Animal Experimentation: Law,
Morality, and Practice
Research Ethics and Animals

Animal experimentation

The moral status of animals

Regulation of animal experimentation
Extremists
(a) Extremist Animal Experimenters
E.g., Experiments on a monkey’s
instinct to cling to its mother
even when the mother
subjects it to rejection and
pain
(Research conducted by Harry
Harlow at the Primate Research
Centre at Madison, Wisconsin, see
Singer 1995, 33-35)
Extremist animal experimenters (cont)
Other examples:

Removing monkey’s eyes to discover whether their
facial expressions resembled that of sighted
monkeys when deprived of their mothers. They did.
(See Gendin 1986, 200)

Testing the pressure on a hose when monkeys bit it
in response to electric shocks on their tails
compared to the biting pressure resulting from
amphetamines, etc. (See Gendin 1986, 2001)
Extremist animal experimenters (cont)
Primate research in Britain, brain research
(videos from the BUAV Website)
Extremists
(b) Extremist animal supporters
Rodney Coronado firebombed an animal
research lab in Washington State
University. He was arrested and convicted.
Two years later, scientists resumed work
and found AZT.
Extremist animal supporters (cont)
Barry Horne was convicted after a 2 year
firebombing campaign. He detonated his
bombs when buildings were closed and caused
£3m of damage, including the destruction of
the Newport branch of Boots. He died at the
end of a hunger strike in November 2001.
Extremist animal supporters (cont)

"We are a lazy, sick society. People bring diseases
on themselves. They [people] should avoid getting
the disease in the first place." (Dan Matthews, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA))

"I could understand anyone who was so angered
and troubled by animal abuse that they were driven
to take a life.“ (Robin Webb, Animal Liberation Front
(ALF))

"The life of an ant and that of my child should be
granted equal consideration” (Michael W. Fox, former
vice president of the Humane Society of the United States)
The purpose of animal experiments
Some examples
 To test non-pharmaceutical products, e.g., toxicity tests for
products ranging from pesticides to deodorants
 To test pharmaceuticals (in vivo tests), e.g., new drugs and
vaccines (stage 2)
 To investigate animal behaviour, e.g., stress copying
mechanisms
 For educational purposes, e.g., university students
 For medical purposes, e.g., research on cancer, AIDS, and
xenotransplantation
 Others: e.g., biological research with non-medical aims
Questions to consider:
 Why
perform animal experiments at all?
Why perform animal experiments?

Necessary to comply with regulatory requirements

Some experiments cannot be performed on humans or are
better performed on animals

Useful (perhaps, necessary) for present & future medical
advancements. Utilised for:




treatment for rabies (dogs, rabbits); rickets (dogs); leprosy
(monkeys, armadillos); etc.
prevention of diphtheria (horses); polio (rabbits); rubella (monkeys);
measles (monkeys)
discovery of insulin (dogs); modern anaesthesia (dogs); DNA (mice
& rats)
development of laparoscopic surgical techniques (pigs); open heart
surgery (dogs); etc.
Questions to consider:
 Leaving
aside questions of moral
justification, what are the limitations of
animal experimentation?
Limitations of animal experimentation
Effect on animals does not always accurately predict
the effects on humans
(a) Species differences. E.g., chocolate can be
poisonous to dogs (more specifically, theobromine,
a compound found in chocolate); cortisone and
insulin are deadly to many animals
(b) Some symptoms are hard to discover in animals
(e.g., minor aches and pains)
(c) In some cases superior alternatives exists (see
below)
Questions to consider:
 To
what extent are these affected by
the use of genetically modified animals?
Genetically modified animals
There are a number of benefits sought by research using GM
animals (see Chapter 6, APC Report on Biotechnology).
E.g., GM modified animals are thought to facilitate or enable
the

discovery of gene functions;

treatment and knowledge of genetic disease;

minimisation of rejection following xenotransplantation;

improvement in production from farm animals; and

development and production of therapeutic protections.
The 3 R’s
Russel & Burch (1959):
(a) Refinement: minimising animal pain and suffering
(b) Reduction: minimising the number of animals used
E.g., using animals that have been genetically engineered to be
susceptible to human conditions
(c) Replacement: avoiding the use of animals in experiments
(i) Relative replacement: experiments that remove non-human
animal suffering but not their use. (Absolute refinement)
(ii) Absolute replacement: experiments that do not require
biological material derived from animals
Replacements
(a) Information (to reduce unnecessary duplication of animal
work) (Commercial reality)
(b) Computer-based systems, & mathematical modelling
(c) Physico-chemical techniques; e.g., the commercial test
system EYTEX can predict whether a chemical will irritate the
eyes, replacing the Draize test
(d) Use of lower organisms (such as bacteria and fungi) and
embryos; e.g., the Ames Test
(e) Human studies; e.g., volunteers & population/patient
studies
(f) Cell, tissue and organ cultures
Statistics on Animal Usage under the Animal
(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986


There was an average fall in the total number of
animals used from 1987 to 1999 of about 3% a
year, after a rise of about 2% in 2000, there was a
3% fall in 2001
In 2001, 2.62 million procedures where performed
on 2.57m living animals



the vast majority were on rodents (85%);
Dogs, cats, horses, and non-human primates were
collectively used in less than 1% of procedures
the number of GM animals (mostly mice) rose by 8.4% to
631,000
The Moral Status of Animals
Can animals have rights?
(1) Weak (or Liberty) Right = A has a right to X if
A may (it is not wrong) for A to have or do X
(2) Claim-rights impose correlative duties on
others
(a) Negative right = imposes a duty of noninterference on others
(b) Positive right = imposes a duty of assistance (to
aid) on others
Can animals have rights? (cont)
There are two principal conceptions of
claim-rights:
(a) benefit/interest conception; and
(b) will/choice conception

The difference is that the will/choice theory
requires the right-holder to have the capacity
to waive the benefit of the right (i.e., be an
agent)
Do animals have moral status?
(= do we have duties of nonharm or
protection to animals?)
Intrinsic moral status (= moral status
possessed by virtue of their characteristics
alone)
 Indirect/vicarious moral status (= moral
status derived from the intrinsic moral status
of others)
 Nb. If animals have intrinsic or indirect moral
status then we have duties in relation to
them

Intrinsic moral status
(Direct protection)
Intrinsic moral status is variously granted to
those who are:
(a) natural systems;
(b) living creatures;
(c) sentient: i.e. capable of experiencing pain;
(d) human;
(e) agents/persons: i.e. able to act for purposes
constituting their reasons for action;
(f) partial agents, i.e. have some of the
characteristics of agents;
(g) potential agents

Duties to Animals Under Precaution
(1) Agents are categorically and unconditionally bound to grant agents
(and only agents) full moral status (Kant, Gewirth etc.)
(2) Because being an agent contains inherently subjective qualities, I (an
agent) cannot know for certain whether any other being is an agent
(3) However I must treat apparent agents as agents because I violate (1) if
I treat an agent as not an agent but do not violate (1) if I treat a nonagent as an agent (Pascal’s Wager leading to Moral Solution to Problem
of Other Minds)
(4) Dogs etc. are not apparent agents and cannot be treated as agents. But
they could be agents. It follows from (1) that they must be treated as
agents to the extent that it is possible to do so (taking into account the
conflicting claims of apparent agents/those more capable of being
treated as agents)
(5) Thus, apparent non-agents have intrinsic moral status in proportion to
the extent that they display (behave as if they have) capacities
necessary for agency
Wholly indirect moral status
(derivative or vicarious protection)
E.g.
 Argument from Development of the
Virtues (e.g., against Brutalisation)
 Argument from Protection of Other's
Sensitivities
 Contractual Argument
 Property Argument
 Physical Proximity Argument
The Regulation of Animal
Experimentation
UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
1986

Background:




Council Directive 86/609/EEC
European Convention on the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used
for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes 1986 (now amended
by the 1998 Protocol)
Regulates any experimental or scientific procedure
applied to a “protected animal” that might cause
the animal “pain, suffering, distress, or lasting
harm” (see s.2(1))
Such procedures must be performed by a person
holding a personal licence, as part of work specified
in a project licence, at a place specified in these
licences (s.3)
Protected Animals



S.1(1) “any living vertebrate other than man”
Only if (in the case of a mammal, bird, or reptile) it
has passed half the gestation or incubation period
relevant for the species (s.1(2)(a)), or (in the case
of other protected animals) it is capable of
independent feeding (s.1(2)(b))
The SOS may extend or amend the definition of a
protected animal: s.1(3). This has been done to
encompass one invertebrate species, the common
octopus: Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
(Amendment) Order 1993/2103
Genetically modified animals



S.2(3): “Anything done for the purpose of, or liable
to result in, the birth or hatching of a protected
animal is also a regulated procedure” if it might
cause the animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting
harm
Thus, the production, breeding, and use of
transgenic animals for scientific purposes is
regulated (such as the creation of Dolly the sheep)
HL Select Committee Report 2002 recommended
that all GM animals that are bred but not otherwise
used in a regulated procedure should be excluded
from the annual statistics
Personal licences
Granted subject to certain conditions and
reviewable every 5 years (s.4)
 Personal licence holders must seek to
prevent or minimise any pain, distress, or
discomfort to the animals (s.10)
 HL Select Committee recommended that
visiting scientists and students in higher
education should be able to carry out work
under the licences of an established licenceholder. The Government has rejected this

Project Licences (cont)
 S.5(3): A project licence can only be granted for
(a) the prevention or the diagnosis or treatment of disease, ill-health, or abnormality, or their
effects, in man, animals, or plants;
(b) the assessment, detection, regulation or modification of physiological conditions in man,
animals, or plants;
(c) the protection of the natural environment in the interests of the health or welfare of man
or animals;
(d) the advancement of knowledge in biological or behavioural sciences;
(e) education or training otherwise than in primary or secondary schools;
(f) forensic enquiries; and/or
(g) the breeding of animals for experimental or other scientific use


The applicant must have given adequate consideration to
the feasibility of using an alternative to the use of protected
animals: s.5(5)
Cats, dogs, and primates cannot be used unless no other
species is suitable or practically available: s.5(6)
Project Licences (cont)

Before granting the SOS must weigh the costs
against the benefits : “the SOS shall weigh the
likely adverse effects [pain, suffering, distress or
lasting harm] on animals concerned against the
benefit likely to accrue as a result of the
programme to be specified in the licence”: s.5(4)
Home Office Guidance
(a) state that this assessment should take account of
the “maximum severity expected to be experienced
by any animal,” &
(b) outline a number of categories are outlined to
facilitate evaluation of the level of severity

Project Licences (cont)
Categories of severity
• “Mild” severity procedures range from the taking of small or
infrequent blood samples to minor surgical procedures
under anaesthesia such as laparoscopy. (Unless there is
significant combination or repetition on the same animal)
• “Moderate” severity procedures include most surgical
procedures, and toxicity tests avoiding lethal endpoints
• “Substantial” severity procedures result in “a major
departure from the animal’s usual state of health and wellbeing”. Examples are given.
• “Unclassified” severity procedures are performed under nonrecovery, general anaesthetic or on decerebrate animals
Categories of Benefit referred to by the
Animals Scientific Procedures Committee






“Human, animal, and ecological benefits” (such as improved
health or welfare, plant production, food hygiene, safeguarding the
environment)
“Scientific benefits” (such as resolution of controversies, increasing
scientific knowledge)
“Education benefits” (such as meeting educational objectives which
cannot be satisfied by using non-animal methods)
“Economic benefits” (such as profitability, employment, conservation
of natural resources)
“Other benefits” (such as forensic enquiries)
No criterion for weighing these benefits
corresponding to the severity weightings is offered
by the Act, the Guidance, or the Animal Procedures
Committee Reports
Re-use of animals



s.14(1) Bans any re-use of an animal after a series
of regulated procedures for a purpose involved a
general anaesthetic and recovery of consciousness,
except where permitted under s.14(2)
S.14(3) bans any re-use without permission after a
series of regulated procedures which did not
involve general anaesthesia
Thus, all re-use must be authorised in advance.
However, using the same animal in a series of
regulated procedures for a particular purpose is not
re-use!
Animal Procedures Committee Report on
Biotechnology (June 2001)
Recommend that no licences be issued for
(a) “trivial objectives, such as the creation or duplication of
favourite pets, or of animals intended as toys, fashion
accessories, or the like” (Rec. 1)
(b) work expected to produce GM animals that would suffer
severe or lasting illness, unless the problems could be
handled humanely through specialist care (Rec. 2)
(c) genetically modifying animals with the intention of
“stripping animals of the biological integrity” or “rendering
them incurably insentient” (Rec. 4)
(d) the production of embryo aggregation chimeras or hybrids
that “involve a significant degree of hybridisation between
animals of very dissimilar kinds” (Rec. 5)
(e) the genetic modification of Great Apes

HL Select Committee Report & Response


HL Select Committee on Animals in Scientific
Procedures (July 2002):
 It is morally acceptable to use animals but morally wrong
to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering
(conclusion 1)
 Emphasises the 3R’s (particularly Conclusions 6, 7, 10,
11, 12, & 13)
Government Response