The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

Abstract

IntroductionPediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing.DesignAfter development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant.ResultsResponse rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter into social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind ‘sentient animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar.ConclusionsMost respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate.

The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America

“…Previous surveys have generally asked only whether people support AR for human benefit, and have not asked people to evaluate their reasons for supporting (or not) AR [ 16 – 20 ]. When we presented common arguments and counterarguments to a small sample of pediatric health care workers at our children’s hospital, we found that most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR [ 21 ]. Here, we survey a large sample of the public, medical students, academic pediatricians, and scientists to determine their considered opinions regarding the moral permissibility of AR.…”

Ethical to using Rats in the Scientific Researches

“…However, several projects discussed a broad range of animals, like rabbits, bovines, pigs, snakes, goats, lizard, hamsters, embryonated eggs and other [1][2][3][4]. It has been figured that over 100 million animals are practiced in the world for research each year [11][12][13][14][15]. The present study from Questionnaire in 2004 to 2017, the researchers, and review scientific documents.…”

“…The development and reporting of the questionnaire followed published recommendations [11][12][13][14][15]. The framework section pronounced "In this survey, animals intends rat in the first level without avoiding other mammals, such as mice, dogs, cats, and others.…”

“…When each argument was performed, it was supported by the question "Is this a good enough cause to justify using animals in medical research?" and other [11][12][13][14][15].…”

“…Right now, to change the world as a mission, scientists will try to find methods and new vision which avoid or replace the use of animals in scientific research (Replacement). We should try to do more the three Rs, The Three Rs (3Rs) of science are guiding principles for the more ethical use of animals in testing (3Rs: Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and more.…”