Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research

DeGrazia, David; Sebo, Jeff

doi:10.1017/s0963180115000080

Cited by 27 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of research, we recommend that the relevance to humans of pre-clinical animal research is systematically evaluated,[ 73 ] an undertaking that the UK government’s chief scientific advisor also regards as important. In his 2016 lecture to the animal research community, he asked: ‘To what extent have we as a community, ever subjected our claims about how vital animal research has been to human health to the same level of scrutiny we’d apply to those claiming to have discovered a new cure?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

Pound

Nicol

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.Objectivesi. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.MethodsData on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal corticosteroids for neonatal respiratory distress and thrombolytics for stroke). Clinical relevance was also explored in terms of current clinical practice. Harms were categorised for severity using an expert panel. The quality of the research and its impact were considered. Bateson’s Cube was used to conduct the HBA.ResultsThe most common assessment of animal harms by the expert panel was ‘severe’. Reported use of analgesia was rare and some animals (including most neonates) endured significant procedures with no, or only light, anaesthesia reported. Some animals suffered iatrogenic harms. Many were kept alive for long periods post-experimentally but only 1% of studies reported post-operative care. A third of studies reported that some animals died prior to endpoints. All the studies were of poor quality. Having weighed the actual harms to animals against the actual clinical benefits accruing from these studies, and taking into account the quality of the research and its impact, less than 7% of the studies were permissible according to Bateson’s Cube: only the moderate bisphosphonate studies appeared to minimise harms to animals whilst being associated with benefit for humans.ConclusionsThis is the first time the accountability of the HBA has been systematically explored across a range of pre-clinical animal studies. The regulatory systems in place when these studies were conducted failed to safeguard animals from severe suffering or to ensure that only beneficial, scientifically rigorous research was conducted. Our findings indicate a pressing need to: i. review regulations, particularly those that permit animals to suffer severe harms; ii. reform the processes of prospectively assessing pre-clinical animal studies to make them fit for purpose; and iii. systematically evaluate the benefits of pre-clinical animal research to permit a more realistic assessment of its likely future benefits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

Pound

Nicol

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This paper adopts DeGrazia’s ‘commonsense’ view of moral status and methodological approach to justifying animal use 14. NHPs, insofar as they exhibit more capacities and have weightier interests than mice, have interests that merit serious moral consideration and require a strong justification for over-riding.…”

Section: Methodological Starting Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical issues when modelling brain disorders innon-human primates

Neuhaus

2017

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-human animal models of human diseases advance our knowledge of the genetic underpinnings of disease and lead to the development of novel therapies for humans. While mice are the most common model organisms, their usefulness is limited. Larger animals may provide more accurate and valuable disease models, but it has, until recently, been challenging to create large animal disease models. Genome editors, such as Clustered Randomised Interspersed Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR), meet some of these challenges and bring routine genome engineering of larger animals and non-human primates (NHPs) well within reach. There is growing interest in creating NHP models of brain disorders such as autism, depression and Alzheimer's, which are very difficult to model or study in other organisms, including humans. New treatments are desperately needed for this set of disorders. This paper is novel in asking: Insofar as NHPs are being considered for use as model organisms for brain disorders, can this be done ethically? The paper concludes that it cannot. Notwithstanding ongoing debate about NHPs' moral status, (1) animal welfare concerns, (2) the availability of alternative methods of studying brain disorders and (3) unmet expectations of benefit justify a stop on the creation of NHP model organisms to study brain disorders. The lure of using new genetic technologies combined with the promise of novel therapeutics presents a formidable challenge to those who call for slow, careful, and only necessary research involving NHPs. But researchers should not create macaques with social deficits or capuchin monkeys with memory deficits just because they can.

show abstract

“…Animal research has been a source of many debates in the past decade, as there is public concern about the ethics of the use of animal models in science [290,291]. Critics argue that the biological differences between humans and other animals can mislead research investigations (approximately 90% of drugs that pass animal tests do not pass clinical trials) and that they could be substitute by in vitro models [292].…”

Section: In Vivo Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Models to Study Autism Spectrum Disorders: hiPSCs, Rodents and Zebrafish

Pensado‐López

Veiga-Rúa

Carracedo

et al. 2020

Genes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) affect around 1.5% of the global population, which manifest alterations in communication and socialization, as well as repetitive behaviors or restricted interests. ASD is a complex disorder with known environmental and genetic contributors; however, ASD etiology is far from being clear. In the past decades, many efforts have been put into developing new models to study ASD, both in vitro and in vivo. These models have a lot of potential to help to validate some of the previously associated risk factors to the development of the disorder, and to test new potential therapies that help to alleviate ASD symptoms. The present review is focused on the recent advances towards the generation of models for the study of ASD, which would be a useful tool to decipher the bases of the disorder, as well as to conduct drug screenings that hopefully lead to the identification of useful compounds to help patients deal with the symptoms of ASD.

show abstract

Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research

Cited by 27 publications

References 10 publications

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

Ethical issues when modelling brain disorders innon-human primates

Experimental Models to Study Autism Spectrum Disorders: hiPSCs, Rodents and Zebrafish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About