Animal ethics: the good, the bad, and the ugly?

Many research trials involve using animals, specifically those labelled as ‘model organisms’. This refers to species of animals that are desirable for scientific research as they are usually cost-effective, easily manipulated, and well understood in terms of their genetic background. Good knowledge of their genetic background allows for these experiments to be applied with the intention of human benefit.

Protective bodies regulate animal use in research worldwide, albeit with various degrees of severity. One of the strictest regions when it comes to animal legislation is the United Kingdom. The Animal Scientific Procedures Act 1986 protects the use of animals in the UK; they, do this by only licensing trusted individuals and experiments that follow the principle of the ‘3Rs’. This principle aims to;

• reduce the number of animals used

• refine procedures to reduce pain 

• replace experiments on animals with artificial systems such as cell cultures. 

Research by Byron Blagburn and coworkers had some controversy as they tested four commercially available heartworm preventatives in dogs, as they first had to infect them. This parasitic worm that was infected in the dogs is extremely severe and life-threatening. The point of the experiment was to see which was the most effective treatment, and they did find that the combination of imidacloprid and moxidectin was 100% effective at eradicating the infection. Despite this research being approved by the Auburn University, Alabama USA Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, many ethical principles were breached. As the dogs had no choice but to participate in the experiment which completely disregards the autonomy of the dogs. 

However, Byron and his colleagues would counteract that argument by saying they acted with beneficence as the study’s intention was to find out what was the best treatment for the dogs to improve their health. But for this beneficence to be achieved, non-maleficence was broken as the dogs were given parasitic infections that inflicted pain. Unfortunately, according to the DxE investigators (Direct Action Everywhere), after 5 months the dogs were euthanised. Although the researchers defended the morality of their study by pointing out that all treatments were already in commerce, some have argued that the infection of a previously healthy dog with a parasite is morally wrong.

Many religions and groups oppose the use of animals in research as they value animal life as much as human life. Buddhists, for example, believe that animals have moral significance, as the Buddha condemns occupations that involve harming animals and encourages his followers to help animals where they can. While many groups stand against this research, most of our findings and medicine today would not be available without the contribution of animals. According to the American Medical Association:

Thus, showing how important the use of animals is in terms of medical advancements and improvement of human life.

One of the most vocal groups is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): PETA is an organisation advocating for animal rights and strongly opposing many of the current research studies. For example, the research of sepsis is undertaken at many universities like Pittsburgh and California involves puncturing of mice intestines while awake and then stitching multiple of these punctured mice together. This then leads to the excruciating death of these animals. Now, this has aided in the knowledge of sepsis and potential treatment. However, the autonomy of the animals is disregarded whilst the researchers act with maleficence.

Therefore in 2024 we are at a vital stage with animal experimentation as the intention is for improving health and can be argued to be necessary for the advancing medicine for humans and animals. Nevertheless, religious groups and animal rights groups believe that justice is not being served as the animals are subject to harm without a choice. Despite the advancements of artificial systems such as organ-on-a-chip (OOC) - multi-channel 3-D microfluidic cell culture that simulates the activities, mechanics and physiological response of an entire organ or an organ system, the findings of animal studies are required before trialling within humans. When artificial systems improve and become more available there could be a world where animal studies are limited or non-existent to please animal rights activists and still aid the enhancements of modern-day medicine.

Written by Harvey Wilkes

REFERENCES

Blagburn, B.L., Arther, R.G., Dillon, A.R., Butler, J.M., Bowles, J.V., von Simson, C. and Zolynas, R., 2016. Efficacy of four commercially available heartworm preventive products against the JYD-34 laboratory strain of Dirofilaria immitis. Parasites & vectors, 9, pp.1-10.

Mice stitched together, injected with bacteria-take action! (no date) PETA. Available at: https://support.peta.org/page/6980/action/1?locale=en-US (Accessed: 29 May 2024).