Skip to main content

Would the Elimination of the Capacity to Suffer Solve Ethical Dilemmas in Experimental Animal Research?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences ((CTBN,volume 19))

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiester A (2008) Justifying the principle of restraint in animal biotechnology. Am J Bioeth 8(6):36–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haenisch B, Bonisch H (2011) Depression and antidepressants: insights from knockout of dopamine, serotonin or noradrenaline re-uptake transporters. Pharmacol Ther 129:352–68

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Musschenga AW (2002) Naturalness: beyond animal welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:171–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin B (2012) The moral status of invasive animal research. Hastings Center special report on animal research ethics

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Webster J (2011) Husbandry and animal welfare. In: Webster J (ed) Management and welfare of farm animals: the UFAW farm handbook. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Shriver .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics