The Three Rs of Animal Research: What they Mean for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Why

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Howard J. Curzer ; Gad Perry ; Mark C. Wallace ; Dan Perry
• 关键词：Ecology ; Policy ; Research ethics ; Philosophy ; Wildlife science
• 刊名：Science and Engineering Ethics
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：April 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：22
• 期：2
• 页码：549-565
• 全文大小：415 KB
• 参考文献：Animal Welfare Act, USC. (2000). pp. 2131–2159.
  ASM (American Society of Mammalogists). (2011). Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research (http://​www.​mammalsociety.​org/​committees/​index.​asp ).
  Beauchamp, T., & Frey, R. G. (Eds.). (2011). Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Bebber, D. P., Carine, M. A., Wood, J. R. I., Wortley, A. H., Harris, D. J., Prance, G. T., et al. (2010). Herbaria are a major frontier for species discovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 22169–22171.CrossRef
  Beja-Pereira, A., Oliveira, R., Alves, P. C., Schwartz, M. K., & Luikart, G. (2009). Advancing ecological understandings through technological transformations in noninvasive genetics. Molecular Ecology Resources, 9, 1279–1301.CrossRef
  Bekoff, M. (2007). Animals matter. Boston: Shambhala.
  Bekoff, M. (2010). The animal manifesto: Six reasons for expanding our compassionate footprint. New World Library: Novato.
  Bernstein, M. H. (2004). Without a tear: Our tragic relationship with animals. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
  Cohen, C., & Regan, T. (2001). The animal rights debate. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham.
  Coleman, L. V. (1927). Manual for small museums. New York: G.P Putnam’s sons.
  Curzer, H. J., Muhlberger, P., Perry, G., Perry, D., & Wallace, M. (2013a). The ethics of wildlife research: A nine R theory. ILAR Journal, 54, 52–57.CrossRef
  Curzer, H., Wallace, M., Perry, G., Muhlberger, P., & Perry, D. (2013b). Environmental research ethics: Extensions of the three R’s. Environmental Ethics, 35, 95–114.CrossRef
  Degrazia, D., & Rowan, A. (1991). Pain, suffering, and anxiety in animals and humans. Theoretical Medicine, 12, 193–211.CrossRef
  Drew, J. (2011). The role of natural history institutions and bioinformatics in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 25, 1250–1252.CrossRef
  Ferdowsian, H. (2011). Human and animal research guidelines: Aligning ethical constructs with new scientific developments. Bioethics, 25, 472–478.CrossRef
  Ferry M. (2013). Does morality demand our very best? On moral prescriptions and the line of duty. Philosophical Studies, 165, 1–17.
  Francione, G. R. (2008). Animals as persons. New York: Columbia University Press.
  Franklin, J. H. (2005). Animal rights and moral philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.
  Frey, R. G. (1980). Interests and rights: The case against animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Greek, R., & Greek, J. (2010). Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 5(1), 14. doi:10.​1186/​1747-5341-5-14 .
  Hill, T. (1992). Dignity and practical reason in Kant’s moral theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  Hollerbach, A. L. (1996). Of sangfroid and sphinx moths: Cruelty, public relations, and the growth of entomology in England, 1800–1840. Osiris, 2nd Series, 11, 201–220.CrossRef
  Horrobin, D. F. (2003). Modern biomedical research: An internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2, 151–154.CrossRef
  Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Ibrahim D. (2006). Reduce, refine, replace: The failure of the three r’s and the future of animal experimentation. Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06–17.
  Institute for Animal Laboratory Research. (2009). Recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals. Report of the committee on recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals. Washington, D.C. National Research Council. http://​www.​nap.​edu/​openbook.​php?​record_​id=​12526&​page=​1 .
  Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C. D., & Harris, S. (2007). Mammal trapping: A review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Animal Welfare, 16, 335–352.
  Johnson, K. G., Brooks, S. J., Fenberg, P. B., Glover, A. G., James, K. E., Lister, A. M., et al. (2011). Climate change and biosphere response: Unlocking the collections vault. BioScience, 61, 147–153.CrossRef
  Knight, A. (2008). The beginning of the end for chimpanzee experiments? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine : PEHM, 3, 16. doi:10.​1186/​1747-5341-3-16 .CrossRef
  Lemos, N. (1986). Justification and considered moral judgments. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 24, 503–516.CrossRef
  Linzey, A., & Linzey C. (Eds.). (2015). Normalising the unthinkable: The ethics of using animals in research. Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. http://​www.​oxfordanimalethi​cs.​com/​wpcms/​wp-content/​uploads/​Normalising-the-Unthinkable-Report.​pdf .
  Mepham, B. (2008). Bioethics: An introduction for the biosciences (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Monamy, V. (2009). Animal experimentation: A guide to the issue (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
  Mukerjee, M. (1997). Trends in animal research. Scientific American, 276(2), 86–93.CrossRef
  National Academy of Sciences. (1996). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals.
  National Institutes of Health. (2002). Animal Welfare Act. Public Health Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
  Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2005). The ethics of research involving animals. London. http://​www.​nuffieldbioethic​s.​org/​animal-research .
  Palmer, C. (2010). Animal ethics in context. New York: Columbia University Press.
  Peattie, L. (1984). Normalizing the unthinkable. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 40, 32–36.CrossRef
  Perry, D., & Perry, G. (2008a). Improving interactions between animal rights groups and conservation biologist. Conservation Biology, 22, 27–35.CrossRef
  Perry, G., & Perry, D. (2008b). Response to “Animal Rights”. Conservation Biology, 22, 816–818.CrossRef
  Perry, G., Wallace, M., Perry, D., Curzer, H., & Muhlberger, P. (2011). Toe-clipping of amphibians and reptiles: Science, ethics, and the law. Journal of Herpetology, 45, 547–555.CrossRef
  Powell, R. A., & Proulx, G. (2003). Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals for research: Integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense. ILAR Journal, 44, 259–276.CrossRef
  Pyke, G. H., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2010). Biological collections and ecological/environmental research: A review, some observations and a look to the future. Biological Review, 85, 247–266.CrossRef
  Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Oakland: University of California Press.
  Regan, T. (2001). Defending animal rights. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
  Russell, W. M. S., & Burch R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. methuen. Reprinted 1992. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
  Russell, D. (2013). Animal ethics committee guidelines and shark research. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 10, 541–542.CrossRef
  Shanks, N., Greek, R., & Greek, J. (2009). Are animal models predictive for humans? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 4(1), 2. doi:10.​1186/​1747-5341-4-2 .
  Singer, P. (1980). Practical ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Singer P. 1990. Animal Liberation, 2nd ed. Avon Books.
  Slote, M. (1984). Satisficing consequentialism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. 58, 139–163.CrossRef
  Stafleu, F. R., Tramper, R., Vorstenbosch, J., & Joles, J. A. (1999). The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: A proposal for a system to support decision-making. Laboratory Animals, 33, 295–303.CrossRef
  Suarez, A. V., & Tsutsui, N. D. (2004). The value of museum collections for research and society. BioScience, 54, 66–74.CrossRef
  Vucetich, J. A., & Nelson, M. P. (2007). What are 60 warblers worth? Killing in the name of conservation. Oikos, 116, 1267–1278.CrossRef
  Ward, D. F. (2012). More than just records: Analyzing natural history collections for biodiversity planning. PLoS One, 7(11), e50346. doi:10.​1371/​journal.​pone.​0050346 .CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Howard J. Curzer (1)
  Gad Perry (2)
  Mark C. Wallace (3)
  Dan Perry (4) (5)
  
  1. Department of Philosophy, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-3092, USA
  2. Department of Natural Resources Management, International Center for Arid and Semiarid Land Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2125, USA
  3. Department of Natural Resources Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2125, USA
  4. Porter School of Environmental Studies, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 6997801, Israel
  5. Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, Ketura, 88840, Israel
  
• 刊物主题：Ethics; Philosophy of Science; Engineering, general; Biomedical Engineering; Medicine/Public Health, general; Philosophy;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1471-5546

文摘

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is entrusted with assessing the ethics of proposed projects prior to approval of animal research. The role of the IACUC is detailed in legislation and binding rules, which are in turn inspired by the Three Rs: the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. However, these principles are poorly defined. Although this provides the IACUC leeway in assessing a proposed project, it also affords little guidance. Our goal is to provide procedural and philosophical clarity to the IACUC without mandating a particular outcome. To do this, we analyze the underlying logic of the Three Rs and conclude that the Three Rs accord animals moral standing, though not necessarily “rights” in the philosophical sense. We suggest that the Rs are hierarchical, such that Replacement, which can totally eliminate harm, should be considered prior to Reduction, which decreases the number of animals harmed, with Refinement being considered last. We also identify the need for a hitherto implicit fourth R: Reject, which allows the IACUC to refuse permission for a project which does not promise sufficient benefit to offset the pain and distress likely to be caused by the proposed research.