EDITORIAL
Ethics and animal research
T
he moral status of animals has been hotly debated
for centuries. Biblically based moral theory has
given humans dominion over animals and, on a
moral level, clearly distinguishes the human species
from those of animals. Utilitarian philosophy is less
clear about the moral distinction between humans and
animals. However, while the moral value of animals
may not necessarily be equated with the moral value of
humans, the use of animals must be weighed against the
amount of suffering an animal must endure. Those
espousing an animal-rights philosophy believe that the
value of an animal life and the “rights” that accompany
it are no different from those of a human, and that
animals may not be used as a means to a human end.
Twenty-first-century society has granted a certain
amount of moral value to animals. Cruelty to animals is
condemned and punishable by law. Even those who do
not anthropomorphize an animal’s experience may be-
lieve that it is damaging to the human psyche to cause
pain and suffering in another living thing. But society
has also deemed that the use of animals for food,
clothing, and even companionship, is morally accept-
able. Most people also believe that the use of animals in
research is justified, as long as the animals do not suffer
needlessly and the information being sought is genu-
inely important.
United States legislative interest in animal welfare
and the use of animals for research purposes was
aroused in the 1960s by a Life magazine depiction of
abused and starving research dogs, and a fear of pet
animals being sold into research. This interest culmi-
nated in the passage of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
in 1966. This public law regulates dealers, exhibitors,
and breeders of animals and also regulates the use of
animals in research. It covers all species of animal in all
types of research, with the exception of birds, mice,
rats, and agricultural animals used for production pur-
poses. The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is responsible for the enforcement of this law.
The Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane
Care and Use of Laboratory Animals is an implemen-
J Lab Clin Med 2003;141:89-90.
Copyright © 2003 by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
0022-2143/2003 $30.00 ! 0
doi:10.1067/mlc.2003.11
tation of the Health Research Extension Act of 1985.
This policy applies to all species and to all research and
research facilities funded by the National Institutes of
Health (NIH). It is based on the nine United States
Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of
Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and
Training. The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare
(OLAW) is the agency that oversees adherence to these
regulations.
The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Ani-
mals (“The Guide”) was first published in 1963 as a
manual for facilities that use animals in research. The
latest version of the Guide, published in 1996 by the
National Research Council, contains standards for the
husbandry, housing, veterinary care, personnel training,
and physical plant specifications for research institu-
tions. The Guide must be followed by researchers and
facilities funded by NIH and it serves as the basis for
inspection standards for such groups as the Association
for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory
Animal Care (AAALAC), an independent, peer review
accreditation agency.
In 1985, the AWA was amended to provide for the
formation of Institutional Animal Care and Use Com-
mittees (IACUC) to review research proposals involv-
ing animals and to oversee institutional animal care and
use programs. The PHS policy and the Guide also
address the formation, duties, and membership of the
IACUC. A research facility under the purview of the
USDA and OLAW must have an IACUC that includes
at least one veterinarian with laboratory animal exper-
tise, one member of the community to represent the
public interest, one member who uses animals in sci-
entific research, and one member who is a non-scientist.
The IACUC must review the institution’s animal care
and use program and inspect animal housing and use
areas every 6 months. The IACUC is also charged with
reviewing and approving (or requiring modifications to,
or not approving) research activities involving animals.
When reviewing these activities, the IACUC is charged
by law with ensuring that the pain and distress experi-
enced by animals in research is avoided or minimized.
While it may be impossible to know exactly how ani-
mals experience pain, the USDA has defined a painful
procedure in animals as “any procedure that would
reasonably be expected to cause more than momentary
89

90 Editorial
pain and/or distress in a human being to which that
procedure is applied.”
However, the AWA specifically states that the
IACUC review “those components of the activities
related to the care and use of animals”; the mandate for
evaluation of the science is less clear. The AWA and
the Guide do state that proposals must address the
rationale and the purpose of animal use and that the
research must not “unnecessarily duplicate previous
experiments,” but they do not specifically address re-
view of the technical and scientific merit of the re-
search.
The US Government Principle Two states that “Pro-
cedures involving animals should be designed and per-
formed with due consideration of their relevance to
human or animal health, the advancement of knowl-
edge or the good of society.” But it does not specifically
address how to compare the quantity or the quality of
the scientific knowledge to be gained with the amount
of pain and distress experienced by the animals, or even
if this comparison should be made.
IACUCs often rely on the peer review process of
funding agencies to determine the scientific value of
proposed research. These funding committees, in turn,
often rely on the IACUC to determine if the pain and
J Lab Clin Med
February 2003
suffering induced by the experiment is acceptable. And
because these review processes often occur concur-
rently, the only communication between the two com-
mittees may be a confirmation of approval status.
Proponents and defenders of animal research point to
the many medical advances that have been made
through the use of animals, and there have been many.
But what about the case where the scientific knowledge
to be gained is minimal, while the cause of animal pain
and suffering is great? Is scientific research on animals
always justified by the virtue of the fact that it is
scientific research? Should the balance of scientific
merit and animal suffering be considered? Do our eth-
ical, moral or legal obligations demand that we achieve
this balance?
If so, then this becomes the responsibility not of the
IACUCs alone, nor of the funding agencies alone. It is
the responsibility of all in the scientific community, and
indeed to all of society, to determine how the needs of
science and the needs of animal welfare can be attained
simultaneously.
ANN FITZPATRICK, DVM, MPH
Associate Program Director
Office of Regulatory Affairs
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis