Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T00:14:42.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: A Belmont Report for Animals: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2019

ALKA CHANDNA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special Section: Open Forum
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 46 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Wolfer, DP, Litvin, O, Morf, S, Nitsch, RM, Lipp, HP, Würbel, H. Laboratory animal welfare: Cage enrichment and mouse behaviour. Nature 2004;432:821. See alsoCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Mason, G, Rushen, J, eds. Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare, 2nd ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2008;Google Scholar Poole, T. Happy animals make good science. Laboratory Animals 1997:31:116–24;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Lahvis, G. Behavior, epigenetics, and the inescapable problem of animal constraint. Behavior Genetics 2018;48:486–7;Google Scholar Balcombe, JP, Barnard, ND, Sandusky, C. Laboratory routines cause animal stress. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 2004;43:42–51;Google ScholarPubMed Baumans, V, Clausing, P, Hubrecht, R, Reber, A, Vitale, A, Wyffels, E. FELASA Working Group Standardization of Enrichment Working Group Report . London, UK: Laboratory Animals Ltd; 2006;Google Scholar Olsson, IA, Dahlborn, K. Improving housing conditions for laboratory mice: A review of “environmental enrichment.” Laboratory Animals 2002;36:243–70; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar Balcombe, JP. Laboratory environments and rodents’ behavioural needs: A review. Laboratory Animals 2006;40:217–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Ferdowsian, H, Johnson, LSM, Johnson, J, Fenton, A, Shriver, A, Gluck, J. A Belmont Report for animals? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29(1):19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See note 2, Ferdowsian et al. 2020.

4. 7 USC §§ 2131 – 2159 (2002).

5. National Association for Biomedical Research. Mice and Rats; available at https://www.nabr.org/biomedical-research/laboratory-animals/species-in-research/mice-and-rats/ (last accessed 8 May 2019).

6. Public Law 99-158. See also National Research Council Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011; National Institutes of Health. PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals; 2002; and Office of Science and Technology Policy. U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training; 1985.

7. Pound, P, Nicol, CJ. Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions. PlOS ONE 2018;13:e0193758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Berdoy, M. The Laboratory Rat: A Natural History. Oxford, UK: Oxford University; 2002.Google Scholar

9. Olsson A, Whittaker A, Martin F, Peron F, De Giorgio F, Mejdell C et al. Guidelines for Ethical Treatment of Animals in Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research; available at http://www.applied-ethology.org/ethical_guidelines.html (last accessed 8 May 2019).

10. See note 1, Olsson, Dahlborn 2002.

11. See note 1, Baumans et al. 2006.

12. Bayne, K, Dexter, S, Suomi, S. A preliminary survey of the incidence of abnormal behavior in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) relative to housing condition. Lab Animal 1992;21:38–46.Google Scholar

13. Lutz, C, Well, A, Novak, M. Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: A survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience. American Journal of Primatology 2003;60:1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. See note 13, Lutz, Well, Novak 2003. See also Bayne, K, Haines, M, Dexter, S, Woodman, D. Nonhuman primate wounding prevalence: A retrospective analysis. Lab Animal 1995;24:40–4.; andGoogle Scholar Bellanca, RU, Crockett, CM. Factors predicting increased incidence of abnormal behavior in male pigtailed macaques. American Journal of Primatology 2002;58:57–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. Mason, GJ. Stereotypies: A critical review. Animal Behaviour 1991;41:1015–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. See note 1, Mason, Rushen 2008.

17. See note 13, Lutz, Well, Novak 2003.

18. Novak, MA. Self-injurious behavior in rhesus monkeys: New insights into its etiology, physiology, and treatment. American Journal of Primatology 2003;59:3–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

19. Kroeker, R, Bellanca, RU, Lee, GH, Thom, JP, Worlein, JM. Alopecia in three macaque species housed in a laboratory environment. American Journal of Primatology 2014;76:325–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Baker, KC, Weed, JL, Crockett, CM, Bloomsmith, MA. Survey of environmental enhancement programs for laboratory primates. American Journal of Primatology 2007;69:377–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21. See note 20, Baker et al. 2007.

22. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Columbia University Cruelty; available at https://www.peta.org/features/columbia-university-cruelty-deadly-animal-experimentation/ (last accessed 8 May 2019); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Covance: Cruelty for Hire; available at https://www.peta.org/features/covance-incs-cruel-animal-experimentation/ (last accessed 8 May 2019); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Investigation of ONPRC Reveals Horrifying Abuse of Monkeys Used in Cruel and Useless Experiments; available at https://www.peta.org/features/onprc/ (last accessed 8 May 2019); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. University of Utah Investigation; available at https://www.peta.org/features/utah-labs/ (last accessed 8 May 2019); and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Litany of Lab Horrors: A PETA Exposé available at: https://investigations.peta.org/university-of-pittsburgh-laboratory-neglect/ (last accessed 8 May 2019).

23. Carbone, L. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. The Jackson Laboratory. Find & Order Mice; available at https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services/find-and-order-jax-mice (last accessed 8 May 2019).

25. Stokes, EL, Flecknell, PA, Richardson, CA. Reported analgesic and anaesthetic administration to rodents undergoing experimental surgical procedures. Laboratory Animals 2009;43:149–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. Richardson, CA, Flecknell, PA. Anaesthesia and post-operative analgesia following experimental surgery in laboratory rodents: Are we making progress? Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2005;33:119–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. Cheng F, Chandna A. Some Animals are More Equal than Others: Implications of the Exclusion of Mice and Rats from the U.S. Animal Welfare Act. Poster presented at 10th World Congress: Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences; 2017 Aug 20–24; Seattle, WA; available at https://www.peta.org/wc10-poster-mice-and-rats-august-2017_kg/ (last accessed 12 May 2019).

28. At some institutions, violations were repeated, but federal oversight authorities took no meaningful corrective action. Some incidents reflected pain and suffering for many animals. For example, in just one of 60 incidents at the University of Minnesota, 75 rats were used in experimental surgeries but were given no post-operative pain relief. In just one of 53 incidents at the University of Pittsburgh, 83 pairs of mice were surgically joined together via parabiosis without analgesia. In one of 39 incidents at Yale University, a mouse rack with 141 cages was found disconnected from the automatic watering system. Eight mice died from dehydration, another had to be euthanized, and 93 were found hunched and dehydrated. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 11 mice starved when workers did not feed them. At the University of Michigan, tumors in mice were not adequately monitored and were allowed to exceed the protocol endpoint limits—increasing the pain and distress suffered by the animals. A rat who had not been euthanized properly at the University of Michigan was found dead at the bottom of a cooler after having chewed through a bag.

29. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA Investigations Reveal Taxpayer-Funded Torture at UNC Laboratory; available at https://www.peta.org/features/unc/ (last accessed 8 May 2019). Also see note 22, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. University of Utah Investigation; and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Litany of Lab Horrors: A PETA Exposé.

30. Church, RM. Emotional reactions of rats to the pain of others. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 1959;52:132–4. See alsoCrossRefGoogle Scholar Rice, GE, Gainer, P. “Altruism” in the albino rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 1962;55:123–5;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Langford, DJ, Crager, SE, Shehzad, Z, Smith, SB, Sotocinal, SG, Levenstadt, JS et al. Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice. Science 2006;312:1967–70;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Bartal, IB, Decety, J, Mason, P. Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science 2011;334:1427–30; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar Sato, N, Tan, L, Tate, K, Okada, M. Rats demonstrate helping behavior toward a soaked conspecific. Animal Cognition 2015;18:1039–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar