Abstract
The use of genetic engineering to enhance the welfare of laboratory animals can reduce the amount of suffering in current neuroscience research paradigms. In particular, for some forms of basic research, we can use welfare-enhanced animals to reduce harms to animals without sacrificing any of the scientific validity. In another group of experiments, we can use welfare-enhanced animals to dramatically reduce the number of unprotected animals enduring aversive procedures. Many of the objections to using welfare-enhanced animals for food production do not apply to their use in research, since genetic knockout techniques are already used routinely in research for human ends and since there is no risk for human health. Furthermore, examples of recent knockout experiments suggest that we already have, or are very close to having, the capacity to reduce suffering in laboratories via genetic engineering. If we are truly committed to balancing the advancement of science with the welfare of animals, this option should be further explored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
If the increased aggression is caused by stress, it’s true that making the hens blind does not remove the stress, and hence shouldn't be thought to remove all of the welfare problems. However, insofar as increased aggression and pecking behavior causes more stress and suffering in these conditions, then eliminating it still amounts to an improvement in welfare.
References
Blandford D, Fulponi L (1999) Emerging public concerns in agriculture: domestic policies and international trade com- mitments. Eur Rev Agric Econ 26:409–424. doi:10.1093/erae/26.3.409
Bruno MA, Bernheim JL, Ledoux D et al (2011) A survey on self-assessed well-being in a cohort of chronic locked-in syndrome patients: happy majority, miserable minority. BMJ Open 1:e000039
Carbone L (2011) Pain in laboratory animals: the ethical and regulatory imperatives. PLOS One 6(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021578
Eadie BD, Zhang WN, Boehme F, Gil-Mohapel J, Kainer L, Simpson JM, Christie BR (2009) Neurobiol Dis 36:361–73
Fiester A (2008) Justifying the principle of restraint in animal biotechnology. Am J Bioeth 8(6):36–44
Haenisch B, Bonisch H (2011) Depression and antidepressants: insights from knockout of dopamine, serotonin or noradrenaline re-uptake transporters. Pharmacol Ther 129:352–68
Leknes S, Tracey I (2010) Pain and pleasure: masters of mankind. In: Berridge K, Kringlebach M (eds) Pleasures of the brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Musschenga AW (2002) Naturalness: beyond animal welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:171–186
Report of the Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals (2009) From the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the National Academy of Sciences
Rollin B (2012) The moral status of invasive animal research. Hastings Center special report on animal research ethics
Sandoe P, Hocking PM, Forkman B, Haldane K, Kristensen HH, Palmer C (2014) The Blind Hens’ challenge. Environmental values. http://www.whpress.co.uk/EV/papers/Sandoe.pdf
Shriver A (2006) Minding mammals. Philos Psychol 19(4):433–42
Shriver A (2009) Knocking out pain in livestock: can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics. doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9048-6
Shriver A (2014) The asymmetrical contributions of pleasure and pain to subjective well-being. Rev Philos Psychol. http://link.springer.com.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/article/10.1007/s13164-013-0171-2
Thompson PB (2010) Why using genetics to address welfare may not be a good idea. Poult Sci 89:814–21
Webster J (2011) Husbandry and animal welfare. In: Webster J (ed) Management and welfare of farm animals: the UFAW farm handbook. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shriver, A. (2014). Would the Elimination of the Capacity to Suffer Solve Ethical Dilemmas in Experimental Animal Research?. In: Lee, G., Illes, J., Ohl, F. (eds) Ethical Issues in Behavioral Neuroscience. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, vol 19. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2014_318
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2014_318
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44865-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44866-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)