Ethical Issues Concerning Animal Research Outside the Laboratory

Ethical Issues Concerning Animal Research Outside the Laboratory
Lilly-Marlene Russow and Peter Theran
Abstract
physiological or behavioral questions. With such a wide
range of possibilities, it is not surprising that this research
Unique ethical issues can be associated with research out-
can pose ethical issues that differ at least in part from those
side the customary laboratory setting. Protocols involving
normally associated with laboratory research. On the posi-
wild animals must consider that any infringement on the
tive side, such research can promote animal welfare in these
wild nature of the species can be disruptive and may involve
different arenas; however, it also poses unique ethical
pain, fear, anxiety, and frustration, all of which constitute
problems.
ethical harm that must be balanced with anticipated benefit.
Of course, there is a good deal of common ground in
Agricultural and companion animal research, however,
making ethical judgments about animal research, inside or
take place in a human-engineered environment and in-
outside the laboratory. Moral theories under the heading of
volves domesticated species adapted to human contact. Spe-
“utilitarianism” demand that we choose actions resulting in
cial animal welfare issues can be related to agricultural
the best possible balance of benefit versus harm. This choice
production goals that fail to deal adequately with moral
supports the now familiar 3Rs of reduction, refinement, and
concerns. Human/companion animal relationships, on the
replacement (Russell and Burch 1959). A rights-based or
other hand, present unique moral obligations to animal own-
Kantian approach demands that we recognize and respect
ers. Other factors may present additional ethical issues when
inherent worth (Russow 1990, 1999; Sideris et al. 1999
research is performed outside the laboratory. These factors
provide more complete discussions of the ethics of labora-
include a required sensitivity to the environment of wild
tory animal research). It is the job of the institutional animal
animals and an awareness that this outside research may to
care and use committee (IACUC1) to ensure that these ethi-
quite public and, therefore, vulnerable to community per-
cal standards are met in the conduct of any animal research,
ception. The institutional animal care and use committee
inside as well as outside the laboratory. Three reasons that
(IACUC) has the responsibility to ensure that research in
research outside the laboratory poses other ethical issues are
outside settings is ethical and properly implemented. This
(1) the nature of the animals being studied, (2) the number
responsibility requires that IACUC members have knowl-
of additional factors that must be included in the moral
edge of the needs of a wide range of species and that a
deliberations, and (3) the nature of the review and oversight
process is in place to allow effective monitoring of research
process.
in remote locations. Finally, and most important, there must
be a sensitivity to the unique ethical considerations outlined
Animals Used in Research
here. Armed with these strengths, the IACUC will be effec-
tive in what may be unfamiliar surroundings and will have
The first reason that research outside the laboratory poses
a significant opportunity to cause improvements in animal
unique ethical issues is somewhat abstract and possibly
welfare.
more controversial. It begins with the idea that to address
animal welfare issues adequately, we must consider the dif-
Key Words: agriculture; animal research; animal welfare;
ferent nature and needs of different animals. Philosopher
companion animals; ethics; IACUC; telos; wild animals
Bernard Rollin develops this idea by arguing that animals
each have a “telos” unique to its species. The term telos is
Introduction
taken from Aristotle and, as Rollin uses it, means the basic
nature of an animal: “the pigness of the pig, the dogness of
Astheotherarticlesinthisissueillustrate,research thedog”(Rollin1995,p.159).Histhesisisthattheethical
outside the laboratory can take the form of clinical
use of animals requires that we understand and respect its
research, research in agricultural settings, or field
telos.
studies; and each form may be designed to study either
Rollin’s argument, and the more general principle, that
an animal’s welfare is determined by the match between its
needs and interest and the treatment it receives, is relevant
Lilly-Marlene Russow, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Philoso-
phy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Peter Theran, V.M.D., is
Vice President of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, in the Division of Health and Hospitals, and President of the
1Abbreviation used in this article: IACUC, institutional animal care and use
Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare, Boston, Massachusetts.
committee.
Volume 44, Number 3
2003
187

---

to this discussion. The vast majority of animals used for
more convenient for the farmer and more sanitary, although
laboratory research have been bred specifically for research,
it results in a cow that cannot protect itself from flies. The
and indeed are selected (in a process that may or may not be
researcher may be attempting to determine whether the
deliberate) for traits that make them more adapted for a
practice has a measurable effect on the welfare of cows, or
laboratory environment. Those traits might include, for ex-
may be studying the effect simply with production measures
ample, ability to accept caging and other aspects of the
(Rollin 1995b). In the latter case, a full moral evaluation has
laboratory environment, and a temperament that makes
not been made.
them easier to handle. Thus, over generations, we have pro-
Because the extent to which physiological and behav-
duced mice and other animals whose telos is far different
ioral needs and interests are met will determine the animal’s
from that of their wild “cousins.” Most could not survive in
welfare, and many common agricultural practices are not
the wild, and it would seem that part of their telos is to live
attuned to those needs and interests, research conducted in
in confinement (although Rollin does not, to our knowledge
typical agricultural settings can generate serious ethical is-
make that claim). If so, we have not violated our ethical
sues regarding the welfare of the animals being studied.
duty by confining them in a laboratory. This last stipulation
IACUC members have little formal guidance when consid-
is valid if, and only if, animals in their natural environment
ering these issues. Although the Animal Welfare Act (AWA
have been studied in such depth that we understand the telos
1966), the Federation of Animal Sciences Societies’ guide
of that species and can design a housing system to meet its
(FASS 1999), and the Public Health Service Policy (PHS
needs.2 The need for data from the natural environment of
2002) are applicable if farm animals are involved in bio-
species used in the laboratory was emphasized by two in-
medical research, livestock production research is not so
vestigators at a recent conference (de Waal 2003; McGlone
regulated. IACUC decisions must be driven by moral de-
2003).
liberations and a scientific evaluation of the research pro-
Animals in the field provide unique moral challenges.
tocol’s need for minimization of variables (e.g., housing,
To respect their nature, we must respect their wildness, in
nutrition, and stress) (Silverman et al. 2000).
all of its facets. Any infringement on their wild nature con-
In the example above, even though tail docking might be
stitutes an ethical harm, which must be balanced against
an accepted farm practice, the IACUC might determine that
whatever benefit might be achieved. The most obvious
removal of the cow’s tail is an ethically faulted method to
harm is physical pain, which can occur in the laboratory or
achieve the desired efficiency and sanitation and that the
in the field. Other sources of distress (e.g., fear, anxiety, and
investigator must find another method. Having made this
frustration) will likely vary. Trapping and handling animals,
decision, it would then be necessary to evaluate the variable
even if done in ways that cause no physical pain, can be
created by comparing cows with and without tails.
expected to involve all three of the sources of distress men-
tioned above and therefore should always raise an ethical
warning flag, which must be addressed. Thus, the question
Other Factors
of how often traps will be checked and how the animals will
be handled are two examples of questions relevant to the
The second reason that research outside the laboratory poses
ethics of a field research project.
special ethical issues is the number of additional factors that
Agricultural and companion animals occupy a middle
must be included in the moral deliberations. These addi-
ground. These species were not bred to be research subjects,
tional factors include the environment, owners of animals,
but they are domesticated and hence adapted to human con-
and the general public. The last group is particularly sensi-
tact and some sort of human-engineered environment. How-
tive, but easy to overlook. Research outside the laboratory is
ever, in agricultural research, a very real danger is that the
more likely to be in the public eye, and more likely to
research is driven by production concerns, at the expense of
involve species that people care about more than they care
welfare and ethics. King (2003) reviews many of the po-
about rats and mice. Thus, questions about the morality of
tential husbandry problems in agricultural settings. Agricul-
such research may be subject to more public scrutiny and
tural research driven solely by production standards will fail
debate. With this broader perspective, ethical questions
to recognize the animals as deserving moral concern, treat-
could be raised that had not been considered by the IACUC,
ing them as mere meat/dairy/egg machines. A researcher
and a moral reassessment would be required. One could
may, for example, study “banding” as a method of docking
argue that participation of the public is useful and that it is,
the tails of dairy cows. Banding involves use of a rubber
in fact, the intended role of the unaffiliated members on the
band that constricts the blood flow until the lower part of the
IACUC.
tail withers and drops off. A docked tail is supposed to be
In the case of wildlife research, the potential impact on
the species and the ecosystem must be considered. Anec-
dotal evidence suggests that even a study as seemingly be-
nign as playing bird songs can have an impact on the
2The telos of a laboratory rat is not trivial. Although it may not include
breeding population in the area studied. Releasing animals
“running free,” it does involve specific types of social interaction and the
into a new area alters the ecosystem. Ethical arguments for
ability to groom, nest, exercise, comfortably adopt typical postures, and so
forth.
the preservation of species and ecosystems run the gamut
188
ILAR Journal

---

from utilitarian to rights-based, and from anthropocentric to
will be remote from standard animal housing facilities. As
arguments for the inherent value of nature (e.g., Norton
Granstrom (2003) notes, IACUCs must evaluate at least
1986; Callicott 1989). However, they leave no doubt that we
some of the research performed in agricultural settings.
have a moral obligation to protect and preserve both indi-
Their knowledge of the needs of the relevant species, and
vidual species and the environment. This responsibility
hence their ability to determine the ethical justifiability of
must therefore be considered in evaluating the ethics of
such research, must be taken into consideration. In institu-
wildlife research.
tions in which agricultural research is conducted, the exper-
Moral obligations to the owners of animals in clinical
tise of IACUC members should accommodate that need.
studies must also be a factor in making ethical evaluations.
The same principle applies to wildlife research. A re-
In the sort of research that assesses pain in dogs (Hansen
searcher who works with mice in the laboratory may have
2003), veterinarians have an obligation to provide their hu-
no knowledge of whether a particular tagging method might
man clients with the highest standard of care. This obliga-
have a deleterious effect on a lizard.
tion can pose obstacles, especially when the research would
Procedures on which IACUCs rely for monitoring re-
normally call for a control group. Moral obligations to the
search may also need to be modified. Research inside a
owner also require informed consent; and as Hampshire
laboratory is more easily monitored through required in-
(2003) points out, the process of obtaining that consent
spections, veterinarian observations, caretaker reports, and
requires careful scrutiny. The consent form must not only be
other standard practices. Research outside the laboratory,
comprehensible and honest about potential treatment and
whether field research, agricultural studies, or clinical trials,
risk, but should also allow for voluntary withdrawal.
affords far fewer opportunities for monitoring the ethical
“Autonomy” and “nonmalfeasance” are two other prin-
treatment of animals. Without the potential for such moni-
ciples that protect human research subjects (NCPHS 1976).
toring, it may be difficult for the IACUC to fulfill its
If clinical trials are indeed modeled on those principles, they
obligation.
must include the provision of respect for the autonomy of
IACUC deliberations must be sensitive to all of the ethi-
the owners by allowing them free and informed choices.
cal considerations outlined herein. Questions have been
Nonmalfeasance requires an absence of any sort of fraud or
raised about how adequately IACUC members are trained
harmful deceit, as well as avoiding harm to the animal.
or informed of their responsibility with regard to laboratory
Sham surgery to establish a control group in a clinical trial
research (Dresser 1998). The additional complications of
setting, for example, would constitute malfeasance.
research outside the laboratory intensify these concerns by
The effect of research on the general public must also be
adding an additional level of complexity to IACUC respon-
considered. Sometimes the effect can be direct and imme-
sibilities and by increasing the need for training.
diate. For example, traps used in field research can capture
nontarget species, including domestic animals, which
causes harm to the animal and distress (thus harm) to the
Conclusion
animal’s owner. Conversely, clinical research seen as a di-
rect benefit to a pet is also beneficial to the owner. These
Animal research, both inside and outside the laboratory, is
benefits and harms must be included in a full utilitarian
vital for humans, animals, and the environment. However, it
calculation of the ethical justifiability of the research.
must be conducted in accord with the highest ethical stan-
Other effects are related more to general perceptions.
dards. Research outside the laboratory, whether wildlife,
They are equally real and relevant to ethical considerations
agricultural, or clinical studies, poses unique ethical prob-
and can, in fact, serve as a “moral compass.” If reasonably
lems. Investigators, IACUCs, institutions, and public policy
informed public opinion would react negatively to a re-
all must adapt to those unique challenges to ensure that the
search project, that reaction would be a sign that the corre-
research meets those standards.
sponding ethical values should perhaps be scrutinized more
carefully. This principle may be a good maxim to consider
for research inside the laboratory as well. However, re-
search outside the laboratory is more open to public scrutiny
References
and more likely to involve issues the public can relate to and
understand.
AWA [Animal Welfare Act]. 1966. US Department of Agriculture, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington DC (http://
aphis.usda.gov/ac/).
Callicott JB.1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental
Role of the IACUC
Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.
de Waal F. 2003. Primate Sociality and Well-Being in Captivity. Presen-
A large part of the burden of ensuring ethical animal re-
tation at the March 28, 2003, annual IACUC meeting of Public Re-
sponsibility in Medicine and Research: IACUC Actions: Making
search falls on IACUCs. The special ethical concerns raised
Ethically and Scientifically Informed Decisions. San Diego, California.
by research outside the laboratory pose additional chal-
Dresser R. 1998. Institutional animal care and use committees. In: Marc
lenges. The species of animals studied will differ from those
Bekoff, ed. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. West-
used in laboratory research, and the location of the study
port CT: Greenwood Press. p 204-207.
Volume 44, Number 3
2003
189

---

FASS [Federation of Animal Science Societies]. 1999. Guide for the Care
Report (Publication no. (OS) 78-0013 and no. (OS) 78-0014). Wash-
and Use of Agricultural Animals Used in Agricultural Research
ington DC: GPO.
and Teaching. 1st rev ed. Savoy IL: Federation of Animal Science
Norton BB. 1986. On the inherent danger of undervaluing species. In:
Societies.
Norton B, ed. The Preservation of Species. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
Granstrom DE. 2003. Agricultural (nonbiomedical) animal research out-
versity Press.
side the laboratory: A review of guidelines for institutional animal care
PHS [Public Health Service]. 2002. Policy on Humane Care. US Public
and use committees. ILAR J 44:206-210.
Law 99-158 of the 1985 Health Research Extension Act, revised.
Hampshire VA. 2003. Regulatory issues surrounding the use of companion
Washington DC: Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, Department of
animals in clinical investigations, trials, and studies. ILAR J 44:191-
Health and Human Services.
196.
Rollin B. 1995. The Frankenstein Syndrome. New York: Cambridge Uni-
Hansen BD. 2003. Assessment of pain in dogs: Veterinary clinical studies.
versity Press.
ILAR J 44:197-205.
Russell, WMS, Burch RL. 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental
King LA. 2003. Behavioral evaluation of the psychological welfare and
Technique. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd. [Reissued: 1992, Universi-
environmental requirements of agricultural research animals: Theory,
ties Federation for Animal Welfare, Herts, England.] http://
measurement, ethics, and practical implications. ILAR J 44:211-
altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/human_exp/het-toc.htm.
221.
Russow L-M.1990. Ethical theories and the moral status of animals. The
McGlone J. 2003. At the Crossroads: Animal Welfare Science Meets the
Hastings Center Report 20(Spec Suppl):4-8.
IACUC. Presentation at the March 28, 2003, annual IACUC meeting of
Russow L-M. 1999. Bioethics, animal research, and ethical theory. ILAR
Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research: IACUC Actions:
J 40:15-21.
Making Ethically and Scientifically Informed Decisions. San Diego,
Sideris L, McCarthy CR, Smith DH. 1990. Roots of concern with nonhu-
California.
man animals in biomedical ethics. ILAR J 40:3-14.
NCPHS [National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Silverman HJ, Suckow MA, Murthy S. 2000. The IACUC Handbook. Boca
Biomedical and Behavioral Research]. February 1976. The Belmont
Raton: CRC Press.
190
ILAR Journal

---