Activity of leukocyte alkaline phosphatase in some internal diseases.

S. Kotlarek-Haus

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

An international perspective on ethics approval in animal behaviour and welfare research

I. Anna S. Olsson,Birte L. Nielsen,Irene Camerlink,Péter Pongrácz,Huw D.R. Golledge,Jen-Yun Chou,Maria Camila Ceballos,Alexandra L. Whittaker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105658

IF: 2.569

2022-08-01

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Abstract:Ethics assessment is essential in studies that involve animals as subjects, which includes research on animal behaviour and welfare. Although ethics review mechanisms within institutions are long established in many regions, processes may be non-uniform across different cultures, institutions, and geographical contexts. Harmonisation need not be the ultimate goal; instead, attention should be directed towards ways of improving ethics assessment with an animal-centred focus. Moreover, applied animal behaviour and welfare research sometimes involves human subjects (e.g., animal owners, farmers, caretakers, and consumers), the ethics of which is scarcely discussed. The International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE) has developed and revised its ethics guidelines to be applied to research articles submitted to the Society’s journal and conferences, and acknowledges the need to address this increasingly contentious issue from a global perspective. At the 2021 ISAE Annual Congress, a workshop on the ethical challenges in animal behaviour and welfare research was held twice. Participants (N ≈ 70) from several continents were presented with hypothetical research cases outlining different ethics scenarios. These scenarios were discussed in small groups, with each participant contributing experiences from their respective countries. More questions than answers were generated, and the mere action of involving researchers from different scientific cultures in a conversation is an important step towards greater insight and transparency. Significant variability in local ethics review requirements across jurisdictions was revealed. However, by focussing on improving transparency of reporting for both animal and human involvement in studies, particularly in the ethics statement and procedure description, ethics assessment by reviewers and editors can be enhanced. There is a need for continued dialogue on ethics within the animal behaviour and welfare research community.

agriculture, dairy & animal science,veterinary sciences,behavioral sciences
Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare

Gail F. Davies,Beth J Greenhough,Pru Hobson-West,Robert G. W. Kirk,Ken Applebee,Laura C. Bellingan,Manuel Berdoy,Henry Buller,Helen J. Cassaday,Keith Davies,Daniela Diefenbacher,Tone Druglitrø,Maria Paula Escobar,Carrie Friese,Kathrin Herrmann,Amy Hinterberger,Wendy J. Jarrett,Kimberley Jayne,Adam M. Johnson,Elizabeth R. Johnson,Timm Konold,Matthew C. Leach,Sabina Leonelli,David I. Lewis,Elliot J. Lilley,Emma R. Longridge,Carmen M. McLeod,Mara Miele,Nicole C. Nelson,Elisabeth H. Ormandy,Helen Pallett,Lonneke Poort,Pandora Pound,Edmund Ramsden,Emma Roe,Helen Scalway,Astrid Schrader,Chris J. Scotton,Cheryl L. Scudamore,Jane A. Smith,Lucy Whitfield,Sarah Wolfensohn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158791

IF: 3.7

2016-07-18

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

multidisciplinary sciences
Relevance, Impartiality, Welfare and Consent: Principles of an Animal-Centered Research Ethics

Clara Mancini,Eleonora Nannoni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.800186

2022-04-25

Frontiers in Animal Science

Abstract:The principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (3Rs) were developed to address the ethical dilemma that arises from the use of animals, without their consent, in procedures that may harm them but that are deemed necessary to achieve a greater good. While aiming to protect animals, the 3Rs are underpinned by a process-centered ethical perspective which regards them as instruments in a scientific apparatus. This paper explores the applicability of an animal-centered ethics to animal research, whereby animals would be regarded as autonomous subjects, legitimate stakeholders in and contributors to a research process, with their own interests and capable of consenting and dissenting to their involvement. This perspective derives from the ethical stance taken within the field of Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI), where researchers acknowledge that an animal-centered approach is essential to ensuring the best research outcomes. We propose the ethical principles of relevance, impartiality, welfare and consent , and a scoring system to help researchers and delegated authorities assess the extent to which a research procedure aligns with them. This could help researchers determine when being involved in research is indeed in an animal's best interests, when a procedure could be adjusted to increase its ethical standard or when the use of non-animal methods is more urgently advisable. We argue that the proposed principles should complement the 3Rs within an integrated ethical framework that recognizes animals' autonomy, interests and role, for a more nuanced ethical approach and for supporting the best possible research for the benefit animal partakers and wider society.

English Else
Animal research nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health and animal welfare

Gail Davies,Richard Gorman,Beth Greenhough,Pru Hobson-West,Robert G W Kirk,Reuben Message,Dmitriy Myelnikov,Alexandra Palmer,Emma Roe,Vanessa Ashall,Bentley Crudgington,Renelle McGlacken,Sara Peres,Tess Skidmore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2019-011778

2020-02-19

Medical Humanities

Abstract:Animals used in biological research and testing have become integrated into the trajectories of modern biomedicine, generating increased expectations for and connections between human and animal health. Animal research also remains controversial and its acceptability is contingent on a complex network of relations and assurances across science and society, which are both formally constituted through law and informal or assumed. In this paper, we propose these entanglements can be studied through an approach that understands animal research as a nexus spanning the domains of science, health and animal welfare. We introduce this argument through, first, outlining some key challenges in UK debates around animal research, and second, reviewing the way nexus concepts have been used to connect issues in environmental research. Third, we explore how existing social sciences and humanities scholarship on animal research tends to focus on different aspects of the connections between scientific research, human health and animal welfare, which we suggest can be combined in a nexus approach. In the fourth section, we introduce our collaborative research on the animal research nexus, indicating how this approach can be used to study the history, governance and changing sensibilities around UK laboratory animal research. We suggest the attention to complex connections in nexus approaches can be enriched through conversations with the social sciences and medical humanities in ways that deepen appreciation of the importance of path-dependency and contingency, inclusion and exclusion in governance and the affective dimension to research. In conclusion, we reflect on the value of nexus thinking for developing research that is interdisciplinary, interactive and reflexive in understanding how accounts of the histories and current relations of animal research have significant implications for how scientific practices, policy debates and broad social contracts around animal research are being remade today.
The Emergence and Development of Animal Research Ethics: A Review with a Focus on Nonhuman Primates

Gardar Arnason

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00219-z

IF: 3.777

2020-04-29

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:Abstract The ethics of using nonhuman animals in biomedical research is usually seen as a subfield of animal ethics. In recent years, however, the ethics of animal research has increasingly become a subfield within research ethics under the term “animal research ethics”. Consequently, ethical issues have become prominent that are familiar in the context of human research ethics, such as autonomy or self-determination, harms and benefits, justice, and vulnerability. After a brief overview of the development of the field and a discussion of relevant theoretical ethical frameworks, I consider two of these issues, namely autonomy and self-determination on the one hand, and harms and benefits on the other hand. My concern is with philosophical and ethical issues, rather than animal research oversight. I focus my discussion on nonhuman primates, as the most plausible nonhuman candidates for this approach. I conclude that the approach, although promising, depends strongly on the moral status of nonhuman research subjects.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Ethics and Controversies in Animal Subjects Research and Impact on Clinical Decision-Making

Michael Balls,Jarrod Bailey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2024.03.003

Abstract:The harm inflicted on animals in biomedical research is justified, by those who accept it, by weighing it against proposed benefits for humans, but these are underappreciated and overstated, respectively. Clinical translation is poor due to interspecies and intraspecies differences, hindering the understanding of diseases and the development of safe and effective new human drugs. An urgent shift away from animal use toward human-focused new approach methodologies would enable human diversity to be factored more effectively into clinical practice. From an ethical perspective, more needs to be done to facilitate and encourage biomedical research to have a human focus throughout.
Culture of care in animal research – Expanding the 3Rs to include people

Fabienne Ferrara,Bernhard Hiebl,Peter Kunzmann,Florian Hutter,Freni Afkham,Megan LaFollette,Christian Gruber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772221102238

2022-06-29

Laboratory Animals

Abstract:Laboratory Animals, Ahead of Print. Research on animals is essential for science and medical progress. While it is still necessary to conduct this research, it is essential to apply the highest standards in animal welfare, including animal husbandry and care. Furthermore, it is important to recognize the special relationship between research animals and the people who care for them. Caring for research animals can be extremely fulfilling and meaningful, but it also comes with challenges, particularly when caring for animals experiencing pain or distress. These challenges can lead to work-related mental stress. To get more insight into the challenges of working in animal research, we organized a panel discussion at the GV-SOLAS (German Society for Laboratory Animal Science) and IGTP (Interest Group Animal Caretakers) conference 2021 about work wellbeing. This discussion was the first of its kind in Germany. The active panel contributions included the view of an ethical philosopher, a scientist, a lecturer for laboratory animal science, an animal facility manager and an animal caretaker. They gave insights from their perspective into key factors that can affect human wellbeing in animal research. Keys ideas included stigmatization of work, tension between research aims and animal wellbeing, and the importance of supportive culture to overcome work-related strains, as well as lack of education and supportive environments to cope with emotional stress in the workplace. Overall, the discussion has shown that we must also promote human wellbeing when promoting culture of care in animal research, because there is strong relationship between culture of care and individual performance.

zoology,veterinary sciences
Public controversy and citizens' attitude formation about animal research: A case for scholarship and recommendations on conflicts at the science-society interface

Elena Link,Katharina Emde-Lachmund,Sophie Bruns,Anja Dittrich,Meike Stiesch,Axel Haverich,Stefan Treue,Christoph Klimmt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295503

IF: 3.7

2024-01-04

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Activist groups attack animal research and put scientists and their institutions under pressure, whereas scientists often remain silent. We report an interdisciplinary research project driven by a communication science perspective on how citizens respond to news reports about animal research (3 experiments, overall N = 765) and a German science-initiated information platform ("Tierversuche verstehen"; controlled user study, N = 100). Findings demonstrate that a critical journalist perspective within neutral, two-sided news reports (e.g., skeptical expert statements or images of suffering animals) does not affect citizen opinion strongly. Information media provided by scientific institutions seem to be welcomed even by citizens who hold critical prior attitudes. From these results, we develop a set of recommendations for future public communication of animal research that builds on best practices in organizational and crisis communication. These suggestions are intended to empower animal researchers to actively participate in public debate to support citizens' informed attitude formation.

multidisciplinary sciences
Ethical issues concerning animal research outside the laboratory

Lilly-Marlene Russow,Peter Theran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.44.3.187

Abstract:Unique ethical issues can be associated with research outside the customary laboratory setting. Protocols involving wild animals must consider that any infringement on the wild nature of the species can be disruptive and may involve pain, fear, anxiety, and frustration, all of which constitute ethical harm that must be balanced with anticipated benefit. Agricultural and companion animal research, however, take place in a human-engineered environment and involves domesticated species adapted to human contact. Special animal welfare issues can be related to agricultural production goals that fail to deal adequately with moral concerns. Human/companion animal relationships, on the other hand, present unique moral obligations to animal owners. Other factors may present additional ethical issues when research is performed outside the laboratory. These factors include a required sensitivity to the environment of wild animals and an awareness that this outside research may to quite public and, therefore, vulnerable to community perception. The institutional animal care and use committee(IACUC) has the responsibility to ensure that research in outside settings is ethical and properly implemented. This responsibility requires that IACUC members have knowledge of the needs of a wide range of species and that a process is in place to allow effective monitoring of research in remote locations. Finally, and most important, there must be a sensitivity to the unique ethical considerations outlined here. Armed with these strengths, the IACUC will be effective in what may be unfamiliar surroundings and will have a significant opportunity to cause improvements in animal welfare.
Remote sensing of cirrus cloud particle size and optical depth using polarimetric sensor measurements

S. Ou,K. Liou,Y. Takano,R. Slonaker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.560890

2004-10-14

Abstract:This paper presents a conceptual approach toward the remote sensing of cirrus cloud particle size and optical depth using the degree of polarization and polarized reflectance associated with the first three Stokes parameters I, Q, and U for the 0.865 and 2.25 μm wavelengths. A vector line-by-line equivalent radiative transfer program including the full Stokes parameters based on the adding method was developed. The retrieval algorithm employs the steepest descent method in the form of a series of numerical iteration procedures to search for the simulated polarization parameters that best match the measured polarization parameters. Sensitivity studies were performed to investigate the behavior of phase matrix elements as functions of scattering angles for three ice crystal size-shape combinations. Overall, each phase matrix element shows some sensitivity toward ice crystal shape, size, and suface roughness due to the various optical effects. Synthetic retrievals reveal that the retrieval algorithm itself is highly accurate, while polarimetric and radiometric error sources cause very small retrieval errors. Finally, an illustrative example of applying the retrieval algorithm to airborne POLDER data during EUCREX is presented.
Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures

David Fraser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00090-8

IF: 2.569

1999-12-01

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Abstract:Since the 1970s, scientists studying animal welfare and philosophers writing about animal ethics have worked toward the common goal of understanding and articulating our proper relationship to animals of other species. However, the two groups approached this task using such different concepts, assumptions, and vocabulary that they functioned as two distinct “cultures” with little mutual understanding or communication. Some of the best known ethical writing created barriers for scientists because it tended (1) to focus only on the level of the individual rather than making some decisions at the level of the population, ecosystem or species, (2) to advocate single ethical principles rather than balancing conflicting principles, (3) to ignore or dismiss traditional ethics based on care, responsibility, and community with animals, (4) to seek solutions through ethical theory with little recourse to empirical knowledge, (5) to lump diverse taxonomic groups into single moral categories, and (6) to propose wholesale solutions to diverse animal use practices. Meanwhile, some of the scientists alienated the ethicists by taking the view that suffering and other subjective experiences of animals are not amenable to scientific enquiry, and by the claim that science could “measure” animal welfare as if it were a purely empirical concept. However, other (often less well known) work in animal ethics creates links with animal welfare science and looks to empirical research to help resolve animal ethics issues. Some of this work (1) expresses moral concern about animals using concepts that lend themselves to scientific analysis, (2) attaches value to traditional care for and community with animals, (3) recognizes the importance of empirical analysis for discriminating between good and bad animal use practices, and (4) sees different taxonomic groups as meriting different types and levels of ethical concern. At the same time, animal welfare science has grown more compatible with the approaches used by some ethicists. Some scientists have recognized and tried to clarify the interplay of normative and empirical elements in the assessment of animal welfare, and many are attempting to understand ethically relevant subjective experiences of animals. The increasing convergence of the scientific and philosophical approaches may lead to a more integrated field of study and to a greater awareness that neither empirical information nor ethical reflection can, by itself, answer questions about our proper relationship to animals of other species.

agriculture, dairy & animal science,veterinary sciences,behavioral sciences
3Rs missing: animal research without scientific value is unethical

Daniel Strech,Ulrich Dirnagl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2018-000048

2019-05-01

BMJ Open Science

Abstract:The current, widely established 3R framework for the ethical use of animals in research consists of three guiding principles, that is, R eplacement, R eduction and R efinement, all aiming to safeguard the overarching ethical principle of animal welfare. However, animal welfare alone does not suffice to make animal research ethical if the research does not have sufficient scientific value. The scientific value of animal studies strongly decreases if they are not sufficiently robust, if their questions have already been sufficiently addressed or if the results are selectively reported. Against this background, we argue that three guiding principles are missing, that is, R obustness, R egistration and R eporting, all of which aim to safeguard and increase the scientific value of animal research. To establish a new 6R framework, we need a multistakeholder discourse to conceptualise the specific requirements of robustness, registration and reporting and to clarify responsibilities, competencies and legislation for auditing 6R compliance.
Principles of Animal Research Ethics

David DeGrazia,Tom L. Beauchamp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190939120.003.0001

2020-01-01

Abstract:The centerpiece section of this book on animal research ethics presents a new moral framework of general principles. It is preceded in the front matter by a preamble that explains the overall project in the book as well as in the sections specifically on the six principles. The centerpiece section first discusses the essential place of ethical justification in the animal research arena and then presents the framework of three principles of social benefit and three principles of animal welfare. Next it examines both the critical role played by ethics committees in a well-functioning system of ethical review of animal research and the idea of scientific necessity as a justification for harming animal subjects. The section closes with an analysis of the influential Three-Rs framework, as presented in Russell and Burch’s Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . Despite the Three Rs’ important advance in the promotion of animal welfare, it does not adequately address the costs and benefits of animal research to human beings and lacks a comprehensive program of animal-subjects protection.
The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature

Nienke de Graeff,Karin R. Jongsma,Josephine Johnston,Sarah Hartley,Annelien L. Bredenoord

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0106

2019-03-25

Abstract:In recent years, new genome editing technologies have emerged that can edit the genome of non-human animals with progressively increasing efficiency. Despite ongoing academic debate about the ethical implications of these technologies, no comprehensive overview of this debate exists. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature for and against the development and use of genome editing technologies in animals. Most included articles were written by academics from the biomedical or animal sciences. The reported reasons related to seven themes: human health, efficiency, risks and uncertainty, animal welfare, animal dignity, environmental considerations and public acceptability. Our findings illuminate several key considerations about the academic debate, including a low disciplinary diversity in the contributing academics, a scarcity of systematic comparisons of potential consequences of using these technologies, an underrepresentation of animal interests, and a disjunction between the public and academic debate on this topic. As such, this article can be considered a call for a broad range of academics to get increasingly involved in the discussion about genome editing, to incorporate animal interests and systematic comparisons, and to further discuss the aims and methods of public involvement. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The ecology and evolution of prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems’.
Expression of p63 in Reactive Hyperplasias and Malignant Lymphomas

Chan-Kum Park,Y. Oh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2005.20.5.752

2005-10-01

Journal of Korean Medical Science

Abstract:p63 is a recently described p53 homologue. It is involved in survival and differentiation of reserve/stem cells in epithelia. To obtain new insights into the role of p63 in malignant lymphomas (MLs), immunohistochemical staining for p63 and p53 was performed in 126 cases of MLs. p63 was expressed in 38 cases of MLs (30.2%) including 32/61 cases (52.5%) of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 1/8 cases (12.5%) of precursor T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LBL), 4/14 cases (28.6%) of follicular lymphoma, 1/6 cases (16.7%) of T/NK cell lymphoma. Among p63 positive cases, p63 was strongly expressed in 15/32 cases of DLBCL and 1/1 case of T-LBL. p63 was not expressed in mantle cell lymphomas, peripheral T-cell lymphomas, marginal zone B-cell lymphomas, plasma cell myelomas and Hodgkin's lymphomas. p63 was coexpressed with p53 in 18/38 p63 positive cases in which only 4 cases were strongly coexpressed. All p63+/p53+ cases were DLBCL. p63 overexpression (above 30%) cases showed significant poor survival (p=0.0228) in DLBCL. However, there was no statistically significant correlation between p63 expression and IPI score on Multivariate analysis. We could speculate that p63 could act indirectly as an oncogene by inhibiting p53 functions. Stage of differentiation of neoplastic lymphocytes appears to have a correlation with p63 expression in MLs.
[Cerebral abnormalities in members of the same family].

G. Scarcella

Abstract:
A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research

Emma Roe,Beth Greenhough

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977

2021-03-23

Abstract:Laboratory animal science represents a challenging and controversial form of human-animal relations because its practice involves the deliberate and inadvertent harming and killing of animals. Consequently, animal research has formed the focus of intense ethical concern and regulation within the UK, in order to minimize the suffering and pain experienced by those animals whose living bodies model human diseases amongst other things. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians (ATs) in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, plus insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare. In our analysis, we examine four key dimensions of care work in laboratory animal research: (i) the specific skills and sensitivities required; (ii) the role of previous experiences of animal care; (iii) the influence of institutional and affective environments and (iv) experiences of killing. We propose that different notions of care are enacted alongside, not only permitted levels of harm inflicted on research animals following research protocols, but also harms to ATs in the processes of caring and killing animals. Concluding, we argue for greater articulation of the coexistence of care and harms across debates in geography about care and human-animal relations.

geography
Legal framework on the protection, health and welfare of animals used for experimental and educational purposes

N. KOSTOMITSOPOULOS (Ν. ΚΩΣΤΟΜΗΤΣΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ),A. ARVANITI (Α. ΑΡΒΑΝΙΤΗ),X. DILE (Χ. ΔΗΛΕ),H. PAPADOPOULOS (Η. ΠΑΠΑΔΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ),V. G. PAPATSIROS (Β.Γ. ΠΑΠΑΤΣΙΡΟΣ),S. KYRIAKIS (ΚΥΡΙΑΚΗΣ Σ.Κ.)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.14991

2017-11-24

Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society

Abstract:The use of animals for experimental and educational purposes is regulated by a national legal framework in accordance to the European Directive 86/609 and the European Convention ETS 123 of the Council of Europe. Main issues regulated by the above legislation are the license procedure for the use of laboratory animals, the registration of breeding, supplying and experimental establishments, the implementation of guidelines for the appropriate care and use of the animals, the collection of statistical information and the promotion of alternative to animal experimentation methods. The veterinarian plays an important role for the protection, the health and the welfare of laboratory animals. This role is well defined within the existing legislation. The supervision of the veterinarian guarantees also the quality of the obtained results from animal experimentations. After twenty years, the scientific community and the animal welfare associations recognized the need for the revision of the existing European legal framework under the new obtained scientific knowledge. The Council of Europe has recently revised the Appendix A of the European Convention ETS 123 and the Commission of the European Union initiated the process for the revision of the European Directive 86/609. Ethical evaluation, authorization procedures and registration of establishments are, also, expected to be revised.

veterinary sciences
Why Not Phase Out Animal Experimentation? Considering Objections from Freedom of Inquiry and Cross-Border Displacement

Nico D. Müller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180124000288

2024-09-14

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Abstract:Animal experimentation raises value conflicts between animal protection and other goods, such as freedom of inquiry or health and safety. If governments can phase out the practice by non-prohibitive incentive-setting, the pro tanto moral rationale for doing so is obvious. So why should they not? This article first sketches a fictional scenario in which a government adopts a phase-out plan for animal experimentation. It then considers two moral objections to this plan: First, the plan unduly restricts freedom of inquiry, and second, it merely displaces animal experimentation across borders and thus fails to reduce animal suffering. Both arguments are refined premise by premise to articulate their strongest versions. The two objections can help to narrow down desiderata for good phase-out plans. However, they do not provide a compelling case against phase-out planning as such because they miss its incremental and constructive nature. Unless better arguments can be provided, it appears that government inaction on phasing out animal experimentation lacks moral justification.

social sciences, biomedical,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Ex vivo and in vitro methods as a platform for studying anthropogenic effects on marine mammals: four challenges and how to meet them

Juan Manuel Vazquez,Jane I. Khudyakov,Carla B. Madelaire,Céline A. Godard-Codding,Heli Routti,Emily K. Lam,Elizabeth R. Piotrowski,Greg B. Merrill,Jillian H. Wisse,Kaitlin N. Allen,Justin Conner,Pierre Blévin,Demetri D. Spyropoulos,Anders Goksøyr,José Pablo Vázquez-Medina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2024.1466968

IF: 5.247

2024-10-12

Frontiers in Marine Science

Abstract:Marine mammals are integral to global biodiversity and marine health through their roles in coastal, benthic, and pelagic ecosystems. Marine mammals face escalating threats from climate change, pollution, and human activities, which perturb their oceanic environment. The diverse biology and extreme adaptations evolved by marine mammals make them important study subjects for understanding anthropogenic pressures on marine ecosystems. However, ethical and logistical constraints restrict the tractability of experimental research with live marine mammals. Additionally, studies on the effects of changing ocean environments are further complicated by intricate gene-environment interactions across populations and species. These obstacles can be overcome with a comprehensive strategy that involves a systems-level approach integrating genotype to phenotype using rigorously defined experimental conditions in vitro and ex vivo . A thorough analysis of the interactions between the genetics of marine mammals and their exposure to anthropogenic pressures will enable robust predictions about how global environmental changes will affect their health and populations. In this perspective, we discuss four challenges of implementing such non-invasive approaches across scientific fields and international borders: 1) practical and ethical limitations of in vivo experimentation with marine mammals, 2) accessibility to relevant tissue samples and cell cultures; 3) open access to harmonized methods and datasets and 4) ethical and equitable research practices. Successful implementation of the proposed approach has the potential impact to inspire new solutions and strategies for marine conservation.

marine & freshwater biology

Activity of leukocyte alkaline phosphatase in some internal diseases.

An international perspective on ethics approval in animal behaviour and welfare research

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare

Relevance, Impartiality, Welfare and Consent: Principles of an Animal-Centered Research Ethics

Animal research nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health and animal welfare

The Emergence and Development of Animal Research Ethics: A Review with a Focus on Nonhuman Primates

Ethics and Controversies in Animal Subjects Research and Impact on Clinical Decision-Making

Culture of care in animal research – Expanding the 3Rs to include people

Public controversy and citizens' attitude formation about animal research: A case for scholarship and recommendations on conflicts at the science-society interface

Ethical issues concerning animal research outside the laboratory

Remote sensing of cirrus cloud particle size and optical depth using polarimetric sensor measurements

Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures

3Rs missing: animal research without scientific value is unethical

Principles of Animal Research Ethics

The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature

Expression of p63 in Reactive Hyperplasias and Malignant Lymphomas

[Cerebral abnormalities in members of the same family].

A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research

Legal framework on the protection, health and welfare of animals used for experimental and educational purposes

Why Not Phase Out Animal Experimentation? Considering Objections from Freedom of Inquiry and Cross-Border Displacement

Ex vivo and in vitro methods as a platform for studying anthropogenic effects on marine mammals: four challenges and how to meet them