No Pain, No Gain? In Defence of Genetically Disenhancing (Most) Research Animals

In defense of xenotransplantation research: Because of, not in spite of, animal welfare concerns

It is envisioned that one day xenotransplantation will bring about a future where transplantable organs can be safely and efficiently grown in transgenic pigs to help meet the global organ shortage. While recent advances have brought this future closer, worries remain about whether it will be beneficial overall. The unique challenges and risks posed to humans that arise from transplanting across the species barrier, in addition to the costs borne by non-human animals, has led some to question the value of xenotransplantation altogether. In response, we defend the value of xenotransplantation research, because it can satisfy stringent welfare conditions on the permissibility of animal research and use. Along the way, we respond to the alleged concerns, and conclude that they do not currently warrant a cessation or a curtailing of xenotransplantation research.

The 3Rs principles and genetic pain disenhancement

William Russell and Rex Burch's 3Rs principles were developed 1959 before animal ethics emerged as a scientific discipline in the 1970s and before many ground-breaking developments in modern biotechnology, such as genetic engineering. From this starting point we sought to analyse the normative foundations of the 3Rs principles in contemporary terms and concepts of animal ethics. After establishing the normative groundwork of the 3Rs, we will look at their practical implications within the context of present-day biotechnology. To this end, we shall investigate whether the genetic disenhancement of research animals to limit their ability to feel pain (GPD) complies with the original 3Rs principles. We use GPD as a practical example, since it is being discussed today as a promising way of solving one of the key moral issues raised by animal research, notably animal pain and suffering. By discussing GPD in the context of the 3Rs we aim also not only to gain insights into whether GPD is compatible with one or more of the 3Rs, but also to develop a better understanding of the specific normative foundation of the 3Rs principles and the conceptual limitations and practical implications of that foundation. We argue that reducing moral concerns about animal research to those that are intelligible within a sentientist framework (eg harm and suffering), as the 3Rs do, represents an oversimplification of the moral issues involved. We suggest that interference with abilities, instrumentalisation, flourishing, and death are all important aspects of animal ethics requiring consideration.

3R measures in facilities for the production of genetically modified rodents

Sociocultural changes in the human-animal relationship have led to increasing demands for animal welfare in biomedical research. The 3R concept is the basis for bringing this demand into practice: Replace animal experiments with alternatives where possible, Reduce the number of animals used to a scientifically justified minimum and Refine the procedure to minimize animal harm. The generation of gene-modified sentient animals such as mice and rats involves many steps that include various forms of manipulation. So far, no coherent analysis of the application of the 3Rs to gene manipulation has been performed. Here we provide guidelines from the Committee on Genetics and Breeding of Laboratory Animals of the German Society for Laboratory Animal Science to implement the 3Rs in every step during the generation of genetically modified animals. We provide recommendations for applying the 3Rs as well as success/intervention parameters for each step of the process, from experiment planning to choice of technology, harm-benefit analysis, husbandry conditions, management of genetically modified lines and actual procedures. We also discuss future challenges for animal welfare in the context of developing technologies. Taken together, we expect that our comprehensive analysis and our recommendations for the appropriate implementation of the 3Rs to technologies for genetic modifications of rodents will benefit scientists from a wide range of disciplines and will help to improve the welfare of a large number of laboratory animals worldwide.

Should Animal Welfare be Included in Educational Programs? Attitudes of Secondary and University Students from Eight EU Countries

Animal Welfare (AW) educational programs aim to promote positive attitudes of future generations toward animal production systems. This study investigated whether secondary and university students in the majors that are not related to AW teaching believe that this concept should be included also in their educational programs. The determinant factors affecting students' attitudes toward such a decision were analyzed. This research has focused on eight European countries (Spain, the United Kingdom, Poland, Greece, Lithuania, Romania, Italy, and Sweden) targeting 3,881 respondents composed of 1,952 secondary and 1,929 university students. The results showed that female university students with a high level of subjective and objective knowledge on AW and who required more restrictive AW regulations, gave support to include the concept in their educational programs. However, Students who support medical experiments that use animals to improve human health were less likely to accept AW education. Furthermore, students in Italy compared to those in Sweden were prone to support AW educational programs. Results highlight the importance of teaching the AW concept as a comprehensive teaching tool at universities and schools' programs as it may constitute a starting point for a more sustainable society toward improving animal living conditions, mainly in the Mediterranean countries in secondary schools.