Research proposal on animal cruelty

Some modest proposals for animal rights supporters looking to

microorganisms, plants, eggs, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates may be used in some studies to replace warm-blooded animals. these include the use of freund's complete adjuvant for antibody induction; foot pad injections; blood collection; ascites production for production of monoclonal antibodies; tumor induction; survival surgery; euthanasia; the use of the lethal dose 50 (ld 50), or other death as an endpoint studies, animal care and use protocol form. then, in 2002, congress moved to amend the awa to exclude birds, rats, and mice from the act’s protections following successful litigation against the government by the animal legal defense fund that would have required the act to be interpreted to include them. people disagree about whether certain kinds of animal uses are sufficiently valuable to justify a certain level of animal pain. animal damage control act permits the secretary of agriculture to control “nuisance” mammals and birds and injurious animal species by taking any action considered necessary in conducting the program. as a nonscientist, i cannot assess the general validity of such an approach in estimating animal pain, but i can report an incident in which several members of an iacuc asked to receive an electric shock (not part of a pain study) that an investigator proposed to give to rabbits. this document also requires conformance with all applicable laws and, like the us principles, states that “all work with animals shall be designed and performed in consideration of its relevance to the improvement of human or animal health and the advancement of knowledge for the good of society” ( faseb 1994 , p 1). animal welfare act (awa) requires research laboratories to report the number of animals used in experiments and authorizes the secretary of agriculture to “promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals” by research facilities, mandating that these standards include requirements for “practices in experimental procedures to ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized. animal models that can involve unrelieved pain include some for amputation pain ( blumberg and janig 1982 ; wall and gutnick 1974 ), arthritis pain ( coderre and wall 1987 ; colpaert 1987 ; decastro costa and others 1981-1987 ), cardiac pain ( uchida and murao 1974 ), chronic pain ( sweet 1981 ), deafferentiation pain ( brinkus and zimmerman 1983 ; wiesenfeld and lindblom 1980 ), muscle pain ( mense and schmidt 1974 ), neuropathic pain ( bennett and xie 1988 ), stress-induced analgesia ( lewis and others 1980 ), trigeminal neuralgia ( black 1974 ), and visceral pain ( deleo and others 1992 ). improved understanding of and ability to deal with pain require continued research on animals ( bonica 1992 ; dubner 1983, 1987 ; sessle 1987 ; sternbach 1976 ; zimmermann 1986 ). the absence in us laws and regulations of specific ethical guidelines relating to animal pain research means that investigators and iacucs must apply to pain experimentation on animals more general ethical principles that relate to animal pain. it would be incongruous and inconsistent to engage in animal research for this ethical reason and deny the importance of dealing ethically with the animals essential to this research. the justification principle and the fact that pain is an evil to animals follows a critically important ethical principle that is often invoked by iacucs when they consider research likely to cause animals pain. animals are not recognized as having legitimate legal rights, such as the right to be free from torture, laws meant to protect them have no means to allow her advocate to come in to court to assert those protections on her behalf. in any discussion concerning animal rights, the question often arises as to the need to distinguish companion animals, like dogs and cats, from other animals. although the equality principle is consistent with using “lower” species if they do experience less pain or suffer less, allowing investigators to proceed on the basis of an unproved assumption could reinforce the notion that the experience of pain in “lower” animals is less real or less ethically relevant. from each animal, perhaps gathering data for more than one. when we add to the mix different numbers of animals, the task of comparing and minimizing can become even more difficult.(4)in studies of acute or chronic pain in animals, measures should be taken to provide a reasonable assurance that the animal is exposed to the minimal pain necessary for the purposes of the experiment. although the results of research are often unpredictable, research that will cause animals pain must be based on accurate scientific knowledge, involve scientifically defensible hypotheses, and use scientifically appropriate techniques. however, although federal ethical guidelines emphasize minimization of pain, they contain no standards or suggestions relating specifically to pain research in animals., reduction, and replacement of animal toxicity tests by computational methods. all animal users are encouraged to explore this and other means of improving animal welfare while still accomplishing our research mission. the main feature of the report is the specification of numbers of animals with respect to experiences of pain. when laws protecting animals do exist, they are often insufficient or full of loopholes. investigators should assure the iacuc that they know how to assess and characterize pain in animals. what is ethically important about pain--what makes it an evil to animals as well as to humans--is that it feels bad. the purpose of most pain research is to understand pain in humans, and it is often scientifically reasonable to assume that what the animals feel is similar to what humans feel. recognition and anticipation of situations likely to induce suffering in animals. some important knowledge regarding pain mechanisms and modulation has been gained from studies on animals that cannot feel pain because they have been anesthetized or rendered unconscious by decerebration or decortication.(6)studies of pain in animals paralyzed with a neuromuscular blocking agent should not be performed without a general anesthetic or an appropriate surgical procedure that eliminates sensory awareness.

Understanding the Link

it might be correct in such circumstances to say that more total pain would be caused by using the 20 animals. proposals for animal use are reviewed based on the potential. zimmermann, “ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals,” p 109-110, 1983, with permission from elsevier science. the animal care and use protocol (acup) asks about the alternatives that have been considered, why they were rejected and how the principal investigator searched for these alternatives. federal laws, regulations, and policies governing animal research contain many ethical guidelines applicable to pain research in animals. products, and build our cities and highways where animals might otherwise. some of these general principles are enunciated in the laws and regulations relating to animal research. ethical consideration of animal pain in pain research, like the research itself, must often settle for imprecise or gross estimates of how much and what kind of pain and associated negative feelings animals experience. if the research has great value, what the animals experience will probably be viewed as justified, provided that all reasonable steps are taken to try to minimize their pain and distress. i have suggested that a stronger showing of the importance of a piece of basic research must be made when that work would cause pain or discomfort to animals than when research shows prospects of providing medical benefits ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 472). however, the most serious problem for precisely estimating and then minimizing animal pain results from the fact that animals cannot talk about their pain. moreover, using animals in pain research as a model for human pain clearly presupposes that animals feel pain; if they did not, the model would be pointless. estimating animal pain is and will likely always be imprecise. clearly, it is an easier argument to limit animal rights to our companion animals who occupy our homes and are near and dear to us. these recommendations include the statements that (1) behavioral procedures “that minimize discomfort to the animal should be used”; (2) when using aversive conditions, “psychologists should adjust the parameters of stimulation to levels that appear minimum”; (3) “psychologists are encouraged to test painful stimuli on themselves, whenever reasonable”; (4) “whenever consistent with the goals of the research, consideration should be given to providing the animals with control of the potentially aversive stimulation”; (5) “procedures involving more than momentary or slight aversive stimulation, which is not relieved by medication or other acceptable methods, should be undertaken only when the objectives of the research cannot be achieved by other methods”; and (6) “experimental procedures that require prolonged aversive conditions or produce tissue damage or metabolic disturbances require greater justification and surveillance. american college of laboratory animal medicine foundation funds grants to study alternative methods of animal use. experiments in which animals experience unrelieved pain include induction of acute pain of varying levels of severity as well as chronic pain of varying levels of severity and duration. an animal, it does not matter whether its pain or distress is part of research designed to understand and treat pain. more often those opposed to animal cruelty and who are in support of animal rights need to speak with a unified voice to reform this country's unacceptable treatment of animals. it might also be helpful for iacuc members to view animals that are subjected to painful procedures either before approving a proposal if possible or afterwards so that members can assure themselves that pain experienced by the animals is justified. animal contact be trained in appropriate handling techniques and that. because the deliberate infliction of animal pain is the infliction of a fundamental harm and evil, an iacuc should take all reasonable steps to assure that any pain research on animals performed at the institution is ethically appropriate, without question.(3)to make possible the evaluation of the levels of pain, the investigator should give a careful assessment of the animal's deviation from normal behavior. what i call the “equality principle” holds that a given amount or duration or severity of pain is equally an evil for any being--human or animal---experiencing it. unfortunately, it is often impossible to do pain research on animals without the animals experiencing pain.(5)an animal presumably experiencing chronic pain should be treated for relief of pain, or should be allowed to self-administer analgesic agents or procedures, as long as this will not interfere with the aim of the investigation. these guidelines state that “sound scientific practice and humane considerations require that animals receive sedation, analgesia or anesthesia when appropriate. frequent invocation of the minimization principle in awa regulations and phs policies reflects the centrality of this principle in society's ethical framework relating to animals. at some point, the scientific reasons for a study may simply not justify the pain experienced by some or all of the animals. health service policy on the humane care and use of laboratory animals. the important ethical principle of fairness to individuals is embodied in the provision of the awa regulations that “no animal will be used in more than one major operative procedure from which it is allowed to recover” (9 cfr 2.

Resume for a restaurant

Animal Welfare at Risk in Experiments for Meat Industry - The New

. investigators should characterize and estimate the likely pain and associated negative feelings that will be experienced by the animals as completely and accurately as reasonably possible.. introduction animal rights activists are often called nut jobs, wackos, and extremists--and that is by our friends and family members. regarding animal use as a privilege involves treating research animals with appreciation, gratitude, respect, and a genuine concern for their needs and welfare. however, i have not built this principle or the requirement that pain research causing animal pain must promise practical benefits into my recommendations to iacucs. animal use is performed in as humane a manner as possible, minimizing. although it would be easy to give into the distinction between companion animals and other animals, to do so ignores the fact that noncompanion animals, like chimpanzees, have a genetic make-up very similar to ours. unaffiliated and certainly nonscientist members are also likely to insist on descriptions of any pain the animals may experience in lay terms that not only are understandable to them but also reflect the public's concern about what animals might actually feel. (7) while some environmental and constitutional laws (such as the endangered species act (8) and the marine mammal protection act) (9) do address the rights of noncompanion animals, the continued property classification of animals affects--and hurts-companion animals more than it does our nondomesticated friends. (d)(1)(i)); that investigators provide the iacuc a written narrative showing that they have considered “alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain to the animals” (9 cfr 2. such ethical deliberation and such techniques for pain minimization will surely be applicable to animal pain associated with other kinds of research. the statute and its regulations contain many ethical obligations made legally enforceable, such as the requirements that procedures “will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals” (9 crr 2. that he could eat instead, there has been competition with animals for. past eradication programs include hunting wolves by airplane and conducting goose hunts in state parks, as well as sponsoring widespread deer, bear or coyote hunts open to the public all in the name of controlling animal populations deemed damaging to other species. moreover, because pain is a fundamental evil to animals as it is to humans, the following ethical principle seems appropriate: if there is reasonable scientific question about whether animals under certain circumstances are or are not feeling pain or are feeling more or less pain, we should err on the side of judging that they feel this pain or that they are feeling the worst or largest amount of reasonably attributable pain. discussing ethical considerations relating to pain research in animals, it is important to begin with general ethical principles. therefore, the more pain an experiment will cause animals, the greater must be the justification. that animals should be treated kindly because animal cruelty represented.. the iacuc should apply to the consideration of any pain research proposal the fullest and most complete consideration available under its operating procedures. an animal observed to be in a state of severe distress or chronic pain that cannot be alleviated and is not essential to the purposes of the research should be euthanized immediately” ( apa 1992 , p 5). however, we cannot always clearly say that some animals experience more pain than others because it is not clear that the term “pain” (even when properly applied) always refers to the same entity of which the relative amounts can be compared and then “lessened” or “minimized. this principle requires that what is done to animals in research be justified by practical or theoretical results. that procedures to be performed on the animal are reasonable for that species. phs ethical guidelines for animal research also focus on the minimization of pain and distress. the idea of replacement of 'higher' animals with 'lower' animals,And requires environmental enrichment or human contact for intelligent,Social animals such as nonhuman primates, or dogs and cats, but not for. people disagree on ethical grounds whether certain kinds of research justify animal pain or some degree of animal pain. for ethical conduct in the care and use of animals. some people, for example, believe that testing cosmetics is of sufficient value to justify animal pain; others disagree. perhaps many of these discriminations will some day be applied to animals based on similarities between their physiological states or behavior and those of humans when we make these discriminations. the us government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing, research, and training declare that (1) “proper use of animals, including the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is imperative.. the right of animals to have their interest represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land. apply many different ethical principles to their interactions with animals.

An Investigation into the Association between the Witnessing of

"A Modest Proposal for Advancing Animal Rights" by Sullivan, Diane

the view that the capacity of animals to feel pain is the primary source of our ethical obligations to them was argued by the 18th century english philosopher jeremy bentham, who maintained that the important question regarding animals is not “can they reason? moreover, virtually everyone accepts the principle that we have a fundamental ethical obligation to treat properly animals we use for our own benefit. environmental enrichment and opportunities for species behavior associated with stress reduction can lessen stress and discomfort experienced by the animals ( mench 1998 ; zimmermann 1986 ). the act excludes poultry, rabbits, fish and other animals routinely raised for human consumption. some people believe that animal pain can never be justified by basic research that does not promise practical benefits for people or other animals; others disagree. moreover, although the minimization principle applies even when pain is justifiably inflicted on animals, in pain research this principle may often fail to accomplish its ultimate goal, which is to spare animals significant or substantial pain. more agrarian, reverence for wild animals waned, and thanks and. attention to the ethical treatment of animals in research is not just morally obligatory. reason above all else, and ascribed little moral value to animals. research that causes animals pain to test a new and potentially more effective pain-killing drug for cancer patients will likely have an aim that is sufficiently valuable to justify the infliction of some animal pain. nevertheless, such disagreements and lack of knowledge do not diminish the strength of the ethical principle that bad or unpleasant feelings inflicted on animals must be justified and minimized. if there is disagreement among philosophers and scientists about the meaning of the term “pain” in animals and lack of knowledge about its nature and causes, there is even greater disagreement about the meaning and causes of psychological states in animals such as distress, discomfort, fear, or anxiety ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 416-418). this recommendation infers that the degree of suffering is smaller in lower than in higher animals although this assumption cannot be taken as proven” ( covino and others 1980 , p 142). the justification principle requires anyone who causes animals pain to provide justification for doing so. however, fairness to individual animals may sometimes obligate investigators and iacucs to consider alterations in experimental design that may increase or not lessen duration of pain or numbers of animals. the iasp recommends that “the duration of the experiment must be as short as possible and the number of animals involved kept to a minimum” ( zimmermann 1983 , p 110). in pain as in other kinds of research, fairness to individual animals may sometimes require using more rather than fewer animals, extending rather than shortening the duration of an experiment, and not minimizing total pain and distress. ethical guidance in evaluating the humaneness of animal pain research also requires use of normative principles of the kind developed in this article. our capacity for reason is no less moral or ethical than another animal. refuses to order release of niagara falls chimpanzee ; florida animal rights group was trying to free primate. the federal animal welfare act explicitly excludes birds, rats and mice—which account for the vast majority of animals used in laboratories. the fda does mandate that all new drugs be tested on animals, even where no link exists between the particular experiment and human consumption standards. for at least the past 100 yr, most people in western societies have believed their primary ethical obligation to all animals is not to cause them unnecessary or unjustifiable pain ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 120-122). these provisions, all of which express the minimization principle, are elaborated in regulations that reiterate and sometimes apply this principle more concretely with, for example, the requirements that “procedures involving animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals” (9 cfr 2. bad science cannot be good ethics, certainly when it involves causing animals pain.” that causing animals pain, even when justified, is a necessary evil explains why we should be unhappy about the need to do it and why we should feel unsettled by it (which is not the same as saying we should feel guilty about doing it). the american psychological association guidelines for ethical conduct in the care and use of animals also require compliance with all laws and regulations but add a number of more specific recommendations relating to animal pain. guidelinesorder offprintsopen access optionspurchasealertsaboutabout ilar journalabout the institute for laboratory animal researcheditorial boardadvertising and corporate servicesself-archiving policydispatch dates. a project that would cause animals pain simply to amuse a “researcher” who enjoys watching animals suffer has no value and would not justify the infliction of any pain. despite the fact that they are living, feeling beings, animals in the u.. the right of farmed animals to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs.

Resume for city council member

Ethics and Alternatives for Animal Use in Research and Teaching

abbreviations used in this article: awa, animal welfare act; guide, guide for the care and use of laboratory animals; iacuc, institutional animal care and use committee; iasp, international association for the study of pain; phs, public health service; us principles, us government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing research and training.. in balancing pain and distress caused to animals against the value of the research, and in monitoring pain research in progress, the iacuc should consider whether pain has become so severe that individual animals should be removed from the research or the research itself should be terminated. most laws relating to animal use (such as cruelty-to-animals statutes, humane slaughter laws, and most laws and regulations governing animal research) require that animals used for legitimate purposes not be caused pain if possible and not be caused unnecessary pain if some pain is unavoidable. they are ethically and legally obligated to find and implement techniques of lessening animal pain. those animals who are covered by the awa lack true protection because of inadequate resources for enforcement of the act by the us department of agriculture’s animal & plant health inspection service (usca/aphis), which is the agency charged with enforcing the act. animals are looked after by someone trained in, and sympathetic toward. in light of the inherent inability of animals to describe their pain, it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to make such determinations with anything approaching the precision we make them regarding pain in humans. procedures that may cause more than slight pain or distress to animals. suppose a pain experiment could achieve satisfactory results either by causing excruciating pain in five animals for 1 hr or moderate and well-tolerated pain in 20 animals for 1 day. the first sentence of the guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (guide1 ), which institutions covered by phs rules must consult, proclaims an ethical principle intended to underlie the guide's recommendations: “all who care for or use animals in research, teaching, or testing must assume responsibility for their well-being” ( nrc 1996 , p 1). so that the best scientific, technical,-and ethical questions can be asked, all members of the iacuc should attend the review of pain research proposals. however, i would argue that using the 20 animals would be ethically preferable, because each individual animal will be harmed less. however, the experience of pain is bad in and of itself, which is why humans and animals generally avoid it. in this paper, i explore and defend a number of widely accepted ethical principles regarding animal pain. none of this means that it is inherently wrong to cause animals pain in pain research. what i call the “minimization principle” holds that we should minimize pain experienced by research animals. research in animals raises distinctive and sometimes difficult ethical issues for institutional animal care and use committees (iacucs 1 ), attending veterinarians, and investigators. use of live animals, a more sophisticated concept of alternatives has. the presence of such feelings is likely to increase the total evil an animal will be caused and thus increase the required minimum level of justification and value of a proposed experiment. as a number of prominent animal pain researchers and specialists argue, one should not reject all anthropomorphism in describing the pain of animal subjects ( dubner 1987 ; soma 1987 ; zimmermann 1986 ). much remains to be learned about what kinds of chemical and environmental interventions can lessen animal pain.(3)to make possible the evaluation of the levels of pain, the investigator should give a careful assessment of the animal's deviation from normal behavior. that is, if the necessary information can be gathered before the animal experiences any ill effects from the experiment, this should be defined as the endpoint and the animal subsequently euthanized. that causing animals pain in pain research may sometimes be a necessary evil also implies that iacuc members and investigators must pay special attention to their ethical obligations of minimizing harm to animals. all of these viewpoints have contributed to the development of ethical principles of animal use. although one must be careful imputing to animals sophisticated emotional reactions to pain, neither should one preclude the possibility of such reactions. we appear obligated to do something--pain research on animals--that will sometimes involve doing something else--causing pain--that we are generally obligated not to do. because it is difficult if not impossible to characterize what paralyzed animals feel, one cannot determine whether what they feel is justified, whether their pain and distress is being minimized relative to the aims of the experiment, and whether their pain and distress have become so severe that the experiment must at some point be terminated. moreover, because pain research is but one kind of biomedical research, animals that feel pain as a result of pain research surely represent a small fraction of research animals that feel pain or distress. drafted in 1966 to regulate the care of animals used in laboratories, the animal welfare act (awa) remains the only federal law that regulates the treatment of animals, but only those used in commerce, specifically: in research, for exhibition, during transport, and animals for sale by dealers and breeders. therefore, one can never justify causing more pain to an animal than one needs to cause.

Rutgers business school business plan

What Rights for Animals? A Modest Proposal

animals do not have the same kind of appreciation of what they are experiencing that can render it less stressful; they do not choose to be subjected to pain; and they cannot tell us that once they avoid or terminate a stimulus, their pain has ended. currently, 45 states and the district of columbia have some kind of felony level animal cruelty provision, usually for aggravated cruelty or animal fighting or both. general ethical principles discussed above help explain why pain research in animals can be so ethically troublesome. animal fighting as a spectator sport michael vick was indicted on some of the most egregious, wanton acts of inhumanity toward animals ever reported. these policies incorporate the requirements of the awa regulations and state explicitly that “procedures with animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals, consistent with sound research design”; that “procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals will be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia, unless the procedure is justified for scientific reasons in writing by the investigator”; and that “animals that would otherwise experience severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved will be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure” ( phs 1996 , p 9). therefore, while some animal welfare groups have done a good job raising the awareness of the plight of the giant panda and the previously endangered bald eagle, the greatest strides yet to be made involve companion animals and their often horrid treatment in our united states. minimizing duration and numbers may often lessen the burdens experienced by individual animals used in pain research. unfortunately, enforcement of this act has been inconsistent, and animal welfare organizations continue to uncover and expose pervasive and horrific violations of it. nevertheless, because there is evidence that self-mutilation seen after nerve lesions is not always a sign of pain in animals, more work is needed to determine reliable criteria of pain so that we can accurately estimate the ethical costs of this kind of pain research. are two components of the kind of value that is needed to justify animal pain caused by research: the value of the aims of the research and the level of its scientific soundness. the preface to the current guidelines state that investigators “should make every effort to minimize pain” and should “accept a general attitude in which the animal is regarded not as an object for exploitation, but as a living individual” ( zimmermann 1983 , p 109). because pain is an evil, we act wrongly if we cause any animal we use for our own benefit or for the benefit of other animals unnecessary or unjustifiable pain. therefore, in determining whether the infliction of animal pain is justified, we must ask whether what we are doing is fair to the individual animals we use. the level of stress can sometimes be reduced by training the animals to perform pain detection and pain discrimination tests by, for example, having the animals decide when to initiate the test and when to withdraw from the experiment by ceasing to initiate trials., the act’s narrow definition of “animal” limits its effectiveness, since it always excluded cold-blooded animals, farm animals, and horses not used in research. investigators should also consider the possibility that pain in animals may sometimes be worse for them than pain in humans experienced under similar circumstances.(5)an animal presumably experiencing chronic pain should be treated for relief of pain, or should be allowed to self-administer analgesic agents or procedures, as long as this will not interfere with the aim of the investigation. for example, “procedures involving animals should be designed and performed with due consideration of the relevance to human or animal health, the advancement of knowledge, or the good of society” ( phs 1996 , p i). there are other difficult issues in assessing and comparing the value of medical research relative to justification of animal pain ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 485-486). additionally, paralysis removes overt signs of pain and distress and therefore removes one of the major ways to determine the severity, duration, and character of the animals' pain and distress. that there are diverse viewpoints about the moral value of animals.. iacucs should encourage investigators to demonstrate in experiments that will cause animals pain or distress a level of justification and value that is as high as possible. these in turn have shaped animal use regulations promulgated by the usda and the phs, and echoed by organizations such as aaalac,Aalas and the avma. in my view, it is obvious that an iacuc must assure itself to at least some extent of the scientific soundness of research that will cause animals pain. as each new year dawns, the promise of the next year suggests the time may have come to recognize that sentience and finally abolish the continued legal classification of animals as property. an experiment that is part of a general research program that has already led to medically significant improvements in treating pain and is proposed by a scientist with demonstrated expertise and success in the area will likely overcome issues regarding precisely how much pain is being produced, whether the animals are feeling some distress as well as pain, or whether the negative feelings experienced by the animals will be absolutely minimized. to ethics is an essential part of the work of iacucs, veterinarians, animal researchers, and all who affect the lives of research animals. surgical or other painful procedures should not be performed on unanesthetized animals paralyzed by chemical agents”; and (3) “animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure” ( phs 1996 , p i). the society for neuroscience policy on the use of animals in neuroscience research recommends and is based on the phs policies and the guide, and it repeats or paraphrases the requirements of the us government principles: “the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain,” including use of sedation, analgesia or anesthesia in procedures “that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress” ( sfn 1997 , p 2). this last statement embodies the requirements of the justification and value principles that the pain or distress to which animals are subjected must be proportional to the justification and value of the experiment. few would object to the fact that animals feel pain.

Animal Abuse & the Ecology of Abused Children

although the statute requires that an inspection uncover all deficiencies, the only matters specifically mentioned are inspection of “practices involving pain to animals” and “the condition of animals, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter to minimize pain and distress to animals” (7 usc 2143(a)(7)a)). the awa requires that regulations be effected that assure “animal pain and distress are minimized, including adequate veterinary care with the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia” (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(a)); that “the principal investigator considers alternatives to any procedure likely to produce pain to or distress in an experimental animal” (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(b)); that “in any practice which could cause pain to animals,” a veterinarian be consulted in the planning of such procedures (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(c)(i)) and that these procedures provide for “the use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and anesthetics” (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(c)(ii)); and that “the withholding of tranquilizers, anesthesia, analgesia, or euthanasia when scientifically necessary shall continue for only the necessary period of time” (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(c)(v)). application of these governmental ethical rules to pain research in animals requires an understanding of the underlying ethical standards that give these rules meaning and specificity. and there are no federal laws at all protecting the billions of animals raised for food from the most egregious abuses. the terms “humane care and treatment” and treating animals “humanely” are used by most people, and clearly by the awa, as synonyms for ethical care and treatment and treating animals as we are ethically obligated to do ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 120-121,419-420). the primary purpose of the awa and regulations to minimize animal pain, distress, and discomfort is underscored by the requirement that all institutions file the annual report, which must contain not only an assurance that the facility has adhered to all standards and regulations under the act, but also a statement that there has been “appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, and tranquilizing drugs, prior to, during, and following actual research…” (9 cfr 2. the iasp also recommends that pain studies “in animals paralyzed with a neuromuscular blocking agent should not be performed without a general anesthetic or an appropriate surgical procedure that eliminates sensory awareness” ( zimmermann 1983 , p 110). together these 3 species excluded from the act’s protections are estimated to comprise over 90 percent of all animals used in research. us laws require iacucs (and not someone else) to determine whether proposed animal experiments are humane (that is, ethical). in many cases the agency authorized to look out for and enforce those protections is the same agency that spends the majority of its time and resources working with industries who exploit animals, such as factory farm corporations. humans and animals also has become fuzzier, and it suggests that. although some pain studies can allow animals to escape or to avoid painful stimuli when they presumably become too uncomfortable, several areas of pain research require unavoidable painful experiences. moreover, the likelihood of minimizing animal pain will probably be increased if, as a general policy, an iacuc asks investigators who cause animals pain to show why there is not some means of causing less pain consistent with justified research. it is possible to argue not only about whether such goals are sufficiently valuable to justify a certain level of animal pain, but also about the relative ranking of these goals. the international association for the study of pain (iasp 1 ) recommends that in pain research on conscious animals for “most non-invasive stimuli causing acute pain,” the investigator “should try the pain stimulus on himself” ( zimmermann 1983 , p 109)., all live animal use in research, teaching or testing must be reviewed. are several specific research techniques in common use that are often criticized for their potential for causing pain or distress to animals. there are significant conceptual issues regarding how to define such states as pain, distress, discomfort, and anxiety in animals ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 416-418; wall 1992 ). new systems to look for similarities, and using less expensive animals. it is also clear that progress in understanding and alleviating pain in humans and animals requires the use of animals. investigators and iacucs should focus on what is fair to individual animals, which may sometimes require lengthening rather than shortening the duration of pain, using more rather than fewer animals, or causing more rather than less total pain. one significant recent development in animal ethics is growing acceptance by the public and members of the biomedical research community of the view that animals used in research should be provided enriched environments and positive psychological experiences ( rollin 1995 , p 3-26). for example, sometimes knowing how to minimize pain is easy: if an animal is fully anesthetized, its pain is minimized during the time of anesthesia.(4)in studies of acute or chronic pain in animals, measures should be taken to provide a reasonable assurance that the animal is exposed to the minimal pain necessary for the purposes of the experiment. principle that our primary obligation to animals is not to cause them unjustifiable pain presupposes that animals can experience pain. the minimization principle is persuasive, it will sometimes be difficult or impossible to apply it confidently to pain research in animals. they must engage in ethical deliberation in which animal and human interests are carefully balanced.(6)studies of pain in animals paralyzed with a neuromuscular blocking agent should not be performed without a general anesthetic or an appropriate surgical procedure that eliminates sensory awareness. use of animals in research, teaching and testing is an important ethical and political issue. (1)it is essential that the intended experiments on pain in conscious animals be reviewed beforehand by scientists and lay-persons. the american psychological association policy reiterates these principles in its general requirements of justification for the use of animals in proposed experiments, which include the statements that research should be undertaken with a clear scientific purpose.

Ethics and Pain Research in Animals | ILAR Journal | Oxford Academic

exists a wide spectrum of views on this subject, ranging from those concerned with animal 'rights' to those who view animals only as a resource to be exploited. therefore, in determining whether causing animal pain in an experiment is ethically justifiable, we must include in our deliberations other unpleasant or negative animal experiences.) perhaps iacuc members as well as investigators can try certain proposed painful stimuli on themselves if knowledge about the species and individuals used does not cast doubt on extrapolation of human reactions to what may be experienced by the animals. and agencies that regulate animal research have recognized the importance of ethics by articulating a number of ethical rules iacucs and others involved in animal research are expected to follow. aside from having the force of law, government ethical rules relating to pain in animal research reflect society's most fundamental ethical views regarding animals. no federal agency exists solely to safeguard the interest of animals. help the countless people and animals that suffer pain, we need more pain research. [nih website on model organisms for biomedical research] alternately, live animals may be replaced with non-animal models, such as dummies for an introduction to dissection for teaching the structure of the animal or the human body, mechanical or computer models, audiovisual aids, or in vitro modeling. (d)(1)(i)) and that “animals' living conditions will be appropriate for their species and contribute to their health and comfort” (2. much of the discussion about this issue revolves around the relative value, often referred to as 'moral value', of humans and animals. such policies reflect the experience and focused interests of scientists who sometimes deal with animal pain in distinctive investigational contexts. the infliction of pain on the animals will still be pointless, and unjustified.(d)(1)(ii)); and that an animal research proposal contain a “description of the procedures designed to assure that discomfort and pain to the animals will be limited to that which is unavoidable for the conduct of scientifically valuable research, including provision for the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs where indicated and appropriate to minimize discomfort and pain to the animals” (9 cfr 2. of principles for the use of animals in research and education. animal legal defense fund’s animal bill of rights is a petition to the united states congress, stating the basic, inalienable rights that all sentient beings have—and that our government should protect. some animal pain research involves causing pain to animals that is not relieved but that can be escaped by avoidance behavior (such as tail-flicking or avoiding a painful stimulus) or administration of pain relief by the animal. are no federal laws to protect companion animals from abuse or neglect, and the lack of uniform standards has resulted in wide discrepancies in animal cruelty provisions across state lines. sometimes considerations of fairness to these individuals will mean that we demand too much of each animal by subjecting it to a great amount of pain if we can accomplish the same end by having each animal used suffer less. experiments on completely anesthetized animals, which have yielded some significant knowledge, cause no pain and do not raise ethical issues relating to whether pain is justified. the crown: is there a place for the commonwealth as animal welfare guardian? and although causing such harm may often be justified, the nature of the needed justification sometimes makes the ethical dilemma more troublesome: as the problem of pain for humans and animals becomes greater, the pain we can justify causing animals when they are used in valuable pain research increases. because animals may not know (or be able to know) why they are suffering pain or that the pain will end, pain may so completely dominate the animal's psychology that it may sometimes be appropriate to view its entire life for some period of time as a painful experience--as rollin (1989 , p 60) aptly puts it, to view the animal as its pain. systems of all vertebrate animals are very similar, it is assumed.. the right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse. with a statistician to use only the numbers of animals required to achieve significance [link to on-line statistical resources] [ilar journal statistical approach to calculating the minimum number of animals needed in research].(7)the duration of the experiment must be as short as possible and the number of animals kept to a minimum. as dubner (1987) explains, there is a range of techniques in animal pain research that are associated with different amounts or degrees of pain. cruelty and humane treatment of animals aside, tort law, contract law, wills and trusts law, and family law all deal with issues regarding companion animals (with the exception of actions for damages to livestock where the law actually grants more protection to the animals so long as it is part of one's livelihood). the minimization principle also appears to underlie the statement of the guide that “an integral component of veterinary medical care is prevention or alleviation of pain … the proper use of anesthetics and analgesics in research animals is an ethical and scientific imperative” ( nrc 1996 , p 64). the constituent societies of the federation of american societies for experimental biology have adopted a statement of principles for the use of animals in research and education. when the needs of animals and humans come into conflict, which takes precedence?

Some modest proposals for animal rights supporters looking to

Animal Bill of Rights

procedures on awake animals that have been given analgesic agents cause minimal pain or distress and can be relevant to certain kinds of information on, for example, neural processes minimally affected by such agents. for example, the american association for laboratory animal science policy on the humane care and use of laboratory animals ( aalas 1997 ) is identical to the us government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing research and training (us principles 1 ). students, research associates, and less experienced investigators who propose or work on animal pain research experiments should either demonstrate sufficient knowledge of pain research and the value of a proposed experiment that will cause animals pain or be closely supervised by a scientist with such knowledge. the minimization principle lies squarely behind inclusion in the report of the category of animals that experience “pain or distress … for which the use of appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs would have adversely affected the procedures, results, or interpretations” of research projects, and the requirement that a statement explaining why such drugs were not used be attached to the report (9 cfr 2. the law must change to recognize that companion animals and other animals are sentient creatures deserving of greater protection. analogizing from human experience may sometimes increase the estimate of expected harm to animals and thereby increase the level of required value of an experiment. neither the food and drug administration (fda) nor the us consumer product safety commission require that household or cosmetic products be tested on animals, no laws exist to limit or regulate the practice of those who choose to conduct product testing on animals. 1 table 1 ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals of the committee for research and ethical issues of the international association for the study of pain a (1)it is essential that the intended experiments on pain in conscious animals be reviewed beforehand by scientists and lay-persons. in light of the ethical significance of deliberately causing animals pain, any animal pain research must receive meticulous review by a committee, even if the research is not covered by federal laws and regulations because the institution does not receive phs funds and the work is done on species currently not subject to us department of agriculture regulation. there is disagreement among iacucs and commentators about whether committees can and should consider the scientific soundness of research proposals ( prentice and others 1992 ; tannenbaum 1995 , p 495,501). there are indications that animals in pain suffer less when socially rewarded. the entire enterprise of animal research is motivated by an ethical principle--the belief that it is not only appropriate but morally obligatory to try to understand, alleviate, and prevent conditions that harm and kill so many.. the right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter and adequate medical care. a clear physical and mental distinction between humans and animals,Has become much fuzzier with this new understanding that evolution represents. however we decide to characterize the value of research, because pain is an evil to animals and because more pain is a greater evil to them than less pain, the value of research causing that pain must be greater when the pain for the animals is worse. we owe it to the animals to approach the ethics of pain research as seriously as we approach the science.. the right of laboratory animals not to be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments. they direct investigators to locate what animals feel in an appropriate pain level category on the basis of observed behavior. considering ethical responsibilities relating to causing animals pain, it is important to take into account unpleasant mental states that typically accompany pain. experiments involving physical restraint of animals can be quite stressful. iacucs and investigators cannot avoid confronting the reality of animal pain in experiments that intentionally cause such pain. there has been very little consideration in the literature of the ethics of causing animal pain in basic research, and our understanding of this issue could benefit from additional discussion. the rules instead invoke general and widely held ethical standards relating to animal pain. of the animal usage form asks for the methods used to search for alternatives. minimizing the number of animals needed to perform an experiment. it is therefore more accurate to say that one' s ethical obligation regarding animal pain is not to minimize it but to try to minimize it in light of best knowledge and practice.” their status as property limits the legal protections available to animals and continues to make possible their exploitation for economic gain. animals should not be permitted to suffer severe or chronic pain or distress unnecessarily; such animals should be euthanized” ( faseb 1994 , p 2). the american physiological society guiding principles for the care and use of animals provide that all us laws and regulations be followed and specify that postoperative care of animals “shall be such as to minimize discomfort and pain” and that “all measures to minimize pain and distress that would not compromise experimental results may be employed” ( aps 1996 , p 1). animal use in biomedical research is that alternatives to live animals..Using a "lower" animal or minimizing pain or distress may require using.

if animals of a “lower” species experience less pain than those of a “higher” species under certain circumstances, this fact could be relevant to determining whether a pain research experiment is justified on them, because it causes them insignificant pain, or is better done on them than on animals of a species that would experience more pain. when it seems difficult to determine whether one approach minimizes pain because it is difficult to compare the amount of one kind of pain experience with another kind, we must fall back on intuitive judgments and reliable behavioral evidence regarding what appears better or worse for an animal or human to experience. pain can be minimized only if veterinary and animal care staff conscientiously and competently assure that the minimization procedures approved or required by the iacuc are followed. numerous schemes for scoring various levels or severity of animal pain have been proposed to assist iacucs and investigators in estimating and minimizing pain.” research facilities are required by the act to have an institutional animal care and use committee to oversee the care and treatment of research animals and report concerns. any procedures on animals that may cause more than momentary pain or. although doubts about animal pain are less likely among pain researchers who use animal models for human pain than among investigators whose work may secondarily cause animals pain, questioning whether animals feel pain, or feel pain “as we do,” can be a tempting neutralizer of unsettling ethical aggravations. it is difficult to imagine an iacuc responding to an experiment that would cause a large number of animals considerable and long-lasting pain with the statement that “we know there will be great pain here but we must leave it completely to a study section (initial review group) to decide whether there is any scientific or practical reason to do this work,” or “we know that there will be great pain here but we cannot express any position on whether there is a good scientific reason to cause this pain. bentham also argued that there is no ethical issue whatsoever if an animal raised or used in research does not feel pain, distress, or discomfort. the justification principle follows the ethical principle that is employed most frequently in current laws and regulations governing animal research. animals should be allowed to avoid, self-treat, or escape pain when consistent with justified experimental aims. this recommendation is supported by one of its authors on the grounds that because such animals “can be considered to be under stress in the condition of neuromuscular paralysis,” any results obtained “would be of no scientific value” ( zimmermann 1986 , p 231). unless the contrary is established, investigators should consider that procedures that cause pain or distress in human beings may cause pain or distress in other animals”; (2) “procedures with animals that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia.(7)the duration of the experiment must be as short as possible and the number of animals kept to a minimum. however, much of what needs to be known requires awake and conscious animals, especially in research on pain neurophysiology at levels above the spinal cord ( dubner 1987 ; sessle 1987 ; zimmermann 1986 ). pain research in animals has been essential in improved understanding of the neural basis of pain and the “development of better narcotic and nonnarcotic analgesic drugs, the introduction of pain-relief procedures using electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves, sensory pathways or neural centers in the brain, and the recognition and exploitation of endogenous pain-suppressing chemicals such as enkephalines in the brain” ( sessle 1987 , p 75-76). 1980, the committee for research and ethical issues of the iasp issued a set of ethical standards for use of animals in experimental pain research ( covino and others 1980 ). while some animal law scholars have suggested that animals be afforded a unique status beyond that of inanimate objects, legislatures are generally reluctant to define animals as anything but property. procedures that allow animals to escape pain have provided important data and would ordinarily be preferable to those that inflict unrelieved pain. for detection and assessment of pain and distress in experimental animals: initiatives and experiences in the united kingdom. the preamble to the federal animal welfare act (awa 1 ) declares that the entire statute and its regulatory structure are intended “to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment” (7 usc 2131(1)). but when animals feel pain--a situation common in pain research--it is often impossible to know whether they are being caused absolutely the minimum amount of pain necessary even when comparisons of amounts of pain seem possible. pain research, however, can lead the way in our general approach to ethical issues relating to pain in research animals. minimization principle must be applied beyond consideration of research proposals by the iacuc. animal legal defense fund’s proposed animal bill of rights.’s laws consider animals as property no different than a car or a chair; as such they are not recognized as having independent legal rights or “interests. keywords used should be listed), consultation with peers in the field,And consultation with the national agricultural library's animal welfare. others ( deleo and others 1992 ; morton and griffiths 1985 ) specify kinds of animal behavior that are presumed reflective of levels of pain. l(d)(1)(iv)); the requirement that animals “that would otherwise experience severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved will be painlessly euthanized at the end of the procedure, or, if appropriate, during the procedure” (9 cfr 2. this prohibition recognizes that although the total amount of pain or distress, and indeed the total number of animals, may be lessened if fewer animals are subjected repeatedly to major procedures, it can be unfair to each individual animal used to do this. for example, in louisiana aggravated cruelty leading to the death of an animal can lead to a fine of ,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years, while similar conduct in mississippi would merely lead to, at most, a ,000 fine and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months.

i assume, however, as a given that the interests of research animals and of the general public in assuring the appropriate use of animals require that animal research proposals be reviewed for humaneness by local institutional committees. i develop from these principles guidelines for use by iacucs in assessing the humaneness of pain research in animals. although procedures that allow animals to escape or terminate pain may usually be less ethically problematic than those involving unrelieved or continuous pain, the infliction of even temporary pain is still the infliction of pain and must have sufficient ethical justification. public health service (phs 1 ) policies also contain ethical standards, many of which are set forth in the us government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing, research, and training ( phs 1996 ). the minimization principle is best considered after the value principle because whether a certain amount or kind of pain is deemed necessary and therefore justified will depend on whether the infliction of any pain on an animal is justified by proposed research. the principle that animals should not be caused unnecessary pain is a deeply held ethical standard of the public, and pain research is typically justified on the grounds that it benefits the public. even the policy statement of the animal and plant health inspection service that addresses painful or distressful procedures in research does not include pain research in its examples of painful or potentially painful procedures ( aphis 1998 ). on the recognition of pain, distress, and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. only live animals feel pain and behave in ways that are similar to humans' behavior when experiencing pain. other unpleasant feelings such as distress or discomfort also feel bad, and the same ethical principles apply to causing them in animals as apply to causing pain. there are three issues in animal law of which there should be little debate: (1) banning animal fighting as a spectator sport by increasing the penalties for those that attend; (2) providing for bequests for the care of our pets after our death; and (3) prohibiting the hunting of domesticated animals on private game preserves or over the internet. only a single major survival surgery on any one animal, whenever possible. legal recognition of the importance of ethics in animal research. because the underlying motivation of the minimization principle is to assure that animals feel no worse than necessary, this approach seems reasonable. although laws and regulations contain ethical rules for iacucs and investigators regarding animal pain, these rules do not specifically address the intentional causation of pain that is characteristic of much pain research in animals. zimmermann (1986 , p 230-231) recommends that “animals in a chronic pain state should not be left alone. therefore, to assure the humaneness of pain research in animals, iacucs and investigators must engage in independent ethical assessment of research. there should be a reasonable expectation that the research will a) increase knowledge of the processes underlying the evolution, development, maintenance, alteration, control, or biological significance of behavior; b) determine the replicability and generality of prior research; c) increase understanding of the species under study; or d) provide results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals ( apa 1992 , p 2); and the scientific purpose of the research should be of sufficient potential significance to justify the use of animals ( apa 1992 , p 2). by most state animal cruelty laws and the animal welfare act (awa), farm animals are particularly at risk for large-scale exploitation and abuse since the advent of factory farms, which mechanized and exponentially expanded the production of animal products at the price of humane animal care. the veterinary and animal care staff must assure that procedures for pain minimization approved or required by the committee are followed. application of the minimization principle presupposes that we can determine whether a given use of animals involves more or less pain than another. many iacuc members have encountered investigators who, when asked whether their work might cause animals pain, respond that one cannot really know what animals feel or be certain that they feel pain at all. an investigator who wants to find better ways of alleviating pain in cancer patients (a valuable aim) is no more justified causing pain to animals than one who has a foolish aim if the proposed research of the former investigator is scientifically inept. investigators and iacucs should consider a wide range of evidence, including inferences from similar pain experiences in humans and the best available scientific data regarding behavioral and physiological signs of animal pain. performing scientific experiments that are sufficiently valuable to justify animal pain includes being competent to do the scientific work. such statements recognize the ethical relevance of causing pain but attempt to lessen or negate ethical issues by questioning the reality of animal pain. any proposal of pain research in animals should contain clear and convincing statements of the justification and value of the research, including the relevance of the work to practical benefits or important theoretical knowledge, the soundness of the science, and the competence and ability of research and animal care personnel to monitor and minimize animal pain. the ethical problem in causing animals pain arises not from causing total amounts of pain but from causing individual animals pain. other states cover these violations under vague neglect laws with no clear definitions nor minimum standards of care outlined, leaving their interpretation to the whims of law enforcement officials who may be untrained in animal care standards. states, like maryland and montana, explicitly criminalize a failure to provide an animal in one’s care with adequate food, water, veterinary care, and shelter. thus, one can maintain that although basic knowledge may be valuable, it is not as valuable as practical knowledge in the sense that it justifies causing animals pain and cannot justify as much animal pain as would applied medical research.