Understanding the Linkit 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.
Ethics and Pain Research in Animals | ILAR Journal | Oxford Academicexists 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?
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.