Does the Goal Justify the Methods? Harm and Benefit in Neuroscience Research Using Animals

Abstract

The goal of the present chapter is to open up for discussion some of the major ethical issues involved in animal-based neuroscience research. We begin by approaching the question of the moral acceptability of the use of animals in research at all, exploring the implications of three different ethical theories: contractarianism, utilitarianism, and animal rights. In the rest of this chapter, we discuss more specific issues of neuroscience research within what we argue is the mainstream framework for research animal ethics, namely one based on harm-benefit analysis. We explore issues of harms and benefits and how to balance them as well as how to reduce harm and increase benefit within neuroscience research.

Joining forces: the need to combine science and ethics to address problems of validity and translation in neuropsychiatry research using animal models

“…The ability of an animal model to deliver valid results depends on, among others, adequacy of this model to simulate the phenomena under study, the reliability of the methods and experimental design, staff competence, the quality of the facilities used, and the communication of research results [2,28]. High study quality is essential to the success of an animal experiment and therefore highly relevant for the ethical justification of any animal experiment.…”

“…According to current European laws and policies on the use of animals for scientific purposes, animal experimentation is considered ethically acceptable only if it delivers knowledge that weighs up against the suffering of the animals used (EU 2010 [1,2];). However, to make such an assessment is not easy.…”

Assigning ethical weights to clinical signs observed during toxicity testing

“…tive, is currently the most common approach to determine the acceptability of animal use (Vieira de Castro and Olsson, 2015). Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that assesses alternatives for human action on the basis of the total positive effects minus the total negative effects of each alternative.…”

“…Quantitative scoring schemes have met resistance on the grounds that harms and benefits are not quantifiable and comparable in the necessary way (Vieira de Castro and Olsson, 2015). Quantitative scoring schemes have also been criticized for giving a false sense of accuracy and objectivity (Voipio et al, 2004).…”

Using a 3-D multicellular simulation of spinal cord injury with live cell imaging to study the neural immune barrier to nanoparticle uptake

“…They additionally highlight the need for the development of multicellular experimental model systems, wherein post-injury pathological processes and the microglial barrier can be effectively replicated, for the developmental testing of therapeutic approaches to overcome the barrier imposed by microglial clearance. Live animal neurological injury models represent the most biologically relevant experimental systems in this context, but the relative inaccessibility of the brain and spinal cord for experimental manipulation necessitate highly invasive procedures with several attendant ethical and practical drawbacks [11,[15][16][17]. There is therefore a major need for alternative, biomimetic models to Reduce, Refine and Replace live animal use in neuro-nanotechnology studies [18].…”