Bioethics in animal experimentation

Open access

Abstract

Animal experiments are used on a large scale worldwide in order to develop or to refine new medicines, medicinal products or surgical procedures. It is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, this is why animal experimentation causes serious moral problems.

We must realize that we have moral and legal obligations when dealing with animals in our care, and this should become our high priority before any experiment. We have to take responsibility for the life of the animals and we have to act honorably regarding this issue because we have been given a trust by society in general which is not to be taken lightly.

There is an ongoing societal debate about ethical issues of animal use in science. This paper is addressed to current and future researchers and is an appeal for them to (re)consider their personal views concerning the issue under scrutiny and their responsibility in ensuring that results would make the sacrifice worthwhile.

1. Kolar, R., (2006), Animal experimentation, Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 12 issue 1 2006, doi 10.1007%2Fs11948-006-0011-,1

2. ***. (2005). Commission of the European Communities (2005) Fourth report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union. COM(2005) 7 final, Brussels, 20.01.2005. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/com_2005_7_en.pdf Retrieved 17.02.2015

3. Sauer U.G., Spielmann H. & Rusche B. (2005). Fourth EU Report on the statistics on the number of animals used for scientific purposes in 2002 - trends, problems, conclusions. ALTEX 22: 19-24

4. Sauer U.G. & Kolar R. (2000). Developments in the collection of statistical information on the number of animals used in experiments and other scientific purposes in the European Union. ATLA 28: 133-145

5. British Pharmacological Society. Integrative Pharmacology Fund. Imperial College London Centre for Integrative Mammalian Physiology and Pharmacology.

6. Monamy V. (2009). Animal Experimentation. A Guide to the Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7. Mather J.A. (2001). Animal suffering: An invertebrate perspective. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4, 151-156.

8. Sherwin C.M. (2001). Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy?. Animal Welfare 10, 103-118.

9. Anon. (1986). Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. UK Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/animallegislation.html. Retrieved 17.02.2015

10. Maehle A.-H. & Troehler, U. (1987). Animal experimentation from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century: attitudes and arguments. Rupke, N.A. (ed.), Vivisection in Historical Perspective, 14–47. London: Croom Helm.

11. Linzey, A. & Clarke, P.A.B. (2004). Animal Rights: A Historical Anthology. Irvington, NY: Columbia University Press.

12. Bliss, M. (1982). The Discovery of Insulin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

13. Sharpe, R. (1988). The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in Medical Research Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: Thorsons Publishers Limited, p. 90. F. I. McMahon, Medical World News 168, 6 (1968) cited in Ibid., indicates that only one out of twenty drugs tested safe and effective on nonhuman animals are safe and effective for humans after clinical trials.

14. Sharpe, R. 1988. The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in Medical Research Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: Thorsons Publishers Limited, op. cit., p. 78, 105

15. Sztybel, D. (2006). A Living Will Clause for Supporters of Animal Experimentation. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 23(2). doi 10.1111%2Fj.1468-5930.2006.00338.x.

16. Anon. (1986). Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. UK Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/animallegislation.html. Retrieved 20.10.2014

17. French, R.D. (1975). Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

18. Ryder, R.D. (2000). Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism, second edition. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

19. Phillips, M.T. & Sechzer, J.A. (1989). Animal Research and Ethical Conflict: An Analysis of the Scientific Literature 1966–1986. New York: Springer Verlag.

20. Poole, T. (ed.) (1999). UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, Vol. 1, Terrestrial Vertebrates. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

21. Pifer L., Shimizu K. & Pifer R..(1994) Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Society and Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies 2, 2. http://www.psyeta.org, the website of Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Retrieved 20.10.2014

22. UK Home Office 2007. Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2006. London: The Stationery Office. http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm62/6291/6291-old.pdf. Retrieved 20.10.2014.

23. UK Home Office 2008a. Animals in Scientific Procedures: Better Regulation. http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/better-regulation/. Retrieved 20.10.2014.

24. Hamm, T.E., Dell, R.B. & Van Sluyters, R.C. (1995). Laboratory animal care policies and regulations: United States. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 37: 75–8.

25. FRAME Toxicity Committee (1991). Animals and alternatives in toxicology: present status and future prospects. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 19: 116–38.

ARS Medica Tomitana

The Journal of "Ovidius" University of Constanta

Journal Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 326 326 91
PDF Downloads 170 170 79