Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:54:51.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetically modified animals in research: an analysis of applications submitted to ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

A Nordgren  and
H Röcklinsberg
A Nordgren*
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Ethics, Linköping University, SE–581 83 Linköping, Sweden
H Röcklinsberg
Affiliation:
Centre for Theology and Religious Studies, Lund University, Allhelgona Kyrkogata 8, SE–223 62 Lund, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The use of genetically modified (GM) animals in biomedical research has increased during recent years and its ethical aspects have been subject to ongoing academic discussion. In order to reinforce this discussion, we analysed applications submitted to animal ethics committees in Sweden during 2002. The aim was to investigate the researchers' statements concerning the production and use of GM animals, as well as the committees' assessments of the applications. For our analysis, we constructed an analytic form. In part, we included the questions and categories of the mandatory application form, noting for example species, degree of severity regarding pain and distress, the management of pain, and endpoints. In addition, we included our own specific questions and categories, and classified the applications accordingly. In particular we focused on the methods of GM animal production and on the expected clinical symptoms attributable to genetic modification and experimental use. Our analysis, which was partly quantitative and partly qualitative, revealed that applications were often approved by the committees despite containing insufficient information regarding ethically relevant aspects, that the arguments for using GM animals were often unclear, and that some applicants indicated awareness of possible unintentional welfare effects attributable to genetic modification. In more than 36% of the applications, obvious or minor clinical symptoms attibutable to genetic modification were expected. However, we also noted that many applicants emphasised that certain GM animals were to be used without the expectation that the animals would display any clinical symptoms. This was obviously viewed as an ethical advantage.

Keywords

animal ethicsanimal experimentationanimal welfarecommitteesgenetically modified animalstransgenic animals
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , August 2005 , pp. 239 - 248
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aldhous, P, Coghlan, A and Copley, J 1999 Let the people speak. New Scientist 162: 26–31Google ScholarPubMed
Animal Welfare Act ('Djurskyddslagen') 1988: 534 (with later revisions and supplements), In: Centrala försöksdjursnämnden ('The Swedish National Board for Laboratory Animals') 1999 Provisions and general recommendations relating to the use of animals for scientific purposes. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Animal Welfare Ordinance ('Djurskyddsförordningen') 1988: 539 534 (with later revisions and supplements), In: Centrala försöksdjursnämnden ('The Swedish National Board for Laboratory Animals') 1999 Provisions and general recommendations relating to the use of animals for scientific purposes. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Broom, D 1996 Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science (Suppl 27): 22-28Google Scholar
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Buehr, M, Hjort, JP, Hansen, AK and Sandøe, P 2003 Genetically modified laboratory animals — what welfare problems do they face? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6(4): 319–338Google ScholarPubMed
BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement 2003 Refinement and reduction in production of genetically modified mice. Laboratory Animals 37 (Suppl 1): S1-S49Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1997 The CCAC Guidelines on Transgenic Animals. CCAC: CanadaGoogle Scholar
Centrala försöksdjursnämnden (‘The Swedish National Board for Laboratory Animals‘) 2002 Författningar, allmänna råd och anvisningar om användningen av djur för vetenskapliga ändamål. CFN:s skriftserie Nr 45, Stockholm, Sweden [Title translation: Statutory regulations, general recommendations and guidelines regarding the use of animals for scientific purposes]: Statutory regulations, general recommendations and guidelines regarding the use of animals for scientific purposes]Google Scholar
Crawley, JN 2000 What is Wrong with my Mouse? Behavioural Phenotyping of Transgenic and Knockout Mice. Wiley-Liss: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1980 Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1993 Welfare has to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(Suppl 2): 8–14Google Scholar
ETS number 123 1986 Strasbourg European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes. Available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/123.htmGoogle Scholar
European Union Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/scientific/86-609-eec_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Union Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Available at http://dg3.eudra.org/F2/eudralex/vol-1/pdfs-en/900220en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1993 Assessing animal well-being: common sense, uncommon science. In: Food Animal Well-Being pp 37–57. Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs: West Lafayette, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Hagelin, J, Hau, J and Carlsson, H-E 2003 The refining influence of ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden. Laboratory Animals 37: 10–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houdebine, LM 2003 Animal Transgenesis and Cloning. John Wiley: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Jegstrup, I, Thon, R, Hansen, AK and Ritskes-Hoitinga, M 2003 Characterization of transgenic mice — a comparison of protocols for welfare evaluation and phenotype characterization of mice with a suggestion on a future certificate of instruction. Laboratory Animals 37: 1–9Google ScholarPubMed
Kiley-Worthington, M 1989 Ecological, ethological, and ethically sound environments for animals: toward symbiosis. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2: 323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mepham, TB, Combes, RD, Balls, M, Barbieri, O, Blokhuis, HJ, Costa, P, Crilly, RE, de Cock Buning, T, Delpire, VC, O'Hare, MJ, Houdebine, LM, van Kreijl, CF, van der Meer, M, Reinhardt, CA, Wolf, E and van Zeller, AM 1998 The Use of Transgenic Animals in the European Union: The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 28. Alternatives To Laboratory Animals 26: 21–43Google ScholarPubMed
Pinkert, CA 2002 Transgenic Animal Technology: A Laboratory Handbook, 2nd Edition. Academic Press: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1993 Animal welfare, science and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(Suppl 2): 44–50Google Scholar
Royal Society 2001 The use of genetically modified animals. Policy document 5/01, UKGoogle Scholar
Stokstad, E 1999 Humane science finds sharper and kinder tools. Science 286: 1068–1071Google ScholarPubMed
Thon, R, Lassesn, J, Hansen, AK, Jegstrup, IM and Ritskes-Hoitinga, M 2002 Welfare evaluation of genetically modified mice — an inventory study of reports to the Danish Animal Experiments Inspectorate. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 1: 45–53Google Scholar
van der Meer, M, Rolls, A, Baumans, V, Olivier, B and van Zutphen, LF 2001 Use of score sheets for welfare assessment of transgenic mice. Laboratory Animals 35: 379–389Google ScholarPubMed
van Zutphen B and van der Meer M (eds) 1997 Welfare of Transgenic Animals. Springer Verlag: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar