A Belmont Report for Animals?

Animal rights, animal research, and the need to reimagine science

What would it look like for researchers to take non-human animal rights seriously? Recent discussions foster the impression that scientific practice needs to be reformed to make animal research ethical: just as there is ethically rigorous human research, so there can be ethically rigorous animal research. We argue that practically little existing animal research would be ethical and that ethical animal research is not scalable. Since animal research is integral to the existing scientific paradigm, taking animal rights seriously requires a radical, wholesale reimagining of science.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05340426.

Modeling Huntington's disease: An insight on in-vitro and in-vivo models

Huntington's disease is a neurodegenerative illness that causes neuronal death most extensively within the basal ganglia. There is a broad class of neurologic disorders associated with the expansion of polyglutamine (polyQ) repeats in numerous proteins. Several other molecular mechanisms have also been implicated in HD pathology, including brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), mitochondrial dysfunction, and altered synaptic plasticity in central spiny neurons. HD pathogenesis and the effectiveness of therapy approaches have been better understood through the use of animal models. The pathological manifestations of the disease were reproduced by early models of glutamate analog toxicity and mitochondrial respiration inhibition. Because the treatments available for HD are quite limited, it is important to have a definite preclinical model that mimics all the aspects of the disease. It can be used to study mechanisms and validate candidate therapies. Although there hasn't been much success in translating animal research into clinical practice, each model has something special to offer in the quest for a deeper comprehension of HD's neurobehavioral foundations. This review provides insight into various in-vitro-and in-vivo models of HD which may be useful in the screening of newer therapeutics for this incapacitating disorder.

When Is Something an Alternative? A General Account Applied to Animal-Free Alternatives to Animal Research

The first "R" from animal research ethics prescribes the replacement of animal experiments with animal-free alternatives. However, the question of when an animal-free method qualifies as an alternative to animal experiments remains unresolved.Drawing lessons from another debate in which the word "alternative" is central, the ethical debate on alternatives to germline genome editing, this paper develops a general account of when something qualifies as an alternative to something. It proposes three ethically significant conditions that technique, method, or approach X must meet to qualify as an alternative to Y: (1) X must address the same problem as Y, under an appropriate description of that problem; (2) X must have a reasonable chance of success, compared to Y, in solving the problem; and (3) X must not be ethically unacceptable as a solution. If X meets all these conditions, its relative advantages and disadvantages determine whether it is preferable, indifferent, or dispreferable as an alternative to Y.This account is then applied to the question of whether animal-free research methods qualify as alternatives to animal research. Doing so breaks down the debate around this question into more focused (ethical and other) issues and illustrates the potential of the account.

The ethical perspectives of using animals in pediatric health

While there are ethical standards for human biomedical research, animals have historically not benefitted from the same levels of protection. Cultural shifts in response to studies demonstrating animal capacity to suffer have resulted in laws defining minimum ethical standards for the treatment of various animal populations. However, none of these pertain to service or therapy animals nor do they define ethical considerations regarding training, placement, environment, and duty limitations specific to this population. The potential for harm and inability to provide consent should raise ethical questions of animal assisted interventions (AAI), including how to best balance the risk: benefit ratio for both animal and human participants. While service animals have specific definitions, therapy and emotional support animals are much less clearly defined and therefore have far less standardized practices regarding their training, certification, and process for matching to handlers. This can lead to animals being inadequately trained to cope with the stresses of their jobs or being placed in incompatible environments. Meanwhile, service animals' duties are constant, and the animal has little ability to consent to or withdraw from participation, leading to overwork, without the opportunity to engage in activities that align with the animals' natural preferences. Emotional support animals are the least defined of these populations, receive no formal training, and are at increased risk of inadequate care, unstable housing, and abuse from handlers who may also be poorly prepared to properly handle their needs. To uphold our moral obligations to the animals that serve to improve our own mental wellness and physical independence, urgent actions are needed to improve the protections in place for these populations.

A New Strategy for Animal Research: Attending to Dissent

Increasingly, ethical concepts ordinarily reserved for the human research setting have been applied to nonhuman animals in research. This comes at the same time as concerns mount over challenges in translating the results of biomedical research with animals to human clinical benefit. This paper argues that applying the concept of dissent derived from research with humans to the context of animals can help to address a number of these translational issues, thereby providing an epistemological reason to take animal dissent seriously. This epistemological rationale can be added to the practical and ethical reasons for attending to animal dissent. Having made a case for recognizing the dissent of animals in biomedical research, the consequences that follow from this for the conduct of research are discussed. If animal researchers attend to dissent, then it seems that there are three types of strategy available: to override dissent, to train animals in such a way as to circumvent potential dissent, or to alter how research is conducted in order to be responsive to dissent. Only this last option has the potential to address all the types of reasons that motivate us to take dissent seriously; however, this would involve a significant reshaping of the practice of animal research.

A DECLARATION OF HELSINKI FOR ANIMALS

OBJECTIVE

This article examines the ethical principles underlying the Declaration of Helsinki as an internationally agreed justificatory framework for human medical research. The aim of the analysis is to consider the potential usefulness of these principles for defining an internationally agreed ethical 'best practice' in clinical veterinary research (CVR). It is suggested that the specific ethical responsibilities of the clinician to protect the interests of their patient when conducting medical research may be translated into the veterinary setting. Through exploring risk and harm, unproven interventions, vulnerability and informed consent, the article identifies the ethical risks of CVR. It is shown that veterinary regulators in the UK and the European Union have addressed these concerns to varying degrees; however, disagreements over the appropriateness of specific CVR practices are identified. A commitment to collaborative exploration of the benefits and challenges of implementing a Declaration of Helsinki for Animals is proposed.

Centring individual animals to improve research and citation practices

Modern behavioural scientists have come to acknowledge that individual animals may respond differently to the same stimuli and that the quality of welfare and lived experience can affect behavioural responses. However, much of the foundational research in behavioural science lacked awareness of the effect of both welfare and individuality on data, bringing their results into question. This oversight is rarely addressed when citing seminal works as their findings are considered crucial to our understanding of animal behaviour. Furthermore, more recent research may reflect this lack of awareness by replication of earlier methods - exacerbating the problem. The purpose of this review is threefold. First, we critique seminal papers in animal behaviour as a model for re-examining past experiments, attending to gaps in knowledge or concern about how welfare may have affected results. Second, we propose a means to cite past and future research in a way that is transparent and conscious of the abovementioned problems. Third, we propose a method of transparent reporting for future behaviour research that (i) improves replicability, (ii) accounts for individuality of non-human participants, and (iii) considers the impact of the animals' welfare on the validity of the science. With this combined approach, we aim both to advance the conversation surrounding behaviour scholarship while also serving to drive open engagement in future science.

Mission Creep or Mission Lapse? Scientific Review in Research Oversight

BACKGROUND

The ethical use both of human and non-human animals in research is predicated on the assumption that it is of a high quality and its projected benefits are more significant than the risks and harms imposed on subjects. Yet questions remain about whether and how IRBs and IACUCs should consider the scientific value of proposed research studies.

METHODS

We draw upon 45 interviews with IRB and IACUC members and researchers with oversight experience about their perceptions of their own roles in reviewing the quality and value of scientific protocols. Interview transcripts were memoed to highlight specific findings, which were then used to identify key themes through an iterative process.

RESULTS

IRB and IACUC members expressed broad trust in the need for and value of research, and they often assumed that protocols had social value or that prior review, especially when associated with funding, affirmed both the rigor and merit of those protocols. Some oversight members also took an explicit stance against scientific review by stating that such review is not within the regulatory mandates governing their parts in the oversight system. Yet other interviewees expressed uneasiness about the current paradigm for evaluating the quality and overall value of science, suggesting that IRB and IACUC members perceive gaps in the oversight systems.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal many similarities in how IRB and IACUC members understand the roles and limitations of their respective oversight committees. We conclude with a discussion of how the lack of a clear mandate regarding scientific review within US federal regulations may undermine ethical engagement of whether human and animal research is scientifically justified, resulting in a "mission lapse" wherein no organizational body is clearly responsible for ensuring that the research being conducted has the potential to advance science and benefit society.

The sentience shift in animal research

One of the primary concerns in animal research is ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals. Modern views on animal welfare emphasize the role of animal sentience, i.e. the capacity to experience subjective states such as pleasure or suffering, as a central component of welfare. The increasing official recognition of animal sentience has had large effects on laboratory animal research. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (Low et al., University of Cambridge, 2012) marked an official scientific recognition of the presence of sentience in mammals, birds, and cephalopods. Animal sentience has furthermore been recognized in legislation in the European Union, UK, New Zealand and parts of Australia, with discussions underway in other parts of the world to follow suit. In this paper, we analyze this shift towards recognition of sentience in the regulation and practice in the treatment of laboratory animals and its effects on animal welfare and use.

Clarifying the Ethics and Oversight of Chimeric Research

This article is the lead piece in a special report that presents the results of a bioethical investigation into chimeric research, which involves the insertion of human cells into nonhuman animals and nonhuman animal embryos, including into their brains. Rapid scientific developments in this field may advance knowledge and could lead to new therapies for humans. They also reveal the conceptual, ethical, and procedural limitations of existing ethics guidance for human-nonhuman chimeric research. Led by bioethics researchers working closely with an interdisciplinary work group, the investigation focused on generating conceptual clarity and identifying improvements to governance approaches, with the goal of helping scholars, funders, scientists, institutional leaders, and oversight bodies (embryonic stem cell research oversight [ESCRO] committees and institutional animal care and use committees [IACUCs]) deliver principled and trustworthy oversight of this area of science. The article, which focuses on human-nonhuman animal chimeric research that is stem cell based, identifies key ethical issues in and offers ten recommendations regarding the ethics and oversight of this research. Turning from bioethics' previous focus on human-centered questions about the ethics of "humanization" and this research's potential impact on concepts like human dignity, this article emphasizes the importance of nonhuman animal welfare concerns in chimeric research and argues for less-siloed governance and oversight and more-comprehensive public communication.

Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials

Phase I healthy volunteer trials test the safety and tolerability of investigational pharmaceuticals. In them, participants are exposed to study-drug risks without the possibility of direct medical benefit and typically must spend days or weeks in a residential research facility. Monetary payments are used to incentivize enrollment and compensate participants for their time. Together, these features of phase I healthy volunteer trials create a research context that differs markedly from most other clinical research, including by enrolling disproportionate numbers of economically disadvantaged people of color as participants. Due to these unique trial features and participation patterns, traditional biomedical research oversight offers inadequate ethical and policy guidance for phase I healthy volunteer research. This article details five ethical criteria crafted to be responsive to the particularities of this type of research: translational science value, fair opportunity and burden sharing, fair compensation for service, experiential welfare, and enhanced voice and recourse.

Protecting Canada’s Lab Animals: The Need for Legislation

Simple Summary

In this paper we argue that the current oversight system for animal-based science in Canada needs major reform to keep pace with progressive legislation in other nations and to prioritize the replacement of animals as best scientific practice.

Abstract

Canada’s current non-legislated oversight system for animal-based science not only fails to adequately incentivize the replacement of sentient animals as best scientific practice in any meaningful way, but also fails to adequately protect those animals bred, harmed, and killed in the name of science. In this paper, we outline the various shortcomings of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and we highlight the need for Canada to move towards national legislation akin to that seen in other jurisdictions like the U.K. We conclude that while legislation alone cannot ensure the replacement of sentient animals in science, it appears to be a precondition for significant progress in animal protection and for the development and adoption of non-animal methods.

Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals

The purpose of this article is to show that animal rights are not necessarily at odds with the use of animals for research. If animals hold basic moral rights similar to those of humans, then we should consequently extend the ethical requirements guiding research with humans to research with animals. The article spells out how this can be done in practice by applying the seven requirements for ethical research with humans proposed by Ezekiel Emanuel, David Wendler, and Christine Grady to animal research. These requirements are (1) social value, (2) scientific validity, (3) independent review, (4) fair subject selection, (5) favorable risk-benefit ratio, (6) informed consent, and (7) respect for research subjects. In practice, this means that we must reform the practice of animal research to make it more similar to research with humans, rather than completely abolish the former. Indeed, if we ban animal research altogether, then we would also deprive animals of its potential benefits-which would be ethically problematic.

Toward an Anti-Maleficent Research Agenda

Important advances in biomedical and behavioral research ethics have occurred over the past few decades, many of them centered on identifying and eliminating significant harms to human subjects of research. Comprehensive attention has not been paid to the totality of harms experienced by animal subjects, although scientific and moral progress require explicit appraisal of these harms. Science is a public good and the prioritizing within, conduct of, generation of, and application of research must soundly address questions about which research is morally defensible and valuable enough to support through funding, publication, tenure, and promotion. Likewise, educational pathways of re-imagined science are critical.

Animal welfare risks of global aquaculture

The unprecedented growth of aquaculture involves well-documented environmental and public-health costs, but less is understood about global animal welfare risks. Integrating data from multiple sources, we estimated the taxonomic diversity of farmed aquatic animals, the number of individuals killed annually, and the species-specific welfare knowledge (absence of which indicates extreme risk). In 2018, FAO reported 82.12 million metric tons of farmed aquatic animals from six phyla and at least 408 species-20 times the number of species of farmed terrestrial animals. The farmed aquatic animal tonnage represents 250 to 408 billion individuals, of which 59 to 129 billion are vertebrates (e.g., carps, salmonids). Specialized welfare information was available for 84 species, only 30% of individuals; the remaining 70% either had no welfare publications or were of an unknown species. With aquaculture growth outpacing welfare knowledge, immediate efforts are needed to safeguard the welfare of high-production, understudied species and to create policies that minimize welfare risks.

Should the Regulation of Research Misconduct Be Integrated with the Ethics Framework Promulgated in The Belmont Report?

The federal research misconduct regulations finalized in 2005 did not incorporate important principles regarding human subjects protections articulated in The Belmont Report, yet research misconduct can involve harms to research subjects and to subsequent patients whose treatments are based on false research findings. Consistency with the Belmont principles would require assuring regular monitoring to detect research misconduct, tracing effects of research misconduct on trial participants and informing them of these effects, and assuring timely correction of published reports of research findings if research misconduct related to the study was subsequently discovered. Research misconduct has historically been viewed as a matter for the scientific community to manage; it is actually a threat to the welfare of human subjects and ethically ought to be treated as such.

Laparoscopic procedures impact on mast cell mediators, extracellular matrix and adhesion scoring system in rats

Background

Laparoscopic procedures under certain pressure have the potential to cause intra-abdominal adhesions. However, the pathomechanism of this disorder is unknown. Release of mast cell mediators due to mast cell degranulation is thought to be the cause.

Materials and methods

Thirty male Sprague-Dawley rats were grouped into five groups (n = 6 per group): one control group and four intervention groups to which 60 min insufflation was performed using carbon dioxide at 5, 8, 10 and 12 mmHg. Seven days after laparoscopy, we euthanized and evaluated the levels of histamine, tryptase, and chymase of peritoneal fluid, the thickness of ECM of peritoneal tissue, and intraabdominal adhesion scoring system.

Results

Histamine and tryptase levels in peritoneal fluid were significantly higher at the 10- and 12 mm Hg intervention compared to control (histamine: 0.50 ± 0.35 vs. 0.41 ± 0.41 vs. 0.04 ± 0.02 ng/mL, respectively; and tryptase: 0.69 ± 0.11 vs. 0.65 ± 0.05 vs. 0.48 ± 0.02 ng/ml respectively). The ECM was significantly thicker in the intervention groups at 10- and 12-mm Hg compared to control (71.3 [66.7–85.2] vs. 48.4 [34.5–50.3] vs. 10.25 [8.7–12.1] μm, respectively). Moreover, the intra-abdominal scoring was also significantly higher in the intervention groups at 10- and 12 mm Hg compared to control (4 [0–4] vs. 4.5 [4–5], vs. 0, respectively).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic procedures increase the release of mast cell mediators in peritoneal fluid, the thickness of ECM and intraabdominal adhesion scoring in rats, implying that it might increase the possibility of intrabdominal adhesion in humans.

•

Laparoscopic procedures at specific pressures potentially cause intra-abdominal adhesion, however, its pathomechanism is still challenging to understand.

•

Laparoscopic procedures increase the release of mast cell mediators in peritoneal fluid, the thickness of ECM and intraabdominal adhesion scoring in rats.

•

Our findings imply that laparoscopic procedures might increase the possibility of intrabdominal adhesion in humans.