Measuring merit in animal research

Reevaluating Benefits in the Moral Justification of Animal Research: A Comment on "Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research"

In a recent paper in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics on the necessary conditions for morally responsible animal research David DeGrazia and Jeff Sebo claim that the key requirements for morally responsible animal research are (1) an assertion of sufficient net benefit, (2) a worthwhile-life condition, and (3) a no-unnecessary-harm condition. With regards to the assertion (or expectation) of sufficient net benefit (ASNB), the authors claim that morally responsible research offers unique benefits to humans that outweigh the costs and harms to humans and animals. In this commentary we will raise epistemic, practical, and ethical challenges to DeGrazia and Sebo's emphasis on benefits in the prospective assessment of research studies involving animals. We do not disagree with DeGrazia and Sebo that, at the theoretical level, the benefits of research justify our using animals. Our contribution intends to clarify, at the practical level, how we should understand benefits in the prospective assessment and moral justification of animal research. We argue that ASNB should be understood as an assessment of Expectation of Knowledge Production (EKP) in the prospective assessment and justification of animal research. EKP breaks down into two further claims: (1) that morally responsible research generates knowledge worth having and (2) that morally responsible research is designed and executed to produce generalizable knowledge. We understand the condition called knowledge worth having as scientists' testing a hypothesis that, whether verified or falsified, advances an important interest, and production of generalizable knowledge in terms of scientific integrity. Generalizable knowledge refers to experimental results that generalize to a larger population beyond the animals studied. Generalizable scientific knowledge is reliable, replicable, and accurately descriptive. In sum, morally responsible research will be designed and carefully executed to successfully test a hypothesis that, whether verified or falsified, advances important interests. Our formulation of EKP, crucially, does not require further showing that an experiment involving animals will produce societal benefits.

Ethical and IACUC Considerations Regarding Analgesia and Pain Management in Laboratory Rodents

Scientists have ethical and regulatory commitments to minimize pain and distress during their use of sentient laboratory animals. Here I discuss pain as a special form of distress and the long history of ethical and regulatory standards calling on scientists to prevent, minimize, treat or terminate animal pain. Scientists, veterinarians, and IACUC face 2 challenges: knowledge of effective analgesic doses and regimens for all sexes, ages and genotypes of rodent is incomplete, and concerns regarding the effects of analgesic drugs on research outcomes push scientists to request approval to withhold analgesics and leave animal pain unalleviated. IACUC thus conduct what I call an 'ethics of uncertainty,' in which they factor in the limits of available ethically relevant information on the amount of expected animal suffering, the usefulness of analgesics to mitigate this suffering, and the eventual benefits that come from the research. IACUC must factor in current limitations in severity assessments of various experimental manipulations in various strains, inaccurate pain diagnosis, in known effective analgesic and other refinements, and on effects of pain medications and untreated pain on data outcomes, when deciding to allow potentially painful experiments and animal care practices. This article focuses on 3 areas of concern: the limits of veterinary "professional judgment" when the animal model's degree of pain and the efficacy of pain medications are not yet known; the review of proposals with known, unalleviated significant pain and distress (that is, Category E experiments); and the attempt to review the balance between animal welfare harms and scientific objectives. I propose no new regulations, standards, or ethical norms herein but rather explore some of the implications when existing ethical principles are applied to evolving scientific knowledge (and vice versa). I conclude that applying current animal pain management knowledge to prevailing ethical principles will shift IACUC toward greater caution in allowing potentially painful animal experiments, with heightened caution regarding the ability of analgesics to mitigate the animals' pain.