China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Basis of Moral Standing in Debates on Defining Death, Abortion, Stem Cells, and Animal Welfare
Published in Robert M. Veatch, Laura K. Guidry-Grimes, The Basics of Bioethics, 2019
Robert M. Veatch, Laura K. Guidry-Grimes
This discussion of moral standing leads directly into another controversial issue in medicine: the moral status of nonhuman animals (Council of Europe, 2006; DeGrazia, 2002; Orlans, 1993; Palmer, 2008; Regan and Singer, 1989; Singer, 1975; Sunstein and Nussbaum, 2004). If clinicians or scientists do research or educational projects using nonhuman animals, they must confront the question of the moral limits of their use. Radical protestors destroy labs and assault medical personnel fighting over the moral status of nonhuman animals. In the United States, federal regulations control animal use carefully (U.S. National Institutes of Health, 1985, 1986; Animal Welfare Act, 1966). The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee must approve animal research just as institutional review boards must approve research on humans. The recognized status of chimpanzees has been elevated significantly in the U.S.; as of 2015, the National Institutes of Health announced that the federal government would no longer support research on chimpanzees, and they formally retired their small colony of chimps. At the same time, research on nonhuman primates has increased in recent years (Grimm, 2018).
Ethics of Research with Non-Human Animals
Published in Howard Winet, Ethics for Bioengineering Scientists, 2021
The 1981 Taub incident, and confirmed lab animal mistreatment incidents (see Case B below) convinced Congress that more direct regulation of lab animal care was necessary. The NIH had no enforcement component, so Congress strengthened the animal care regulatory link, giving enforcement power to the USDA, by 1) specifying that it monitor compliance with the new standards, and 2) attaching the new regulations to the Food Security Act (a farm bill that required funding) of 1985(Adams and Larson 2007). Important additions to the AWA, which applied to all federally funded institutions required the institution to:Establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). It must be composed of at least three members, one of which is a veterinarian and another someone unaffiliated with the institution. The members must be able to assess all use of lab animals by inspecting the animal use laboratories, vivaria, protocols and the animals themselves at least twice a year.Provide for a healthy and minimal stress environment, particularly for dogs (that must be exercised) and primates (that must be housed in a psychologically healthy cage)Limit use of each animal to one major recovery surgical experimentFollow the 3 R’s unless a clear case can be made for proposed animal use. Implementation of this approach will be aided by an information service housed in the National Agricultural Library in cooperation with the National Library of Medicine (A perspective on animal modeling may be found in a lecture at http://www.nyas.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?mid=820c2da3-f8ce-4c03–99db-b4ab75c52a4b)Train all personnel that handle lab animals in correct handling procedures
The Use of Animals in Research
Published in Rebecca A. Krimins, Learning from Disease in Pets, 2020
In North America, both the United States and Canada employ a strong emphasis on the 3Rs when approaching animal research oversight (Griffin and Locke 2016). However, while the United States has enacted two federal laws regarding animal research, Canada has no national direct legislation of animal welfare and instead relies on social contracts, emphasizing guidance and policy. While the Constitution Act 1982 forbids the Canadian government from enacting legislation if the provinces have already taken action in the matter, the federal government has taken action in three key areas involving animals in research: 1) protecting all animals in Canada from cruelty, abuse, and neglect, 2) setting regulations for testing, inspection, and quarantine activities of live animals imported into Canada, and 3) requiring research grants awarded by the government be contingent on a research institution holding a Canadian Council on Animal Care Certificate of GAP – Good Animal Practice. In contrast, the United States has enacted the Animal Welfare Act, enforced by the US Department of Agriculture, and the Health Research Extension Act, an amendment to the US Public Health Services Act that applies to any research supported by the Public Health Service, which includes the National Institutes of Health, the main federal financier of biomedical research in the United States (United States Department of Agriculture 2017; National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare 2015). While not laws, both Canada and the United States have additional published documents providing guidance on animal care and use in research: the Canadian Council on Animal Care Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals and the US Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Canadian Council on Animal Care 1993; National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare 2010). In both countries, most of the responsibility is placed on local animal care committees (Canada) and institutional animal care and use committees (US), with individual institutions responsible for reviewing proposed experiments involving animals, guaranteeing personnel training and competency, providing appropriate animal husbandry and facilities as outlined in each respective Guide, and ensuring adequate veterinary care is provided. Failure to meet acceptable standards of animal welfare can result in recension of federal funds in both countries, with additional sanctions possible in the United States under the Animal Welfare Act and other federal laws.
Human Brain Surrogates Research: The Onrushing Ethical Dilemma
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2021
The non-human animals that (1) have had their genes edited for purposes of understanding the human brain (2) have had human cells or tissues transplanted into them for that purpose, or (3) have had their brain cells revived after death, are not human beings, but that does not end the inquiry. Under U.S. law, most of them are entitled to some protection on humanitarian grounds (US National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare 2017). The Animal Welfare Act as well as Public Health Service regulations aim to protect (most) animals subject to experimentation from inappropriate pain and suffering. A committee, known under federal regulations as an “institutional animal care and use committee” (the ugly acronym is “IACUC”), must consider whether the goals of the research justify the pain, suffering, and death that will be inflicted upon laboratory animals and whether those burdens can reasonably be lessened. Unless IACUC is satisfied that the research is appropriately justified, it can, for most researchers, block their use of non-human animals in research.
Asking the Right Questions about Research with Nonhuman Primates
Published in AJOB Neuroscience, 2020
Gardar Arnason, Sara Tinnemeyer, Jens Clausen
Over the last few decades, the regulation of NHP research and animal research generally has moved closer to the demands of human research ethics. Research protocols for animal research studies must be submitted to independent review by an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) in the USA or to an animal research review authority in the EU, where a case has to be made for scientific validity, social benefit (contribution to scientific knowledge or human/nonhuman health), and a favorable risk-benefit ratio. Finally, a recent book by Tom L. Beauchamp and David DeGrazia proposes an improved ethical framework for animal research with six “principles of animal research ethics” (Beauchamp and DeGrazia 2020), which recalls the four principles of biomedical ethics (Beauchamp and Childress 2019).
Companion Animal Studies: Slipping Through a Research Oversight Gap
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2018
Rebecca L. Walker, Jill A. Fisher
In the United States, oversight of animal research is typically conducted by institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs), which are mandated both by the Animal Welfare Act and by the Public Health Service. Yet, this oversight structure generally contains features that may limit the protections that animals receive (Walker 2006). Most relevant for CALS, IACUC review, unlike in human subject research, does not require a risk–benefit analysis of individual animal research protocols (Carbone 2014). While federal funding mechanisms require assessment of the science value of the research, this is not the same as balancing potential (or actual) harms to animals with proposed benefit to animals and humans. Further, for studies that are funded by private sources—as studies like CALS are likely to be—even an impartial science value assessment may be missing. Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) requires evidence of a “rational basis” to undertake companion animal clinical trials (Hampshire 2003, 193) and subsequent reporting of any adverse experiences, but this also does not amount to a risk–benefit analysis. Further, it is unclear from the case description whether CALS falls under CVM oversight, which is applicable when drug sponsors seek approval for a new animal drug application.