Ethical Considerations in Mouse Experiments

Bernard Baertschi1, Marcel Gyger2

1 Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, 2 EPFL—Center of Phenogenomics, Lausanne, Switzerland
Publication Name:  Current Protocols in Mouse Biology
Unit Number:   
DOI:  10.1002/9780470942390.mo100161
Online Posting Date:  March, 2011
GO TO THE FULL TEXT: PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Abstract

Mice count morally because they can be harmed. This raises a moral issue in animal experimentation. Three main ethical attitudes towards animals are reviewed here. The Kantian view denies moral value to animals because they lack reason. The second view, by Singer, considers animals as sentient creatures (i.e., able to suffer). Finally, Regan considers that animals are subjects of their own life; they are autonomous and therefore have moral rights. Singer is a reformist and allows animal experimentation under certain conditions. Regan is abolitionist, saying that animals have moral rights that cannot be negotiated. Current animal protection legislation strives to put in balance the human and animal interests to decide whether an animal experiment is morally justified or not. An ethical evaluation process is conducted based on the harm‐benefit assessment of the experiment. The researcher has to implement the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) to minimize the harms to the animals and make sure that the outcomes are scientifically significant and that the quality of the science is high, in order to maximize benefits to humans and animals. Curr. Protoc. Mouse Biol. 1:155‐167. © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Keywords: ethics; mouse; animal experimentation; 3R

     
 
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Table of Contents

  • Introduction
  • Animal's Moral Status: Several Theories
  • Conclusions
  • Appendix: Glossary
  • Literature Cited
  • Tables
     
 
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Materials

GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library

Figures

Videos

Literature Cited

Literature Cited
   Australian National Health and Medical Research Council's Animal Welfare Committee. 2006. Guidelines for the generation, breeding, care and use of genetically modified and cloned animals for scientific purposes. See http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/ea17syn.htm (August 2, 2010).
   Balls, M. 2009. The Three Rs and the Humanity Criterion: An abridged version of The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique by W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch. FRAME, Nottingham, U.K.
   Bateson, P. 1986. When to experiment on animals. New Scientist 109:30‐32.
   Beauchamp, T. and Walters, L. 1989. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. Wadsworth Publishing Group, Belmont, Calif.
   Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R. 2002. Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw. Oxford UP, Oxford.
   Boisvert, D.P and Porter, D.G. 1995. Ethical scoring systems. In Report of the 1995 World Congress on Alternatives, Alternative Methods in Toxicology and Life Sciences Series 11 (A.M. Goldberg and L.F.M. van Zutphen, eds.) pp.637‐641. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Publishers, New York.
   Chilov, M., Matsoukas, K., Ispahany, N., Allen, T.Y., and Lustbader, J.W. 2007. Using MeSH to search for alternatives to the use of animals in research. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 26:55‐74.
   Dirnagl, U. 2010. Quality control and standard operating procedures. Neuromethods 47:239‐248.
   Ethics Committee on Non‐Human Biotechnology (ECNH) 2001. The Dignity of Animals. Bern, Switzerland.
   Festing, M.F.W., Overend, Ph., Das, R.G., Borja, M.C., and Berdoy, M. 2002. The Design of Animal Experiments. Reducing the use of animals in research through better experimental design. Laboratory Animal Handbooks N. 14. Laboratory Animals Ltd. The Royal Statistical Society Medicine Press Ltd., London.
   Hooijmans, C.R., Tillema, A., Leenaars, M. and Ritskes‐Hoitinga, M. 2010a. Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Lab. Anim. 44:170‐175.
   Hooijmans, C.R., Leenaars, M., and Ritskes‐Hoitinga, M. 2010b. A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible. Altern. Lab. Anim. 38:167‐182.
   Kant, I. 1978. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798): Translated by Victor Lyle Dowdell, revised and edited by Rudnick. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Ill.
   Kant, I., 1996. Metaphysics of Morals (1797). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
   Kilkenny, C., Parsons, N., Kadyszewski, E., Festing, M.F., Cuthill, I.C., Fry, D., Hutton, J., and Altman, D.G. 2009. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PloS ONE 4:e7824.
   Kilkenny, C., Browne, W.J., Cuthill, I.C., Emerson, M., and Altman, D.G. 2010. Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 8:e1000412.
   Krepper, P. 2010. Tierwürde im Recht: am Beispiel von Tierversuchen. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 4:303‐313.
   Leenaars, M., Savenije, B., Nagtegaal, A., Van Der Vaart, L., and Ritskes‐Hoitinga, M. 2009. Assessing the search for and implementation of the three Rs: A survey among scientists. Altern. Lab. Anim. 37:297‐303.
   Mason, G. and Littin, K.E. 2003. The humaneness of rodent pest control. Anim. Welfare 12:1‐37.
   Meerburg, B.G., Brom, F.W.A., and Kijlstra, A. 2008. The ethics of rodent control. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:1205‐1211.
   Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1996. Animal‐to‐Human Transplants, the Ethics or Xenotransplantation. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/xenotransplantation.
   Porter, D.G 1992. Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356:101‐102.
   Regan, T. 1984. The Case for Animal Rights. Routledge, London.
   Robinson, V., Morton, D.B., Anderson, O., Carver, F.A., Francis, R.J., Hubrecht, R., Jenkins, E., Mathers, K.E., Raymond, R., Rosewell, I., Wallace, J., and Wells, D.J. 2003. Refinement and reduction in production of genetically modified mice. Sixth report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group. Lab. Anim. 37:1‐51.
   Russell, W.M.S. and Birch, R.L. 1959. The principles of humane experimental techniques. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/books/humane_exp/het‐toc; abridged version reprinted in Balls (2009).
   Singer, P. 1979. Practical Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Smaje, L., Smith, J.A., Combes, R.D., Ewbank, R., Gregory, J.A., Jennings, M., Moore, G.J., and Morton, D.B. 1998. Advancing refinement of laboratory animal use. Lab. Anim. 32:137‐142.
   Smith, J.A. and Boyd, K.M. (eds.) 1991. Lives in Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Smith, J.A., van den Broek, F.A.R., Canto Martorell, J., Hackbarth, H., Ruksenas, O., and Zeller, W. 2007. Principles and practice in ethical review of animal experiments across Europe: Summary of the report of the FELASA Working Group on Ethical Evaluation of Animal Experiments. Lab. Anim. 41:143‐160.
   Stafleu, F.R., Tramper, R., Vorstenbosch, J., and Joles, J.A. 1999. The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: A proposal for a system to support decision‐making. Lab. Anim. 33:95‐303.
   Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. 2010. The dignity of animals and the evaluation of interests in the Swiss Animal Protection Act. http://www.swiss‐academies.ch
   Warren, M.A. 1997. Moral Status. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
GO TO THE FULL PROTOCOL:
PDF or HTML at Wiley Online Library