Ethical regulation and animal science: why animal behaviour is not so special

Abstract

Refinement, replacement and reduction of animals in research has become a guiding principle for legislation governing animal research, and for the implementation of that legislation. However, one of these '3Rs', replacement, would seem incompatible with the science of animal behaviour, where the animal is not a model for the human condition, but the object of interest itself. This, the power of biomedical research and the pharmaceutical industry as lobbying groups, and the fact that the public could come to equate 'animal research' with vivisection, should cause concern in the animal behaviour community. The dominance of the 3Rs, and the evaluation of the utility of animal research in terms of medical benefits, could come to dominate ethical decisions about animal research. I argue that the 3Rs are not as incompatible with the aims of animal behaviour as it first appears, and that their principles can be readily incorporated into our research, but this must be twinned with a greater commitment to dialogue with legislative bodies and biomedical lobbying groups, to ensure that the utility of animal research is not evaluated solely in terms of medical and other immediate human gains.

Spotting the difference: towards fully-automated population monitoring of African penguins Spheniscus demersus

“…Ellenberg et al 2006), the removal of any risk associated with synthetic markers and the potential bias to results associated with repeated capture of animals (see Gauthier-Clerc & Le Maho 2001). Obtaining high quality data with minimum costs to the species under study should be the ideal in animal science (Bateson 1986, Cuthill 2007) and for species in steep decline, being able to reduce the impact of monitoring may make a valuable conservation contribution in itself.…”

Ethical issues faced by field primatologists: asking the relevant questions

“…That animal behaviorists who research non-primates in nature grapple with similar issues to ours regarding ethical regulation and legislation is very well demonstrated by two recent review articles published back-to-back in Animal Behaviour [Barnard, 2007;Cuthill, 2007]. Barnard argues that although everyone who studies the behavior of animals should be concerned on both compassionate and scientific grounds that the animals be treated humanely, the debate between animal scientists and those who would regulate (or possibly abolish) this type of research is becoming ''parochialized'' in only one section of animal science-that to do with biomedical and commercial research.…”

“…He further asserts that now is the time to make our voices heard as researchers who study animals to better understand the world around us rather than for utilitarian purposes. Otherwise, as noted by Cuthill [2007], we may become collateral damage in the ever-escalating dispute between the biomedicalÀpharmaceutical industry and the animal rights groups.…”

Model homes for model organisms: Intersections of animal welfare and behavioral neuroscience around the environment of the laboratory mouse

“…In reality, he argues, this was "a jurisdictional turf war that never really happened" (p. 138). With few exceptions (see for example Barnard, 2007;Cuthill, 2007), animal behaviorists or neuroscientists have made little attempt to assert their expertise in animal welfare. But as I have argued in this article, this does not mean that animal behavioral fields have remained unaffected by the increasing prominence of welfare concerns in experimental work.…”