Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Confronting ethical permissibility in animal research: rejecting a common assumption and extending a principle of justice

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A common assumption in the selection of nonhuman animal subjects for research and the approval of research is that, if the risks of a procedure are too great for humans, and if there is a so-called scientific necessity, then it is permissible to use nonhuman animal subjects. I reject the common assumption as neglecting the central ethical issue of the permissibility of using nonhuman animal subjects and as being inconsistent with the principle of justice used in human subjects research ethics. This principle requires that certain classes of individuals not be subjected to a disproportionate share of the burdens or risks of research. I argue for an extension of this principle to nonhuman animal research and show that a prima facie violation of the principle occurs because nonhuman animals bear an overwhelmingly disproportionate share of the risks of research without sufficient justification or reciprocal benefit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This conception of justice can be found in classical theories [3, II-II.56.1, II-II.58.2; 4, 1130a3-4, 1130a15-16; 5, 6:230] and recent theories of justice [6–8].

  2. The content of what is due may vary depending on one’s approach to justice. A natural lawyer’s list of basic needs will include the human goods, other welfarists may include the conditions necessary for exercising essential human capabilities, and the rights theorist may include those needs long established by social norms or practice [9–12].

  3. In the United States, before 1966, the only restrictions on the use of animals were those provided under state anti-cruelty laws that prohibited the intentional mutilation, torture, and killing of animals. Anti-cruelty laws, however, specifically include an exception for certain human uses, such as standard agricultural methods and scientific research (see, e.g., [17]). There now are rules that specifically govern the use of animals for research purposes, including the Animal Welfare Act (hereafter AWA) [18], the Endangered Species Act [19], and the regulations and policies promulgated to enforce these laws. The AWA, however, only protects animal welfare as animals are used in research. The AWA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards, including minimum requirements for care (e.g., handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, adequate shelter, and veterinary care) [18, § 2143(a)(2)] and requirements for minimizing pain and distress [18, § 2143(a)(3)].

  4. Ethical concerns and the growing body of scientific evidence have had more traction in other countries. The European Union no longer allows animal testing for certain non-necessary purposes, such as cosmetics [21], and also bans the use of certain animals, specifically great apes [22].

  5. The similar, albeit less demanding, condition of “scientifically valuable” is included as a condition for the ethical use of human subjects [25].

  6. The narrow framing of the question in terms of “assessing the necessity” amidst growing concerns about the ethical justification for using chimpanzees for research (see, e.g., [27]) suggests at best the avoidance of the ethical issues and at worst an attempt to dispense with the ethical concerns without fully considering the merits.

  7. Principle 3 of the Nuremberg Code also states: “The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation…” [33, p. 181].

  8. These figures are very conservative [34, 35].

  9. Notably, the U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training, principle IV, states: “Unless the contrary is established, investigators should consider that procedures that cause pain or distress in human beings may cause pain or distress in other animals” [38].

  10. “Speciesism,” or the view that species membership provides a justification for priority, often forms the basis of this objection [39, 40].

  11. Sahar Akhtar, for example, challenges the view that higher reasoning capacities heighten the human experience of physical or psychological pain [41].

References

  1. Institute of Medicine. 2011. Chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research: Assessing the necessity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1978. The Belmont report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed September 14, 2012.

  3. Aquinas, Thomas. 2014. The summa theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Catholic Way Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aristotle. 1925. Nicomachean ethics. Trans. David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kant, Immanuel. 1996. The metaphysics of morals. Trans. and ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Hart, H.L.A. 1994 [1961]. The concept of law. 2nd Ed. Penelope Bulloch and Joseph Raz. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  7. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Finnis, John. 1980. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nussbaum, Martha. 2000. Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Nussbaum, Martha. 2004. Beyond “compassion and humanity”: Justice for nonhuman animals. In Animal rights: Current debates and new directions, ed. Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feinberg, Joel. 1980. The rights of animals and unborn generations. In Rights, justice, and the bounds of liberty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  13. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Epstein, Richard A. 2004. Animals as objects, or subjects, of rights. In Animal rights: Current debates and new directions, ed. Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Povinelli, Daniel, and Bering Jesse. 2002. The mentality of apes revisited. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers, Lesley J., and Gisela Kaplan. 2004. All animals are not equal: The interface between scientific knowledge and legislation for animal rights. In Animal rights: Current debates and new directions, ed. Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Maryland Criminal Law Annotated Code (1957), § 10-603 (2002).

  18. Animal Welfare Act, U.S. Code 7 (1966), § 2131 et seq.

  19. Endangered Species Act, U.S. Code 16 (1973), § 1531 et seq.

  20. Favre, David. 2008. Animal law: Welfare, interests, and rights. New York: Aspen Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  21. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) no. 1223/2009. Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2009, L 342: 59–209.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Council of European Communities. Directive 86/609/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union 12/18/1986, L 358: 1–28.

  23. Millum, Joseph, and Ezekiel Emanuel. 2007. The ethics of international research with abandoned children. Science 318: 1874–1875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Resnik, David, and Christopher Portier. 2005. Pesticide testing on human subjects: Weighing benefits and risks. Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Emanuel, Ezekiel, David Wendler, and Christine Grady. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283: 2701–2711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Department of Health and Human Services. 2009. Protection of human subjects. 45 CFR 46. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html. Accessed March 4, 2014. subpart B.

  27. U.S. Congress. House. Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011. HR 1513/S. 810. 112th Cong., 1st sess. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BILLS-112hr1513ih. Accessed March 10, 2014.

  28. NIH Council of Councils Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIH-Supported Research. 2013. Report. January 22. http://dpcpsi.nih.gov/council/pdf/FNL_Report_WG_Chimpanzees.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2013.

  29. DeGrazia, David. 1996. Taking animals seriously. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Francione, Gary L. 2004. Animals: Property or persons? In Animal rights: Current debates and new directions, ed. Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bryant, Tamie L. 2007. Similarity or difference as a basis for justice: Must animals be like humans to be legally protected from humans. Law and Contemporary Problems 70: 207–254.

    Google Scholar 

  32. World Medical Association. 2013 [1964]. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed July 2, 2013.

  33. The Allied Control Council. 1949. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

  34. Humane Society of the United States. 2013. Questions and answers about biomedical research. http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/biomedical_research/qa/questions_answers.html. Accessed February 17, 2007.

  35. Rowan, Andrew. 2011. The use of animals in toxicological research. In The Oxford handbook of animal ethics, ed. Tom Beauchamp and R.G. Frey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  36. National Institutes of Health. 2006. Research involving cognitively impaired subjects: A review of some ethical considerations. Office of Human Subjects Research. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/info/sheet7. Accessed February 17, 2013.

  37. Berghmans, R.L.P. 1998. Advance directives for non-therapeutic dementia research: Some ethical and policy considerations. Journal of Medical Ethics 24: 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Office of Science and Technology Policy. 1985. U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#USGovPrinciples. Accessed March 4, 2014.

  39. Carbone, Larry. 2004. What animals want: Expertise and advocacy in laboratory animal welfare policy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Cohen, Carl. 1986. The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. New England Journal of Medicine 315: 865–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Akhtar, Sahar. 2011. Animal pain and welfare: Can pain sometimes be worse for them than for us? In The Oxford handbook of animal ethics, ed. Tom Beauchamp and R.G. Frey. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Dugan Hall, Room 200, 883 Broadway Street, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA

    Chong Un Choe Smith

Authors
  1. Chong Un Choe Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chong Un Choe Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choe Smith, C.U. Confronting ethical permissibility in animal research: rejecting a common assumption and extending a principle of justice. Theor Med Bioeth 35, 175–185 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-014-9290-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-014-9290-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation