The use of non-human animals in biomedical research and testing is a scientific endeavor and, as such, can and should be evaluated in light of the best science currently available. But facts that have been accepted in all areas of science are routinely ignored or called into question by well-funded, vested interest groups, compromising the scientific integrity of biomedical research. History is replete with examples of practices deemed scientifically viable in one era, but later abandoned as more facts about the material universe were discovered. There are also many instances of practices being rejected by the scientific establishment, in spite of the fact that they were valid based on scientific criteria. In this chapter, we discuss why science is important in the context of animal modeling, how sci entific positions are currently evaluated through the peer-review process, and how an evaluation of the science of animal modeling should be conducted now. We reach the conclusion that, in order to formally evaluate the scientific viability of animal modeling, a debate is urgently needed with experts in the relevant fields of science reviewing pro and con arguments written in position papers.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"25 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":"131795517","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_019
Kathy Archibald, Robert Coleman, T. Drake
Animal safety testing for new medicines is arguably the most difficult use of non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) to challenge, for two reasons: first, it is required by governments (regulatory testing); second, pro tecting patients is a vital goal, and it seems intuitively obvious that animal tests must protect patients. Animal testing became institutionalized in the mid twentieth century (Parke, 1994) in response to early drug disasters, with the aim of preventing further tragedies. However, even the laudable aim of protecting patients cannot justify animal testing, unless it is the most effec tive means to ensure the safety of medicines. European Union (EU) law (Euro pean Parliament, 2010, Directive 2010/63/EU) states that animals must not be used if a non-animal method could achieve the same purpose. So, it is crucial to know how well animal tests predict the safety of medicines, and whether any other methods are equally or more predictive. In addition to the question of predictive value, other important issues must also be taken into consider ation, including the efficiency of different methods in terms of time and costs; and the ethical acceptability of using animals, if their use is deemed to be of irreplaceable value. The issue of whether animals should be used as human surrogates for safety testing is highly contentious; individual views range from no use of animals
{"title":"Replacing Animal Tests to Improve Safety for Humans","authors":"Kathy Archibald, Robert Coleman, T. Drake","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_019","url":null,"abstract":"Animal safety testing for new medicines is arguably the most difficult use of non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) to challenge, for two reasons: first, it is required by governments (regulatory testing); second, pro tecting patients is a vital goal, and it seems intuitively obvious that animal tests must protect patients. Animal testing became institutionalized in the mid twentieth century (Parke, 1994) in response to early drug disasters, with the aim of preventing further tragedies. However, even the laudable aim of protecting patients cannot justify animal testing, unless it is the most effec tive means to ensure the safety of medicines. European Union (EU) law (Euro pean Parliament, 2010, Directive 2010/63/EU) states that animals must not be used if a non-animal method could achieve the same purpose. So, it is crucial to know how well animal tests predict the safety of medicines, and whether any other methods are equally or more predictive. In addition to the question of predictive value, other important issues must also be taken into consider ation, including the efficiency of different methods in terms of time and costs; and the ethical acceptability of using animals, if their use is deemed to be of irreplaceable value. The issue of whether animals should be used as human surrogates for safety testing is highly contentious; individual views range from no use of animals","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"14 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":"133328403","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_021
J. Pippin, Sarah E. Cavanaugh, F. Pistollato
Perhaps the most impactful and foreboding development in chronic diseas es in recent decades has been the increasing prevalence and awareness of dementia. The various dementias, especially Alzheimer disease (AD), have de railed and ended the lives of tens of millions in America and worldwide. It is a truism that AD patients die twice. First the mind dies, and only later does the body. AD uniquely and unremittingly affects not only patients, but their families, caregivers, and communities. In recent years, AD may have displaced cancer as the most feared disease among Americans. As with other diseases that have no meaningful methods for prevention and treatment, research tar geting AD has primarily focused on preclinical approaches, predominantly us ing animals. Nonetheless, decades of animal research have failed to translate into significant advances in the prevention or treatment of AD. In view of this failure, a different and human-relevant approach is critically needed.
{"title":"Animal Research for Alzheimer Disease: Failures of Science and Ethics","authors":"J. Pippin, Sarah E. Cavanaugh, F. Pistollato","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_021","url":null,"abstract":"Perhaps the most impactful and foreboding development in chronic diseas es in recent decades has been the increasing prevalence and awareness of dementia. The various dementias, especially Alzheimer disease (AD), have de railed and ended the lives of tens of millions in America and worldwide. It is a truism that AD patients die twice. First the mind dies, and only later does the body. AD uniquely and unremittingly affects not only patients, but their families, caregivers, and communities. In recent years, AD may have displaced cancer as the most feared disease among Americans. As with other diseases that have no meaningful methods for prevention and treatment, research tar geting AD has primarily focused on preclinical approaches, predominantly us ing animals. Nonetheless, decades of animal research have failed to translate into significant advances in the prevention or treatment of AD. In view of this failure, a different and human-relevant approach is critically needed.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"24 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":"122216337","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_026
F. Noor
{"title":"The Changing Paradigm in Preclinical Toxicology: in vitro and in silico Methods in Liver Toxicity Evaluations","authors":"F. Noor","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_026","url":null,"abstract":"","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":"121124277","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_029
T. Hartung
Experiments involving non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) were the predominant technology in the life sciences from the 1920s to the 1970s. Increasingly, animal-based procedures have been complemented and superseded by other approaches; yet, they still have an enormous reputation as an apparent definitive answer to many scientific and, especially, regulatory questions. They have been questioned first for ethical reasons: Can we justify making animals suffer for scientific inquiry? Simply said, people have different views on this question, but the general public views animal experimentation more and more critically. The animal research community has sought a com promise between those who would like to see the end to the use of animals sooner rather than later, and those who think animal research is indispensable. The societal response has included regulation and oversight of animal experi ments ( e.g., requiring formal justifications and permission), as well as support for the development of alternative methods.
{"title":"Research and Testing Without Animals: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading?","authors":"T. Hartung","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_029","url":null,"abstract":"Experiments involving non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) were the predominant technology in the life sciences from the 1920s to the 1970s. Increasingly, animal-based procedures have been complemented and superseded by other approaches; yet, they still have an enormous reputation as an apparent definitive answer to many scientific and, especially, regulatory questions. They have been questioned first for ethical reasons: Can we justify making animals suffer for scientific inquiry? Simply said, people have different views on this question, but the general public views animal experimentation more and more critically. The animal research community has sought a com promise between those who would like to see the end to the use of animals sooner rather than later, and those who think animal research is indispensable. The societal response has included regulation and oversight of animal experi ments ( e.g., requiring formal justifications and permission), as well as support for the development of alternative methods.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"30 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":"126164946","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_024
V. Bones, Rita Garcia, G. Alves, R. L. Paixão, A. A. Rocha, Karynn Capilé, R. Bachinski
{"title":"Humane Education: The Tool for Scientific Revolution in Brazil","authors":"V. Bones, Rita Garcia, G. Alves, R. L. Paixão, A. A. Rocha, Karynn Capilé, R. Bachinski","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_024","url":null,"abstract":"","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":"116811607","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_017
Constança Carvalho, D. Alves, A. Knight, Luís Vicente
Since the second half of the twentieth century, non-human animals (herein after referred to as animals) have been widely used as models for researching human disorders. Historically, this occurred for two main reasons: a) animals are complex living systems; and b) it is considered less ethically-contentious as well as easier, quicker, and cheaper to use animals than humans. Their ben efit for biomedical advancement is assumed even though systematic evalua tions, though uncommon, suggest otherwise. It is crucial to evaluate whether animal-based biomedical research successfully benefits medical research even through indirect pathways-or if it is being used merely to justify further animal-based research. In this chapter we demonstrate that there is a lack of communication between animal-based research and clinical research. We dis cuss possible reasons for this and reflect on whether animal use in biomedical research is, indeed, fulfilling its primary purpose. Humans share a long evolutionary story with the rest of the animal king dom, which explains common physiological and behavioral traits and ad aptations. For example, basal ganglia, a set of subcortical nuclei involved in
{"title":"Is Animal-based Biomedical Research Being Used in Its Original Context?","authors":"Constança Carvalho, D. Alves, A. Knight, Luís Vicente","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_017","url":null,"abstract":"Since the second half of the twentieth century, non-human animals (herein after referred to as animals) have been widely used as models for researching human disorders. Historically, this occurred for two main reasons: a) animals are complex living systems; and b) it is considered less ethically-contentious as well as easier, quicker, and cheaper to use animals than humans. Their ben efit for biomedical advancement is assumed even though systematic evalua tions, though uncommon, suggest otherwise. It is crucial to evaluate whether animal-based biomedical research successfully benefits medical research even through indirect pathways-or if it is being used merely to justify further animal-based research. In this chapter we demonstrate that there is a lack of communication between animal-based research and clinical research. We dis cuss possible reasons for this and reflect on whether animal use in biomedical research is, indeed, fulfilling its primary purpose. Humans share a long evolutionary story with the rest of the animal king dom, which explains common physiological and behavioral traits and ad aptations. For example, basal ganglia, a set of subcortical nuclei involved in","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"7 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":"125585164","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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_020
Jarrod Bailey
The scientific method demands a willingness to correct and integrate previ ous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence and subject to laws of reasoning; yet, it has scarcely been applied to non-human animal (hereinafter referred to as animal) research. Nevertheless, animal use in science started declining in the mid 1970s, at least in the United King dom, resulting in a drop in the number of animals used approaching 50% be tween the mid-197os and mid 1980s (uK Home Office, 2016)-perhaps a tacit admission of problematic species differences that render animals poor models for humans. This trend was, however, reversed with the advent of genetically modified (GM) animals, animals whose genetic material has been deliberately altered in some way by insertion, deletion, or substitution of DNA. While the decline in use of non-GM animals continued steeply well into the new millen nium, overall numbers have been rising for some time, solely due to increased utilization of GM animals ( Ormandy, Schuppli and Weary, 2009 ). UK statistics for 2015 show that more than two million procedures involved the creation and breeding of GM animals, who were not subsequently used in further research (around 50% of the total); and there were 720,000 procedures on GM animals in further experiments, representing 35°/o of the total animals used in actual experiments (Hendriksen and Spielmann, 2014; UK Home Office, 2016). Trends in GM animal use for the rest of the world are difficult to determine due to different reporting requirements, but they are likely to be similar, with up to 50% of the approximately 13 million animals used annually in research in the European Union (Eu) (Taylor and Rego, 2016), and the estimated 115 million animals used globally (Taylor et al., 2008). This chapter aims to summarize and analyze this shift in the use of animals in experiments and, without being overly technical, to ask critically why GM
{"title":"Genetic Modification of Animals: Scientific and Ethical Issues","authors":"Jarrod Bailey","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_020","url":null,"abstract":"The scientific method demands a willingness to correct and integrate previ ous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence and subject to laws of reasoning; yet, it has scarcely been applied to non-human animal (hereinafter referred to as animal) research. Nevertheless, animal use in science started declining in the mid 1970s, at least in the United King dom, resulting in a drop in the number of animals used approaching 50% be tween the mid-197os and mid 1980s (uK Home Office, 2016)-perhaps a tacit admission of problematic species differences that render animals poor models for humans. This trend was, however, reversed with the advent of genetically modified (GM) animals, animals whose genetic material has been deliberately altered in some way by insertion, deletion, or substitution of DNA. While the decline in use of non-GM animals continued steeply well into the new millen nium, overall numbers have been rising for some time, solely due to increased utilization of GM animals ( Ormandy, Schuppli and Weary, 2009 ). UK statistics for 2015 show that more than two million procedures involved the creation and breeding of GM animals, who were not subsequently used in further research (around 50% of the total); and there were 720,000 procedures on GM animals in further experiments, representing 35°/o of the total animals used in actual experiments (Hendriksen and Spielmann, 2014; UK Home Office, 2016). Trends in GM animal use for the rest of the world are difficult to determine due to different reporting requirements, but they are likely to be similar, with up to 50% of the approximately 13 million animals used annually in research in the European Union (Eu) (Taylor and Rego, 2016), and the estimated 115 million animals used globally (Taylor et al., 2008). This chapter aims to summarize and analyze this shift in the use of animals in experiments and, without being overly technical, to ask critically why GM","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"69 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":"131208018","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：