In defense of xenotransplantation research: Because of, not in spite of, animal welfare concerns

Abstract

It is envisioned that one day xenotransplantation will bring about a future where transplantable organs can be safely and efficiently grown in transgenic pigs to help meet the global organ shortage. While recent advances have brought this future closer, worries remain about whether it will be beneficial overall. The unique challenges and risks posed to humans that arise from transplanting across the species barrier, in addition to the costs borne by non-human animals, has led some to question the value of xenotransplantation altogether. In response, we defend the value of xenotransplantation research, because it can satisfy stringent welfare conditions on the permissibility of animal research and use. Along the way, we respond to the alleged concerns, and conclude that they do not currently warrant a cessation or a curtailing of xenotransplantation research.

Pressing ethical issues relating to clinical pig organ transplantation studies

“…Recommendations have been offered by the US Department of Health and Human Services 20,21 and the FDA 12 regarding either long‐term or lifelong bio‐surveillance of the xenograft recipient for xenozoonoses, creating an environment in which the recipient (i.e., research subject) is barred from withdrawing completely from a clinical study or trial. This is at odds with the Belmont Report, 45 CFR 46, and numerous ethics guidelines, resulting in much debate on the topic 22,23 . It is uncertain whether the UMB research team included post‐transplant monitoring requirements in the informed consent they obtained from the two patients who consented to cardiac xenotransplantation, but it is very likely they did.…”

Xenotransplantation: A historical–ethical account of viewpoints

“…21,31 While the use of animals as sources of organs for humans may not be morally ideal, it seems likely to continue if it can provide significant benefits to humans. 32 Since Hardy's experiment and especially since the 1990s, there has been a shift away from the use of nonhuman primates (NHPs) as sources of organs in XTx research to the pig. 33,34 Sachs noted that the rarity of NHPs, such as chimpanzees, makes their use impractical.…”

“…For instance, Peter Singer has long advocated against speciesism, 29 which he has defined as the “prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species.” 30 Further, in recent focus groups, even persons in favor of XTx expressed reservations about the use of pigs 21,31 . While the use of animals as sources of organs for humans may not be morally ideal, it seems likely to continue if it can provide significant benefits to humans 32 …”

Moral approval of xenotransplantation in Egypt: associations with religion, attitudes towards animals and demographic factors

“…In human-to-human organ transplantation, informed consent is typically obtained from donors or their families. In xenotransplantation, there is no way to obtain informed consent from the donor animals, raising ethical questions about the use of animals for the benefit of humans without their consent [ 11 , 12 ].…”