Login | Register

Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties?

Title:

Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties?

Khoo, Shaun Yon-Seng ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0972-3788 (2018) Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties? Animals, 28 (2). p. 28. ISSN 2076-2615

[img]
Preview
Text (application/pdf)
Khoo-2018-AnimalResearchJustifiability.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
246kB

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8020028

Abstract

Current animal research ethics frameworks emphasise consequentialist ethics through cost-benefit or harm-benefit analysis. However, these ethical frameworks along with institutional animal ethics approval processes cannot satisfactorily decide when a given potential benefit is outweighed by costs to animals. The consequentialist calculus should, theoretically, provide for situations where research into a disease or disorder is no longer ethical, but this is difficult to determine objectively. Public support for animal research is also falling as demand for healthcare is rising. Democratisation of animal research could help resolve these tensions through facilitating ethical health consumerism or giving the public greater input into deciding the diseases and disorders where animal research is justified. Labelling drugs to disclose animal use and providing a plain-language summary of the role of animals may help promote public understanding and would respect the ethical beliefs of objectors to animal research. National animal ethics committees could weigh the competing ethical, scientific, and public interests to provide a transparent mandate for animal research to occur when it is justifiable and acceptable. Democratic processes can impose ethical limits and provide mandates for acceptable research while facilitating a regulatory and scientific transition towards medical advances that require fewer animals.

Divisions:Concordia University > Research Units > Centre for Studies in Behavioural Neurobiology
Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Authors:Khoo, Shaun Yon-Seng
Journal or Publication:Animals
Date:14 February 2018
Funders:
  • Concordia Open Access Author Fund
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.3390/ani8020028
Keywords:animal ethics; consequentialism; harm-benefit analysis; justification; democratisation; ethical consumerism; animal ethics committees
ID Code:983508
Deposited By: SHAUN YON-SENG KHOO
Deposited On:15 Feb 2018 13:50
Last Modified:15 Feb 2018 13:50
Additional Information:This article is in an open access journal and can be used under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0).

References:

Perry, P. The ethics of animal research: A UK perspective. ILAR J. 2007, 48, 42–46.

Wadman, M. A trans-Atlantic transparency gap on animal experiments. Science 2017, 357, 119–120.

Dieleman, J.L.; Squires, E.; Bui, A.L.; Campbell, M.; Chapin, A.; Hamavid, H.; Horst, C.; Li, Z.; Matyasz, T.; Reynolds, A.; et al. Factors associated with increases in US health care spending, 1996–2013. JAMA 2017, 318, 1668–1678.

Holbein, M.E.B. Understanding FDA regulatory requirements for investigational new drug applications for sponsor-investigators. J. Investig. Med. 2009, 57, 688–694.

Singer, P. Animal Liberation, 2nd ed.; Thorsons: London, UK, 1990.

Singer, P. Experiments on animals. BMJ 1989, 299, 1238–1239.

McCloskey, H.J. The moral case for experimentation on animals. Monist 1987, 70, 64–82.

Bennett, A.J.; Ringach, D.L. Animal research in neuroscience: A duty to engage. Neuron 2016, 92, 653–657.
Slicer, D. Your daughter or your dog? A feminist assessment of the animal research issue. Hypatia 1991, 6, 108–124.

Hursthouse, R. Applying virtue ethics to our treatment of the other animals. In The Practice of Virtue: Classic and Contemporary Readings in Virtue Ethics; Welchman, J., Ed.; Hackett Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 136–155.

Francione, G.L. The use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research: Necessity and justification. J. Law Med. Ethics 2007, 35, 241–248.

Marks, J. Animal abolitionism meets moral abolitionism. J. Bioeth. Inq. 2013, 10, 445–455.

Sneddon, L.U.; Halsey, L.G.; Bury, N.R. Considering aspects of the 3Rs principles within experimental animal biology. J. Exp. Biol. 2017, 220, 3007–3016.

Galgut, E. Raising the bar in the justification of animal research. J. Anim. Ethics 2015, 5, 5–19.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2016 Novel Drugs Summary; U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2017.

Wittchen, H.U.; Jacobi, F.; Rehm, J.; Gustavsson, A.; Svensson, M.; Jönsson, B.; Olesen, J.; Allgulander, C.; Alonso, J.; Faravelli, C.; et al. The size and burden of mental disorders and other disorders of the brain in Europe 2010. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011, 21, 655–679.

World Health Organization (WHO). Global Health Estimates 2015: Disease Burden by Cause, Age, Sex, by Country and by Region, 2000–2015; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.

Würbel, H. More than 3Rs: The importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research. Lab Anim. 2017, 46, 164

Taylor, K.; Gordon, N.; Langley, G.; Higgins, W. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. ATLA 2008, 36, 327–342.

Stein, C.; Castanotto, D.; Krishnan, A.; Nikolaenko, L. Defibrotide (defitelio): A new addition to the stockpile of food and drug administration-approved oligonucleotide drugs. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 2016, 5, e346.

Koehl, G.E.; Geissler, E.K.; Iacobelli, M.; Frei, C.; Burger, V.; Haffner, S.; Holler, E.; Andreesen, R.; Schlitt, H.J.; Eissner, G. Defibrotide: An endothelium protecting and stabilizing drug, has an anti-angiogenic potential in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2007, 6, 686–690.

Mitsiades, C.S.; Rouleau, C.; Echart, C.; Menon, K.; Teicher, B.; Distaso, M.; Palumbo, A.; Boccadoro, M.; Anderson, K.C.; Iacobelli, M.; et al. Preclinical studies in support of defibrotide for the treatment of multiple myeloma and other neoplasias. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009, 15, 1210–1221.

Van Deutekom, J.C.; de Kimpe, S.J.; Campion, G.V. Antisense oligonucleotides as personalized medicine for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Drug Discov. Today Ther. Strateg. 2013, 10, e149–e156.

Kesselheim, A.S.; Avorn, J. Approving a problematic muscular dystrophy drug: Implications for fda policy. JAMA 2016, 316, 2357–2358.

Claudel, T.; Sturm, E.; Kuipers, F.; Staels, B. The farnesoid X receptor: A novel drug target? Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 2004, 13, 1135–1148.

Fiorucci, S.; Rizzo, G.; Antonelli, E.; Renga, B.; Mencarelli, A.; Riccardi, L.; Morelli, A.; Pruzanski, M.; Pellicciari, R. Cross-talk between farnesoid-X-receptor (FXR) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ contributes to the antifibrotic activity of FXR ligands in rodent models of liver cirrhosis. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2005, 315, 58–68.

Markham, A.; Keam, S.J. Obeticholic acid: First global approval. Drugs 2016, 76, 1221–1226.

Rigo, F.; Chun, S.J.; Norris, D.A.; Hung, G.; Lee, S.; Matson, J.; Fey, R.A.; Gaus, H.; Hua, Y.; Grundy, J.S.; et al. Pharmacology of a central nervous system delivered 2′-O-methoxyethyl–modified survival of motor neuron splicing oligonucleotide in mice and nonhuman primates. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2014, 350, 46–55.

Hoy, S.M. Nusinersen: First global approval. Drugs 2017, 77, 473–479.

Aartsma-Rus, A. FDA approval of nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy makes 2016 the year of splice modulating oligonucleotides. Nucleic Acid Ther. 2017, 27, 67–69.

Leverson, J.D.; Sampath, D.; Souers, A.J.; Rosenberg, S.H.; Fairbrother, W.J.; Amiot, M.; Konopleva, M.; Letai, A. Found in translation: How preclinical research is guiding the clinical development of the BCL2-selective inhibitor venetoclax. Cancer Discov. 2017, 7, 1376–1393.

Vandenberg, C.J.; Cory, S. ABT-199, a new Bcl-2–specific BH3 mimetic, has in vivo efficacy against aggressive Myc-driven mouse lymphomas without provoking thrombocytopenia. Blood 2013, 121, 2285–2288.

Souers, A.J.; Leverson, J.D.; Boghaert, E.R.; Ackler, S.L.; Catron, N.D.; Chen, J.; Dayton, B.D.; Ding, H.; Enschede, S.H.; Fairbrother, W.J.; et al. ABT-199, a potent and selective BCL-2 inhibitor, achieves antitumor activity while sparing platelets. Nat. Med. 2013, 19, 202–210.

Zhong, M.; Gadek, T.R.; Bui, M.; Shen, W.; Burnier, J.; Barr, K.J.; Hanan, E.J.; Oslob, J.D.; Yu, C.H.; Zhu, J.; et al. Discovery and development of potent LFA-1/ICAM-1 antagonist SAR 1118 as an ophthalmic solution for treating dry eye. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2012, 3, 203–206.

Calonge, M.; Enríquez-de-Salamanca, A.; Diebold, Y.; González-García, M.J.; Reinoso, R.; Herreras, J.M.; Corell, A. Dry eye disease as an inflammatory disorder. Ocul. Immunol. Inflamm. 2010, 18, 244–253.

Keating, G.M. Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5%: A review in dry eye disease. Drugs 2017, 77, 201–208.


Sorensen, P.S. Multiple sclerosis: Pathophysiology revisited. Lancet Neurol. 2005, 4, 9–10.

Baldassari, L.E.; Rose, J.W. Daclizumab: Development, clinical trials, and practical aspects of use in multiple sclerosis. Neurotherapeutics 2017, 14, 842–858.

Kufel, W.D.; Devanathan, A.S.; Marx, A.H.; Weber, D.J.; Daniels, L.M. Bezlotoxumab: A novel agent for the prevention of recurrent clostridium difficile infection. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 2017, 37, 1298–1308


Rolfe, R.D.; Finegold, S.M. Purification and characterization of Clostridium difficile toxin. Infect. Immun. 1979, 25, 191–201.

Meador, J.; Tweten, R.K. Purification and characterization of toxin B from Clostridium difficile. Infect. Immun. 1988, 56, 1708–1714.

Regan, T. A case for animal rights. In Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1986/87; Fox, M.W., Mickley, L.D., Eds.; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 1987; pp. 179–189.

Fisher, M. Is there a need for a more expansive use of ethics and values in reflecting on the use of animals in scientific research? Animals 2014, 4, 643.

Cupp, R.L. Cognitively impaired humans, intelligent animals, and legal personhood. Fla. Law Rev. 2018, 69, 465–518.

Walker, R.L. Human and animal subjects of research: The moral significance of respect versus welfare. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 2006, 27, 305–331

Clemence, M.; Leaman, J. Public Attitudes to Animal Research in 2016; Ipsos MORI: London, UK, 2016.

Carter, A.J.; Nguyen, C.N. A comparison of cancer burden and research spending reveals discrepancies in the distribution of research funding. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 526.

Von Philipsborn, P.; Steinbeis, F.; Bender, M.E.; Regmi, S.; Tinnemann, P. Poverty-related and neglected diseases—An economic and epidemiological analysis of poverty relatedness and neglect in research and development. Glob. Health Action 2015, 8, 25818.

Kirigia, J.M.; Mburugu, G.N. The monetary value of human lives lost due to neglected tropical diseases in Africa. Infect. Dis. Poverty 2017, 6, 165.

Ormandy, E.; Schuppli, C. Public attitudes toward animal research: A review. Animals 2014, 4, 391.

Heyman, G.M. Addiction and choice: Theory and new data. Front. Psychiatry 2013, 4, 31.

Khoo, S.Y.-S.; Brown, R.M. Orexin/hypocretin based pharmacotherapies for the treatment of addiction: DORA or SORA? CNS Drugs 2014, 28, 713–730.

Vogel, L. Winds of growth may signal brewing health spending storm. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2017, 189, E1467–E1468.

Babar, Z.-U.-D.; Francis, S. Identifying priority medicines policy issues for New Zealand: A general inductive study. BMJ Open 2014, 4.

Stein, C.A. Eteplirsen approved for duchenne muscular dystrophy: The FDA faces a difficult choice. Mol. Ther. 2016, 24, 1884–1885.

Joffe, A.R.; Bara, M.; Anton, N.; Nobis, N. The ethics of animal research: A survey of the public and scientists in North America. BMC Med. Ethics 2016, 17, 17.

Piel, J. Informed consent in right-to-try cases. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law Online 2016, 44, 290–296.

Van den Buuse, M.; Garner, B.; Gogos, A.; Kusljic, S. Importance of animal models in schizophrenia research. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2005, 39, 550–557.

Grimm, D. PETA targets early-career wildlife researcher. Science 2017, 357, 1087.

Elam, M.; Bertilsson, M. Consuming, engaging and confronting science:The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 2003, 6, 233–251.

Singer, P. Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philos. Public Aff. 1980, 9, 325–337

Nobis, N. Vegetarianism and virtue: Does consequentialism demand too little? Soc. Theory Pract. 2002, 28, 135–156.

Bates, A.W.H. Vivisection, virtue ethics, and the law in 19th-century Britain. J. Anim. Ethics 2014, 4, 30–44.

Bernstein, J. Animal rights v animal research: A modest proposal. J. Med. Ethics 1996, 22, 300–301.

Winston, R. Animal experiments deserve a place on drug labels. Nat. Med. 2013, 19, 1204.

Balls, M. The labelling of all medicinal products as dependent on animal research would be a minefield to be avoided at all costs. ATLA 2013, 41, 325–327.

Sztybel, D. A living will clause for supporters of animal experimentation. J. Appl. Philos. 2006, 23, 173–189.

Kleinman, I. The right to refuse treatment: Ethical considerations for the competent patient. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1991, 144, 1219–1222.

Tatham, K.C.; Patel, K.P. Suitability of common drugs for patients who avoid animal products. BMJ 2014, 348

Zeybek, B.; Childress, A.M.; Kilic, G.S.; Phelps, J.Y.; Pacheco, L.D.; Carter, M.A.; Borahay, M.A. Management of the Jehovah’s Witness in obstetrics and gynecology: A comprehensive medical, ethical, and legal approach. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2016, 71, 488–500.

Gillon, R. Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: And why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic. J. Med. Ethics 2016, 42, 376–382.

Watts, G. Animal testing: Is it worth it? BMJ 2007, 334, 182–184

Monticello, T.M.; Jones, T.W.; Dambach, D.M.; Potter, D.M.; Bolt, M.W.; Liu, M.; Keller, D.A.; Hart, T.K.; Kadambi, V.J. Current nonclinical testing paradigm enables safe entry to First-In-Human clinical trials: The IQ consortium nonclinical to clinical translational database. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2017, 334, 100–109.

Olson, H.; Betton, G.; Robinson, D.; Thomas, K.; Monro, A.; Kolaja, G.; Lilly, P.; Sanders, J.; Sipes, G.; Bracken, W.; et al. Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2000, 32, 56–67.

Macleod, M. Learning lessons from MVA85A, a failed booster vaccine for BCG. BMJ 2018, 360.

Cohen, D. Oxford TB vaccine study calls into question selective use of animal data. BMJ 2018, 360.

Cohen, D. Cancer drugs: High price, uncertain value. BMJ 2017, 359.

Marylyn, C.; Ahmad, A. The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 560–578.

O’Rourke, D.; Ringer, A. The impact of sustainability information on consumer decision making. J. Ind. Ecol. 2016, 20, 882–892.

Rousseau, S. The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate. Food Qual. Preference 2015, 44, 92–100.

Caruana, R.; Chatzidakis, A. Consumer social responsibility (CnSR): Toward a multi-level, multi-agent conceptualization of the “other CSR”. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 121, 577–592.

Costanigro, M.; Lusk, J.L. The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food. Food Policy 2014, 49, 259–267.

Parker, C.; Carey, R.; De Costa, J.; Scrinis, G. Can the hidden hand of the market be an effective and legitimate regulator? The case of animal welfare under a labeling for consumer choice policy approach. Regul. Gov. 2017, 11, 368–387.

DeMichelis, C. Transfusion refusal and the shifting limits of multicultural accommodation. Qual. Health Res. 2017, 27, 2150–2161.

Grimm, H.; Eggel, M.; Deplazes-Zemp, A.; Biller-Andorno, N. The road to hell is paved with good intentions: Why harm–benefit analysis and its emphasis on practical benefit jeopardizes the credibility of research. Animals 2017, 7, 70.

Vogt, L.; Reichlin, T.S.; Nathues, C.; Würbel, H. Authorization of animal experiments is based on confidence rather than evidence of scientific rigor. PLoS Biol. 2016, 14, e2000598.

Chen, P.J. Animal welfare officers in Australian higher education: 3R application, work contexts, and risk perception. Lab. Anim. 2017, 51, 636–646.

Van Luijk, J.; Cuijpers, Y.; van der Vaart, L.; de Roo, T.C.; Leenaars, M.; Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. Assessing the application of the 3Rs: A survey among animal welfare officers in The Netherlands. Lab. Anim. 2013, 47, 210–219.

Russell, D. Why animal ethics committees don’t work. Between Species 2012, 15, 127–142.

Guston, D.H. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2001, 26, 399–408.

Carolan, M.S. Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-making process. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2006, 19, 661–668

Lidskog, R. Scientised citizens and democratised science. Re-assessing the expert-lay divide. J. Risk Res. 2008, 11, 69–86.

Mondschein, S.G. A current perspective on the role and needs of IACUC unaffiliated members. Lab Anim. 2007, 36, 21.

Jarrett, W. The Concordat on Openness and its benefits to animal research. Lab Anim. 2016, 45, 201.

Irvin, R.A.; Stansbury, J. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Adm. Rev. 2004, 64, 55–65.

Bert, B.; Chmielewska, J.; Hensel, A.; Grune, B.; Schönfelder, G. The animal experimentation quandary: Stuck between legislation and scientific freedom: More research and engagement by scientists is needed to help to improve animal welfare without hampering biomedical research. Sci. Soc. 2016, 17, 790–792.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Back to top Back to top