Some modest proposals for animal rights supporters looking to
i develop from these principles guidelines for use by iacucs in assessing the humaneness of pain research in animals. none of this means that it is inherently wrong to cause animals pain in pain research. this reason, there is no need for animal rights people to present a “philosophical basis” for their stance. however, the most serious problem for precisely estimating and then minimizing animal pain results from the fact that animals cannot talk about their pain. the entire enterprise of animal research is motivated by an ethical principle--the belief that it is not only appropriate but morally obligatory to try to understand, alleviate, and prevent conditions that harm and kill so many. at some point, the scientific reasons for a study may simply not justify the pain experienced by some or all of the animals. these in turn have shaped animal use regulations promulgated by the usda and the phs, and echoed by organizations such as aaalac,Aalas and the avma. attention to the ethical treatment of animals in research is not just morally obligatory. out effective and ethical animal-free ways to evaluate new drug compounds for safety and efficacy, to discover the neurological bases for addiction, to develop new surgical techniques, and to help build basic knowledge about physiology, metabolism, genetics, development, etc. although laws and regulations contain ethical rules for iacucs and investigators regarding animal pain, these rules do not specifically address the intentional causation of pain that is characteristic of much pain research in animals. although some pain studies can allow animals to escape or to avoid painful stimuli when they presumably become too uncomfortable, several areas of pain research require unavoidable painful experiences. moreover, the likelihood of minimizing animal pain will probably be increased if, as a general policy, an iacuc asks investigators who cause animals pain to show why there is not some means of causing less pain consistent with justified research. any procedures on animals that may cause more than momentary pain or. thus, one can maintain that although basic knowledge may be valuable, it is not as valuable as practical knowledge in the sense that it justifies causing animals pain and cannot justify as much animal pain as would applied medical research. it is difficult to imagine an iacuc responding to an experiment that would cause a large number of animals considerable and long-lasting pain with the statement that “we know there will be great pain here but we must leave it completely to a study section (initial review group) to decide whether there is any scientific or practical reason to do this work,” or “we know that there will be great pain here but we cannot express any position on whether there is a good scientific reason to cause this pain. some important knowledge regarding pain mechanisms and modulation has been gained from studies on animals that cannot feel pain because they have been anesthetized or rendered unconscious by decerebration or decortication. these in turn have shaped animal use regulations promulgated by the usda and the phs, and echoed by organizations such as aaalac,Aalas and the avma. all of these viewpoints have contributed to the development of ethical principles of animal use. refuses to order release of niagara falls chimpanzee ; florida animal rights group was trying to free primate. the crown: is there a place for the commonwealth as animal welfare guardian? an investigator who wants to find better ways of alleviating pain in cancer patients (a valuable aim) is no more justified causing pain to animals than one who has a foolish aim if the proposed research of the former investigator is scientifically inept. minimization principle must be applied beyond consideration of research proposals by the iacuc. the idea of replacement of 'higher' animals with 'lower' animals,And requires environmental enrichment or human contact for intelligent,Social animals such as nonhuman primates, or dogs and cats, but not for. are several specific research techniques in common use that are often criticized for their potential for causing pain or distress to animals. some people, for example, believe that testing cosmetics is of sufficient value to justify animal pain; others disagree. however, much of what needs to be known requires awake and conscious animals, especially in research on pain neurophysiology at levels above the spinal cord ( dubner 1987 ; sessle 1987 ; zimmermann 1986 ). that there are diverse viewpoints about the moral value of animals.
What Rights for Animals? A Modest Proposal
in light of the inherent inability of animals to describe their pain, it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to make such determinations with anything approaching the precision we make them regarding pain in humans. unfortunately, it is often impossible to do pain research on animals without the animals experiencing pain. the us government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing, research, and training declare that (1) “proper use of animals, including the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is imperative. seen a lot of effective activists in action (sierra club and nature conservancy in particular), it does confound me sometimes what some animal rights activists consider to be “effective. products, and build our cities and highways where animals might otherwise. [nih website on model organisms for biomedical research] alternately, live animals may be replaced with non-animal models, such as dummies for an introduction to dissection for teaching the structure of the animal or the human body, mechanical or computer models, audiovisual aids, or in vitro modeling. when the needs of animals and humans come into conflict, which takes precedence? regarding animal use as a privilege involves treating research animals with appreciation, gratitude, respect, and a genuine concern for their needs and welfare. phs ethical guidelines for animal research also focus on the minimization of pain and distress. there are other difficult issues in assessing and comparing the value of medical research relative to justification of animal pain ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 485-486). these recommendations include the statements that (1) behavioral procedures “that minimize discomfort to the animal should be used”; (2) when using aversive conditions, “psychologists should adjust the parameters of stimulation to levels that appear minimum”; (3) “psychologists are encouraged to test painful stimuli on themselves, whenever reasonable”; (4) “whenever consistent with the goals of the research, consideration should be given to providing the animals with control of the potentially aversive stimulation”; (5) “procedures involving more than momentary or slight aversive stimulation, which is not relieved by medication or other acceptable methods, should be undertaken only when the objectives of the research cannot be achieved by other methods”; and (6) “experimental procedures that require prolonged aversive conditions or produce tissue damage or metabolic disturbances require greater justification and surveillance. the veterinary and animal care staff must assure that procedures for pain minimization approved or required by the committee are followed. the society for neuroscience policy on the use of animals in neuroscience research recommends and is based on the phs policies and the guide, and it repeats or paraphrases the requirements of the us government principles: “the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain,” including use of sedation, analgesia or anesthesia in procedures “that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress” ( sfn 1997 , p 2). that procedures to be performed on the animal are reasonable for that species. iacucs and investigators cannot avoid confronting the reality of animal pain in experiments that intentionally cause such pain. [nih website on model organisms for biomedical research] alternately, live animals may be replaced with non-animal models, such as dummies for an introduction to dissection for teaching the structure of the animal or the human body, mechanical or computer models, audiovisual aids, or in vitro modeling. in light of the ethical significance of deliberately causing animals pain, any animal pain research must receive meticulous review by a committee, even if the research is not covered by federal laws and regulations because the institution does not receive phs funds and the work is done on species currently not subject to us department of agriculture regulation. an animal observed to be in a state of severe distress or chronic pain that cannot be alleviated and is not essential to the purposes of the research should be euthanized immediately” ( apa 1992 , p 5). there are significant conceptual issues regarding how to define such states as pain, distress, discomfort, and anxiety in animals ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 416-418; wall 1992 ).. in balancing pain and distress caused to animals against the value of the research, and in monitoring pain research in progress, the iacuc should consider whether pain has become so severe that individual animals should be removed from the research or the research itself should be terminated. if the research has great value, what the animals experience will probably be viewed as justified, provided that all reasonable steps are taken to try to minimize their pain and distress. procedures on awake animals that have been given analgesic agents cause minimal pain or distress and can be relevant to certain kinds of information on, for example, neural processes minimally affected by such agents. systems of all vertebrate animals are very similar, it is assumed. the presence of such feelings is likely to increase the total evil an animal will be caused and thus increase the required minimum level of justification and value of a proposed experiment. this is why researchers questioning whether animals are ‘sentient’ or can ‘feel pain like we do’ are disturbing, since they directly question the entire legal basis for existing laws against animal abuse. this recommendation infers that the degree of suffering is smaller in lower than in higher animals although this assumption cannot be taken as proven” ( covino and others 1980 , p 142). as each new year dawns, the promise of the next year suggests the time may have come to recognize that sentience and finally abolish the continued legal classification of animals as property.
Ethics and Alternatives for Animal Use in Research and Teaching
investigators should also consider the possibility that pain in animals may sometimes be worse for them than pain in humans experienced under similar circumstances. pain research, however, can lead the way in our general approach to ethical issues relating to pain in research animals. these include the use of freund's complete adjuvant for antibody induction; foot pad injections; blood collection; ascites production for production of monoclonal antibodies; tumor induction; survival surgery; euthanasia; the use of the lethal dose 50 (ld 50), or other death as an endpoint studies, animal care and use protocol form. the view that the capacity of animals to feel pain is the primary source of our ethical obligations to them was argued by the 18th century english philosopher jeremy bentham, who maintained that the important question regarding animals is not “can they reason? when supporting businesses that make animal-free products, buy extras to donate to the local food pantry, clothes closet, or shelter. although procedures that allow animals to escape or terminate pain may usually be less ethically problematic than those involving unrelieved or continuous pain, the infliction of even temporary pain is still the infliction of pain and must have sufficient ethical justification.(4)in studies of acute or chronic pain in animals, measures should be taken to provide a reasonable assurance that the animal is exposed to the minimal pain necessary for the purposes of the experiment. general ethical principles discussed above help explain why pain research in animals can be so ethically troublesome. perhaps many of these discriminations will some day be applied to animals based on similarities between their physiological states or behavior and those of humans when we make these discriminations. unless the contrary is established, investigators should consider that procedures that cause pain or distress in human beings may cause pain or distress in other animals”; (2) “procedures with animals that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia. experiments involving physical restraint of animals can be quite stressful. however, good aims are not enough for the value that is required to justify animal pain. as a number of prominent animal pain researchers and specialists argue, one should not reject all anthropomorphism in describing the pain of animal subjects ( dubner 1987 ; soma 1987 ; zimmermann 1986 ). there has been very little consideration in the literature of the ethics of causing animal pain in basic research, and our understanding of this issue could benefit from additional discussion. therefore, one can never justify causing more pain to an animal than one needs to cause. a clear physical and mental distinction between humans and animals,Has become much fuzzier with this new understanding that evolution represents. the ethical problem in causing animals pain arises not from causing total amounts of pain but from causing individual animals pain. keywords used should be listed), consultation with peers in the field,And consultation with the national agricultural library's animal welfare. people disagree on ethical grounds whether certain kinds of research justify animal pain or some degree of animal pain. write to pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies to tell them that you will not be using any new therapies they might develop with the help of animal research. although it would be easy to give into the distinction between companion animals and other animals, to do so ignores the fact that noncompanion animals, like chimpanzees, have a genetic make-up very similar to ours. animals should be allowed to avoid, self-treat, or escape pain when consistent with justified experimental aims. humans and animals also has become fuzzier, and it suggests that.(3)to make possible the evaluation of the levels of pain, the investigator should give a careful assessment of the animal's deviation from normal behavior.. introduction animal rights activists are often called nut jobs, wackos, and extremists--and that is by our friends and family members. use of animals in research, teaching and testing is an important ethical and political issue. the preface to the current guidelines state that investigators “should make every effort to minimize pain” and should “accept a general attitude in which the animal is regarded not as an object for exploitation, but as a living individual” ( zimmermann 1983 , p 109).
Ethics and Pain Research in Animals this last statement embodies the requirements of the justification and value principles that the pain or distress to which animals are subjected must be proportional to the justification and value of the experiment. from each animal, perhaps gathering data for more than one. because it is difficult if not impossible to characterize what paralyzed animals feel, one cannot determine whether what they feel is justified, whether their pain and distress is being minimized relative to the aims of the experiment, and whether their pain and distress have become so severe that the experiment must at some point be terminated. (1)it is essential that the intended experiments on pain in conscious animals be reviewed beforehand by scientists and lay-persons. the constituent societies of the federation of american societies for experimental biology have adopted a statement of principles for the use of animals in research and education. from each animal, perhaps gathering data for more than one. new systems to look for similarities, and using less expensive animals. clearly, it is an easier argument to limit animal rights to our companion animals who occupy our homes and are near and dear to us. the idea of replacement of 'higher' animals with 'lower' animals,And requires environmental enrichment or human contact for intelligent,Social animals such as nonhuman primates, or dogs and cats, but not for..Using a "lower" animal or minimizing pain or distress may require using.) especially since the hope is to win the hearts and minds of the larger public to the cause of animal rights, supporters of this position might want to hold on to the moral high ground. in any discussion concerning animal rights, the question often arises as to the need to distinguish companion animals, like dogs and cats, from other animals. although doubts about animal pain are less likely among pain researchers who use animal models for human pain than among investigators whose work may secondarily cause animals pain, questioning whether animals feel pain, or feel pain “as we do,” can be a tempting neutralizer of unsettling ethical aggravations. for example, the american association for laboratory animal science policy on the humane care and use of laboratory animals ( aalas 1997 ) is identical to the us government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing research and training (us principles 1 ). animals should not be permitted to suffer severe or chronic pain or distress unnecessarily; such animals should be euthanized” ( faseb 1994 , p 2). the absence in us laws and regulations of specific ethical guidelines relating to animal pain research means that investigators and iacucs must apply to pain experimentation on animals more general ethical principles that relate to animal pain. it might be correct in such circumstances to say that more total pain would be caused by using the 20 animals. the animal care and use protocol (acup) asks about the alternatives that have been considered, why they were rejected and how the principal investigator searched for these alternatives. the greater the pain experienced by the animals, the greater must be the justification and value of the research.: “in addition to your proposals, keep asking “animal rights activists” why do they attack researchers instead of firebombing the local home depot?(3)to make possible the evaluation of the levels of pain, the investigator should give a careful assessment of the animal's deviation from normal behavior. research that causes animals pain to test a new and potentially more effective pain-killing drug for cancer patients will likely have an aim that is sufficiently valuable to justify the infliction of some animal pain. this recommendation is supported by one of its authors on the grounds that because such animals “can be considered to be under stress in the condition of neuromuscular paralysis,” any results obtained “would be of no scientific value” ( zimmermann 1986 , p 231).(7)the duration of the experiment must be as short as possible and the number of animals kept to a minimum. they direct investigators to locate what animals feel in an appropriate pain level category on the basis of observed behavior. these guidelines state that “sound scientific practice and humane considerations require that animals receive sedation, analgesia or anesthesia when appropriate. the justification principle and the fact that pain is an evil to animals follows a critically important ethical principle that is often invoked by iacucs when they consider research likely to cause animals pain.
Thesis Statement For A Research Paper On Animal Cruelty
that animals should be treated kindly because animal cruelty represented. it is therefore more accurate to say that one' s ethical obligation regarding animal pain is not to minimize it but to try to minimize it in light of best knowledge and practice. therefore, in determining whether causing animal pain in an experiment is ethically justifiable, we must include in our deliberations other unpleasant or negative animal experiences. zimmermann, “ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals,” p 109-110, 1983, with permission from elsevier science. there are three issues in animal law of which there should be little debate: (1) banning animal fighting as a spectator sport by increasing the penalties for those that attend; (2) providing for bequests for the care of our pets after our death; and (3) prohibiting the hunting of domesticated animals on private game preserves or over the internet. because the underlying motivation of the minimization principle is to assure that animals feel no worse than necessary, this approach seems reasonable. much of the discussion about this issue revolves around the relative value, often referred to as 'moral value', of humans and animals. of the animal usage form asks for the methods used to search for alternatives. if there is disagreement among philosophers and scientists about the meaning of the term “pain” in animals and lack of knowledge about its nature and causes, there is even greater disagreement about the meaning and causes of psychological states in animals such as distress, discomfort, fear, or anxiety ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 416-418). there is disagreement among iacucs and commentators about whether committees can and should consider the scientific soundness of research proposals ( prentice and others 1992 ; tannenbaum 1995 , p 495,501). the primary purpose of the awa and regulations to minimize animal pain, distress, and discomfort is underscored by the requirement that all institutions file the annual report, which must contain not only an assurance that the facility has adhered to all standards and regulations under the act, but also a statement that there has been “appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, and tranquilizing drugs, prior to, during, and following actual research…” (9 cfr 2. only a single major survival surgery on any one animal, whenever possible. after all, the poisons sold by one such store slowly and painfully kill more animals then all animal research in a good sized university…. the minimization principle lies squarely behind inclusion in the report of the category of animals that experience “pain or distress … for which the use of appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs would have adversely affected the procedures, results, or interpretations” of research projects, and the requirement that a statement explaining why such drugs were not used be attached to the report (9 cfr 2. moreover, using animals in pain research as a model for human pain clearly presupposes that animals feel pain; if they did not, the model would be pointless. all of these viewpoints have contributed to the development of ethical principles of animal use. any proposal of pain research in animals should contain clear and convincing statements of the justification and value of the research, including the relevance of the work to practical benefits or important theoretical knowledge, the soundness of the science, and the competence and ability of research and animal care personnel to monitor and minimize animal pain. so that the best scientific, technical,-and ethical questions can be asked, all members of the iacuc should attend the review of pain research proposals. zimmermann (1986 , p 230-231) recommends that “animals in a chronic pain state should not be left alone. use of animals in research, teaching and testing is an important ethical and political issue. the animal care and use protocol (acup) asks about the alternatives that have been considered, why they were rejected and how the principal investigator searched for these alternatives. this prohibition recognizes that although the total amount of pain or distress, and indeed the total number of animals, may be lessened if fewer animals are subjected repeatedly to major procedures, it can be unfair to each individual animal used to do this. as a philosopher, i admit i’m biased in favor of the former (and goodness knows some of the advertising i’ve seen undermines my sense that animal rights supporters are engaged in a struggle for social justice — thus making it persuasive in the opposite direction). a project that would cause animals pain simply to amuse a “researcher” who enjoys watching animals suffer has no value and would not justify the infliction of any pain. i have been told by someone eating pork dumplings that there is no legitimate purpose to biomedical animal research. (7) while some environmental and constitutional laws (such as the endangered species act (8) and the marine mammal protection act) (9) do address the rights of noncompanion animals, the continued property classification of animals affects--and hurts-companion animals more than it does our nondomesticated friends. procedures that allow animals to escape pain have provided important data and would ordinarily be preferable to those that inflict unrelieved pain.
Understanding the Link
it might also be helpful for iacuc members to view animals that are subjected to painful procedures either before approving a proposal if possible or afterwards so that members can assure themselves that pain experienced by the animals is justified. animals do not have the same kind of appreciation of what they are experiencing that can render it less stressful; they do not choose to be subjected to pain; and they cannot tell us that once they avoid or terminate a stimulus, their pain has ended. ethical guidance in evaluating the humaneness of animal pain research also requires use of normative principles of the kind developed in this article. the level of stress can sometimes be reduced by training the animals to perform pain detection and pain discrimination tests by, for example, having the animals decide when to initiate the test and when to withdraw from the experiment by ceasing to initiate trials. and although causing such harm may often be justified, the nature of the needed justification sometimes makes the ethical dilemma more troublesome: as the problem of pain for humans and animals becomes greater, the pain we can justify causing animals when they are used in valuable pain research increases., all live animal use in research, teaching or testing must be reviewed. if you build animal-free alternatives that work — that provides reliable data relevant to the scientific questions researchers are investigating — researchers will use them. discussing ethical considerations relating to pain research in animals, it is important to begin with general ethical principles. only a single major survival surgery on any one animal, whenever possible. does it even accept the philosophic basis for statutes prohibiting cruelty? systems of all vertebrate animals are very similar, it is assumed. public health service (phs 1 ) policies also contain ethical standards, many of which are set forth in the us government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing, research, and training ( phs 1996 ). as dubner (1987) explains, there is a range of techniques in animal pain research that are associated with different amounts or degrees of pain. the preamble to the federal animal welfare act (awa 1 ) declares that the entire statute and its regulatory structure are intended “to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment” (7 usc 2131(1)). unaffiliated and certainly nonscientist members are also likely to insist on descriptions of any pain the animals may experience in lay terms that not only are understandable to them but also reflect the public's concern about what animals might actually feel. investigators and iacucs should focus on what is fair to individual animals, which may sometimes require lengthening rather than shortening the duration of pain, using more rather than fewer animals, or causing more rather than less total pain. the minimization principle also appears to underlie the statement of the guide that “an integral component of veterinary medical care is prevention or alleviation of pain … the proper use of anesthetics and analgesics in research animals is an ethical and scientific imperative” ( nrc 1996 , p 64). apply many different ethical principles to their interactions with animals. most laws relating to animal use (such as cruelty-to-animals statutes, humane slaughter laws, and most laws and regulations governing animal research) require that animals used for legitimate purposes not be caused pain if possible and not be caused unnecessary pain if some pain is unavoidable. experiments on completely anesthetized animals, which have yielded some significant knowledge, cause no pain and do not raise ethical issues relating to whether pain is justified. that he could eat instead, there has been competition with animals for.(4)in studies of acute or chronic pain in animals, measures should be taken to provide a reasonable assurance that the animal is exposed to the minimal pain necessary for the purposes of the experiment. however, although federal ethical guidelines emphasize minimization of pain, they contain no standards or suggestions relating specifically to pain research in animals. first human killed an animal for food, or drove it from a berry patch.. work to make a lifestyle free of animal products more accessible to others, especially those with less freedom to exercise “consumer choice”. such, i would argue that animal rights supporters can, and should, advance their position without resorting to tactics that depend on harassment, intimidation, or violence. more animals will be required for less predictive outcome- isn’t this what you object to in a broader sense?
Animal Welfare at Risk in Experiments for Meat Industry - The New
minimizing the number of animals needed to perform an experiment. bentham also argued that there is no ethical issue whatsoever if an animal raised or used in research does not feel pain, distress, or discomfort. the statute and its regulations contain many ethical obligations made legally enforceable, such as the requirements that procedures “will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals” (9 crr 2. we owe it to the animals to approach the ethics of pain research as seriously as we approach the science. although the statute requires that an inspection uncover all deficiencies, the only matters specifically mentioned are inspection of “practices involving pain to animals” and “the condition of animals, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this chapter to minimize pain and distress to animals” (7 usc 2143(a)(7)a)). don’t buy any products that are the result of animal testing (and, recognizing that the cruelty-free label may indicate that the testing required by law has been outsourced to another company, write letters or make phone calls to establish where in the chain animal use has taken place). improved understanding of and ability to deal with pain require continued research on animals ( bonica 1992 ; dubner 1983, 1987 ; sessle 1987 ; sternbach 1976 ; zimmermann 1986 ). legal recognition of the importance of ethics in animal research. in this paper, i explore and defend a number of widely accepted ethical principles regarding animal pain. the awa requires that regulations be effected that assure “animal pain and distress are minimized, including adequate veterinary care with the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia” (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(a)); that “the principal investigator considers alternatives to any procedure likely to produce pain to or distress in an experimental animal” (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(b)); that “in any practice which could cause pain to animals,” a veterinarian be consulted in the planning of such procedures (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(c)(i)) and that these procedures provide for “the use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and anesthetics” (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(c)(ii)); and that “the withholding of tranquilizers, anesthesia, analgesia, or euthanasia when scientifically necessary shall continue for only the necessary period of time” (7 usc 2143(a)(3)(c)(v)). to ethics is an essential part of the work of iacucs, veterinarians, animal researchers, and all who affect the lives of research animals. an animal, it does not matter whether its pain or distress is part of research designed to understand and treat pain.(d)(1)(ii)); and that an animal research proposal contain a “description of the procedures designed to assure that discomfort and pain to the animals will be limited to that which is unavoidable for the conduct of scientifically valuable research, including provision for the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs where indicated and appropriate to minimize discomfort and pain to the animals” (9 cfr 2. investigators should assure the iacuc that they know how to assess and characterize pain in animals. are several specific research techniques in common use that are often criticized for their potential for causing pain or distress to animals. addition to your proposals, keep asking “animal rights activists” why do they attack researchers instead of firebombing the local home depot? however, i would argue that using the 20 animals would be ethically preferable, because each individual animal will be harmed less. nevertheless, there still exist among some scientists remnants of behaviorist notions that animals do not feel pain, or that feelings of pain in animals are of no practical significance because they are incapable of expression in the language of chemistry or physics ( rollin 1987, 1997 ). however, fairness to individual animals may sometimes obligate investigators and iacucs to consider alterations in experimental design that may increase or not lessen duration of pain or numbers of animals. proposals for animal use are reviewed based on the potential. performing scientific experiments that are sufficiently valuable to justify animal pain includes being competent to do the scientific work. moreover, because pain research is but one kind of biomedical research, animals that feel pain as a result of pain research surely represent a small fraction of research animals that feel pain or distress. charlesthe frontal cortexthe intersectionthe island of doubtthe loomthe primate diariesthe quantum pontiffthe questionable authoritythe rightful place projectthe scienceblogs book clubthe scientific activistthe scientific indianthe thoughtful animalthe voltage gatethoughts from kansasthus spake zuskatomorrow's tabletranscription and translationuniversewalt at randomwe beastieswhite coat undergroundzooillogix. as a nonscientist, i cannot assess the general validity of such an approach in estimating animal pain, but i can report an incident in which several members of an iacuc asked to receive an electric shock (not part of a pain study) that an investigator proposed to give to rabbits. points out correctly that non-human primate research is generally held to a higher standard than research on “lower” animals for ethical or emotional reasons, nhp’s being a little too close to humans for comfort. humans and animals also has become fuzzier, and it suggests that. animals are looked after by someone trained in, and sympathetic toward.
Animal Bill of Rights
when we add to the mix different numbers of animals, the task of comparing and minimizing can become even more difficult. procedures that may cause more than slight pain or distress to animals. therefore, in determining whether the infliction of animal pain is justified, we must ask whether what we are doing is fair to the individual animals we use. bad science cannot be good ethics, certainly when it involves causing animals pain. for example, a huge part of why there aren’t many people encouraging the development of alternatives to animal models is that most ar folks “know” that these alternatives already exist and have existed for decades, but are not adopted because scientists are too cheap and lazy. (d)(1)(i)) and that “animals' living conditions will be appropriate for their species and contribute to their health and comfort” (2. federal laws, regulations, and policies governing animal research contain many ethical guidelines applicable to pain research in animals. some people believe that animal pain can never be justified by basic research that does not promise practical benefits for people or other animals; others disagree. course, this was not meant to be an exhaustive list of strategies (note the post title, “some modest proposals …”), and i agree that in a pluralistic society, the acceptable tactics for making your case ought to be available to all with a case to make. are all things the animal rights movement already know, of course, but i do think it is a central point – the strategies that one uses for just and moral issues have to be available to your opponents even if their ideas are wrong. others ( deleo and others 1992 ; morton and griffiths 1985 ) specify kinds of animal behavior that are presumed reflective of levels of pain. however, i have not built this principle or the requirement that pain research causing animal pain must promise practical benefits into my recommendations to iacucs. are two components of the kind of value that is needed to justify animal pain caused by research: the value of the aims of the research and the level of its scientific soundness. help the countless people and animals that suffer pain, we need more pain research. for example, “procedures involving animals should be designed and performed with due consideration of the relevance to human or animal health, the advancement of knowledge, or the good of society” ( phs 1996 , p i). animal use in biomedical research is that alternatives to live animals. therefore, the more pain an experiment will cause animals, the greater must be the justification. moreover, because pain is a fundamental evil to animals as it is to humans, the following ethical principle seems appropriate: if there is reasonable scientific question about whether animals under certain circumstances are or are not feeling pain or are feeling more or less pain, we should err on the side of judging that they feel this pain or that they are feeling the worst or largest amount of reasonably attributable pain. (d)(1)(i)); that investigators provide the iacuc a written narrative showing that they have considered “alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain to the animals” (9 cfr 2. that animals should be treated kindly because animal cruelty represented. by sheer volume of cruelty, the food establishment should be the focus of animal rights activism, but of course they are powerful and have lawyers, and are therefore harder to intimidate with the frat-boy tactics of university-focused activists. what i call the “equality principle” holds that a given amount or duration or severity of pain is equally an evil for any being--human or animal---experiencing it. i have suggested that a stronger showing of the importance of a piece of basic research must be made when that work would cause pain or discomfort to animals than when research shows prospects of providing medical benefits ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 472). a clear physical and mental distinction between humans and animals,Has become much fuzzier with this new understanding that evolution represents. frequent invocation of the minimization principle in awa regulations and phs policies reflects the centrality of this principle in society's ethical framework relating to animals. and agencies that regulate animal research have recognized the importance of ethics by articulating a number of ethical rules iacucs and others involved in animal research are expected to follow. experiments in which animals experience unrelieved pain include induction of acute pain of varying levels of severity as well as chronic pain of varying levels of severity and duration.
Animal cruelty essays
students, research associates, and less experienced investigators who propose or work on animal pain research experiments should either demonstrate sufficient knowledge of pain research and the value of a proposed experiment that will cause animals pain or be closely supervised by a scientist with such knowledge. by sheer volume of cruelty, the food establishment should be the focus of animal rights activism, but of course they are powerful and have lawyers, and are therefore harder to intimidate with the frat-boy tactics of university-focused activists. (and, help to develop animal-free media for growing tissue cultures. with a statistician to use only the numbers of animals required to achieve significance [link to on-line statistical resources] [ilar journal statistical approach to calculating the minimum number of animals needed in research]., reduction, and replacement of animal toxicity tests by computational methods. the iasp also recommends that pain studies “in animals paralyzed with a neuromuscular blocking agent should not be performed without a general anesthetic or an appropriate surgical procedure that eliminates sensory awareness” ( zimmermann 1983 , p 110). the philosophical basis against cruelty to animals is already embedded in established laws prohibiting animal abuse and is the basis of these laws. that procedures to be performed on the animal are reasonable for that species. l(d)(1)(iv)); the requirement that animals “that would otherwise experience severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved will be painlessly euthanized at the end of the procedure, or, if appropriate, during the procedure” (9 cfr 2. american college of laboratory animal medicine foundation funds grants to study alternative methods of animal use. the purpose of most pain research is to understand pain in humans, and it is often scientifically reasonable to assume that what the animals feel is similar to what humans feel. this document also requires conformance with all applicable laws and, like the us principles, states that “all work with animals shall be designed and performed in consideration of its relevance to the improvement of human or animal health and the advancement of knowledge for the good of society” ( faseb 1994 , p 1). in pain as in other kinds of research, fairness to individual animals may sometimes require using more rather than fewer animals, extending rather than shortening the duration of an experiment, and not minimizing total pain and distress., all live animal use in research, teaching or testing must be reviewed. much remains to be learned about what kinds of chemical and environmental interventions can lessen animal pain. because animals may not know (or be able to know) why they are suffering pain or that the pain will end, pain may so completely dominate the animal's psychology that it may sometimes be appropriate to view its entire life for some period of time as a painful experience--as rollin (1989 , p 60) aptly puts it, to view the animal as its pain. few would object to the fact that animals feel pain.’m a farmer who raises animals for meat, so i clearly disagree with many of the premises of the animal rights movement, but i’m interested to see that you give such a narrow view of possible options. estimating animal pain is and will likely always be imprecise. one significant recent development in animal ethics is growing acceptance by the public and members of the biomedical research community of the view that animals used in research should be provided enriched environments and positive psychological experiences ( rollin 1995 , p 3-26). additionally, paralysis removes overt signs of pain and distress and therefore removes one of the major ways to determine the severity, duration, and character of the animals' pain and distress. the law must change to recognize that companion animals and other animals are sentient creatures deserving of greater protection. what is ethically important about pain--what makes it an evil to animals as well as to humans--is that it feels bad. surgical or other painful procedures should not be performed on unanesthetized animals paralyzed by chemical agents”; and (3) “animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure” ( phs 1996 , p i). application of the minimization principle presupposes that we can determine whether a given use of animals involves more or less pain than another. more agrarian, reverence for wild animals waned, and thanks and. however, we cannot always clearly say that some animals experience more pain than others because it is not clear that the term “pain” (even when properly applied) always refers to the same entity of which the relative amounts can be compared and then “lessened” or “minimized.
other unpleasant feelings such as distress or discomfort also feel bad, and the same ethical principles apply to causing them in animals as apply to causing pain. the minimization principle is persuasive, it will sometimes be difficult or impossible to apply it confidently to pain research in animals. that is, if the necessary information can be gathered before the animal experiences any ill effects from the experiment, this should be defined as the endpoint and the animal subsequently euthanized. products, and build our cities and highways where animals might otherwise. that causing animals pain in pain research may sometimes be a necessary evil also implies that iacuc members and investigators must pay special attention to their ethical obligations of minimizing harm to animals. reason above all else, and ascribed little moral value to animals. such policies reflect the experience and focused interests of scientists who sometimes deal with animal pain in distinctive investigational contexts. the justification principle requires anyone who causes animals pain to provide justification for doing so. therefore, while some animal welfare groups have done a good job raising the awareness of the plight of the giant panda and the previously endangered bald eagle, the greatest strides yet to be made involve companion animals and their often horrid treatment in our united states. of the animal usage form asks for the methods used to search for alternatives. all animal users are encouraged to explore this and other means of improving animal welfare while still accomplishing our research mission. us laws require iacucs (and not someone else) to determine whether proposed animal experiments are humane (that is, ethical). many iacuc members have encountered investigators who, when asked whether their work might cause animals pain, respond that one cannot really know what animals feel or be certain that they feel pain at all. that is, if the necessary information can be gathered before the animal experiences any ill effects from the experiment, this should be defined as the endpoint and the animal subsequently euthanized. the main feature of the report is the specification of numbers of animals with respect to experiences of pain. minimizing duration and numbers may often lessen the burdens experienced by individual animals used in pain research. pain can be minimized only if veterinary and animal care staff conscientiously and competently assure that the minimization procedures approved or required by the iacuc are followed. with a statistician to use only the numbers of animals required to achieve significance [link to on-line statistical resources] [ilar journal statistical approach to calculating the minimum number of animals needed in research]. the very nature of the narrow exemption carved out for animal testing, and the regulatory mechanisms for review of proposals, demonstrate a clear statutory intent to reduce as much as practicable lethal animal testing and an expectation that researchers will always seek out and use the least onerous techniques available. some of these general principles are enunciated in the laws and regulations relating to animal research. university animal researchers are being paid with my tax dollars and with my implied consent, unlike the horrific factory farms. what i call the “minimization principle” holds that we should minimize pain experienced by research animals. analogizing from human experience may sometimes increase the estimate of expected harm to animals and thereby increase the level of required value of an experiment. the infliction of pain on the animals will still be pointless, and unjustified. animal use is performed in as humane a manner as possible, minimizing. animal abuse is illegal except for a narrow exemption carved out for licensed research. for at least the past 100 yr, most people in western societies have believed their primary ethical obligation to all animals is not to cause them unnecessary or unjustifiable pain ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 120-122).
because the deliberate infliction of animal pain is the infliction of a fundamental harm and evil, an iacuc should take all reasonable steps to assure that any pain research on animals performed at the institution is ethically appropriate, without question. animal models that can involve unrelieved pain include some for amputation pain ( blumberg and janig 1982 ; wall and gutnick 1974 ), arthritis pain ( coderre and wall 1987 ; colpaert 1987 ; decastro costa and others 1981-1987 ), cardiac pain ( uchida and murao 1974 ), chronic pain ( sweet 1981 ), deafferentiation pain ( brinkus and zimmerman 1983 ; wiesenfeld and lindblom 1980 ), muscle pain ( mense and schmidt 1974 ), neuropathic pain ( bennett and xie 1988 ), stress-induced analgesia ( lewis and others 1980 ), trigeminal neuralgia ( black 1974 ), and visceral pain ( deleo and others 1992 ). exists a wide spectrum of views on this subject, ranging from those concerned with animal 'rights' to those who view animals only as a resource to be exploited. animal use is performed in as humane a manner as possible, minimizing. the rules instead invoke general and widely held ethical standards relating to animal pain. the first sentence of the guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (guide1 ), which institutions covered by phs rules must consult, proclaims an ethical principle intended to underlie the guide's recommendations: “all who care for or use animals in research, teaching, or testing must assume responsibility for their well-being” ( nrc 1996 , p 1). having found any mention of young children being stewed, roasted, baked or boiled, i am forced to suspect the modesty of your proposals. therefore, to assure the humaneness of pain research in animals, iacucs and investigators must engage in independent ethical assessment of research.. the iacuc should apply to the consideration of any pain research proposal the fullest and most complete consideration available under its operating procedures. some animal pain research involves causing pain to animals that is not relieved but that can be escaped by avoidance behavior (such as tail-flicking or avoiding a painful stimulus) or administration of pain relief by the animal. i suspect, however, that the increase of animals used, increase in uninterpretable outcome, etc, that attends using nonhuman primate models at the very forefront of the most basic research will not be palatable to the moderate middle view that has a consensus species hierarchy of use. the minimization principle is best considered after the value principle because whether a certain amount or kind of pain is deemed necessary and therefore justified will depend on whether the infliction of any pain on an animal is justified by proposed research.” that causing animals pain, even when justified, is a necessary evil explains why we should be unhappy about the need to do it and why we should feel unsettled by it (which is not the same as saying we should feel guilty about doing it). environmental enrichment and opportunities for species behavior associated with stress reduction can lessen stress and discomfort experienced by the animals ( mench 1998 ; zimmermann 1986 ). the animal rights movement maintains a very highly-developed echo chamber, and most ar folks get their information on subjects like animal experimentation exclusively from sources within the echo chamber. it seems like all 4 points should be obvious, but it seems to be distressingly rare for folks in the animal rights movement to really grasp points 1 and 2. more often those opposed to animal cruelty and who are in support of animal rights need to speak with a unified voice to reform this country's unacceptable treatment of animals. when the needs of animals and humans come into conflict, which takes precedence? our capacity for reason is no less moral or ethical than another animal. many scientists and veterinarians believe that it is a privilege to use animals in research ( dubner 1983 ). microorganisms, plants, eggs, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates may be used in some studies to replace warm-blooded animals.(5)an animal presumably experiencing chronic pain should be treated for relief of pain, or should be allowed to self-administer analgesic agents or procedures, as long as this will not interfere with the aim of the investigation. they must engage in ethical deliberation in which animal and human interests are carefully balanced. think part of the problem is that at some level, they realize that the concept of “animal rights” is an oxymoron; “rights” are privileges and responsibilities mutually granted and accepted within a community of like minds. use of live animals, a more sophisticated concept of alternatives has. of principles for the use of animals in research and education. more agrarian, reverence for wild animals waned, and thanks and.
Research proposal on animal cruelty
the same reason, the burden is upon researchers, who have a professional level of expertise in their specific field, to seek out and develop cruelty-free alternatives. 1980, the committee for research and ethical issues of the iasp issued a set of ethical standards for use of animals in experimental pain research ( covino and others 1980 ). (d)(1)(v)); the requirement that activities involving surgery include “appropriate provision for pre-operative and post-operative care of the animals in accordance with established veterinary medical and nursing practices” (9 cfr 2. the american psychological association guidelines for ethical conduct in the care and use of animals also require compliance with all laws and regulations but add a number of more specific recommendations relating to animal pain. it is possible to argue not only about whether such goals are sufficiently valuable to justify a certain level of animal pain, but also about the relative ranking of these goals. use of live animals, a more sophisticated concept of alternatives has. there are indications that animals in pain suffer less when socially rewarded. can probably parse both sources of taxpayer expenditure for direct/indirect support of animal research over animal agribusiness/farming if you like. let your health care providers know that you will be refusing all treatments that were developed with the help of animal research. the american psychological association policy reiterates these principles in its general requirements of justification for the use of animals in proposed experiments, which include the statements that research should be undertaken with a clear scientific purpose. health service policy on the humane care and use of laboratory animals. any procedures on animals that may cause more than momentary pain or. i have to believe that nhp’s are far and away the most expensive research animals to acquire and support. it would be incongruous and inconsistent to engage in animal research for this ethical reason and deny the importance of dealing ethically with the animals essential to this research. animal use in biomedical research is that alternatives to live animals.(6)studies of pain in animals paralyzed with a neuromuscular blocking agent should not be performed without a general anesthetic or an appropriate surgical procedure that eliminates sensory awareness. ethical consideration of animal pain in pain research, like the research itself, must often settle for imprecise or gross estimates of how much and what kind of pain and associated negative feelings animals experience. we appear obligated to do something--pain research on animals--that will sometimes involve doing something else--causing pain--that we are generally obligated not to do. for example, sometimes knowing how to minimize pain is easy: if an animal is fully anesthetized, its pain is minimized during the time of anesthesia. the important ethical principle of fairness to individuals is embodied in the provision of the awa regulations that “no animal will be used in more than one major operative procedure from which it is allowed to recover” (9 cfr 2. guidelinesorder offprintsopen access optionspurchasealertsaboutabout ilar journalabout the institute for laboratory animal researcheditorial boardadvertising and corporate servicesself-archiving policydispatch dates. the american physiological society guiding principles for the care and use of animals provide that all us laws and regulations be followed and specify that postoperative care of animals “shall be such as to minimize discomfort and pain” and that “all measures to minimize pain and distress that would not compromise experimental results may be employed” ( aps 1996 , p 1). these provisions, all of which express the minimization principle, are elaborated in regulations that reiterate and sometimes apply this principle more concretely with, for example, the requirements that “procedures involving animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals” (9 cfr 2. our capacity for reason is no less moral or ethical than another animal., if you choose to lecture to animal rights activists about what to do, how come you make no notice of the power imbalance? in my view, it is obvious that an iacuc must assure itself to at least some extent of the scientific soundness of research that will cause animals pain.(5)an animal presumably experiencing chronic pain should be treated for relief of pain, or should be allowed to self-administer analgesic agents or procedures, as long as this will not interfere with the aim of the investigation.
it is also clear that progress in understanding and alleviating pain in humans and animals requires the use of animals. much of the discussion about this issue revolves around the relative value, often referred to as 'moral value', of humans and animals. i assume, however, as a given that the interests of research animals and of the general public in assuring the appropriate use of animals require that animal research proposals be reviewed for humaneness by local institutional committees. reason above all else, and ascribed little moral value to animals. an experiment that is part of a general research program that has already led to medically significant improvements in treating pain and is proposed by a scientist with demonstrated expertise and success in the area will likely overcome issues regarding precisely how much pain is being produced, whether the animals are feeling some distress as well as pain, or whether the negative feelings experienced by the animals will be absolutely minimized.. iacucs should encourage investigators to demonstrate in experiments that will cause animals pain or distress a level of justification and value that is as high as possible. investigators and iacucs should consider a wide range of evidence, including inferences from similar pain experiences in humans and the best available scientific data regarding behavioral and physiological signs of animal pain. research in animals raises distinctive and sometimes difficult ethical issues for institutional animal care and use committees (iacucs 1 ), attending veterinarians, and investigators..Using a "lower" animal or minimizing pain or distress may require using. that he could eat instead, there has been competition with animals for. 1 table 1 ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals of the committee for research and ethical issues of the international association for the study of pain a (1)it is essential that the intended experiments on pain in conscious animals be reviewed beforehand by scientists and lay-persons. principle that our primary obligation to animals is not to cause them unjustifiable pain presupposes that animals can experience pain. sometimes considerations of fairness to these individuals will mean that we demand too much of each animal by subjecting it to a great amount of pain if we can accomplish the same end by having each animal used suffer less. although the equality principle is consistent with using “lower” species if they do experience less pain or suffer less, allowing investigators to proceed on the basis of an unproved assumption could reinforce the notion that the experience of pain in “lower” animals is less real or less ethically relevant. animals don’t want to be part of our society.“animal abuse is illegal except for a narrow exemption carved out for licensed research. however, the experience of pain is bad in and of itself, which is why humans and animals generally avoid it. only live animals feel pain and behave in ways that are similar to humans' behavior when experiencing pain. moreover, virtually everyone accepts the principle that we have a fundamental ethical obligation to treat properly animals we use for our own benefit. the international association for the study of pain (iasp 1 ) recommends that in pain research on conscious animals for “most non-invasive stimuli causing acute pain,” the investigator “should try the pain stimulus on himself” ( zimmermann 1983 , p 109). that basis, whether it be an animal’s ability to feel pleasure and pain, or an animal’s being a subject of a life, or what have you, as clear as it can be. first human killed an animal for food, or drove it from a berry patch. but when animals feel pain--a situation common in pain research--it is often impossible to know whether they are being caused absolutely the minimum amount of pain necessary even when comparisons of amounts of pain seem possible. for detection and assessment of pain and distress in experimental animals: initiatives and experiences in the united kingdom. even the policy statement of the animal and plant health inspection service that addresses painful or distressful procedures in research does not include pain research in its examples of painful or potentially painful procedures ( aphis 1998 ). nevertheless, because there is evidence that self-mutilation seen after nerve lesions is not always a sign of pain in animals, more work is needed to determine reliable criteria of pain so that we can accurately estimate the ethical costs of this kind of pain research. recognition and anticipation of situations likely to induce suffering in animals.
that there are diverse viewpoints about the moral value of animals. microorganisms, plants, eggs, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates may be used in some studies to replace warm-blooded animals. application of these governmental ethical rules to pain research in animals requires an understanding of the underlying ethical standards that give these rules meaning and specificity. exists a wide spectrum of views on this subject, ranging from those concerned with animal 'rights' to those who view animals only as a resource to be exploited. such statements recognize the ethical relevance of causing pain but attempt to lessen or negate ethical issues by questioning the reality of animal pain. this principle requires that what is done to animals in research be justified by practical or theoretical results. for ethical conduct in the care and use of animals. animal contact be trained in appropriate handling techniques and that. new systems to look for similarities, and using less expensive animals. minimizing the number of animals needed to perform an experiment. considering ethical responsibilities relating to causing animals pain, it is important to take into account unpleasant mental states that typically accompany pain. proposals for animal use are reviewed based on the potential. the iasp recommends that “the duration of the experiment must be as short as possible and the number of animals involved kept to a minimum” ( zimmermann 1983 , p 110). people disagree about whether certain kinds of animal uses are sufficiently valuable to justify a certain level of animal pain. suppose a pain experiment could achieve satisfactory results either by causing excruciating pain in five animals for 1 hr or moderate and well-tolerated pain in 20 animals for 1 day. these include the use of freund's complete adjuvant for antibody induction; foot pad injections; blood collection; ascites production for production of monoclonal antibodies; tumor induction; survival surgery; euthanasia; the use of the lethal dose 50 (ld 50), or other death as an endpoint studies, animal care and use protocol form. although the results of research are often unpredictable, research that will cause animals pain must be based on accurate scientific knowledge, involve scientifically defensible hypotheses, and use scientifically appropriate techniques. these policies incorporate the requirements of the awa regulations and state explicitly that “procedures with animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals, consistent with sound research design”; that “procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals will be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia, unless the procedure is justified for scientific reasons in writing by the investigator”; and that “animals that would otherwise experience severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved will be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure” ( phs 1996 , p 9). procedures that may cause more than slight pain or distress to animals. nevertheless, such disagreements and lack of knowledge do not diminish the strength of the ethical principle that bad or unpleasant feelings inflicted on animals must be justified and minimized. moreover, although the minimization principle applies even when pain is justifiably inflicted on animals, in pain research this principle may often fail to accomplish its ultimate goal, which is to spare animals significant or substantial pain. pain research in animals has been essential in improved understanding of the neural basis of pain and the “development of better narcotic and nonnarcotic analgesic drugs, the introduction of pain-relief procedures using electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves, sensory pathways or neural centers in the brain, and the recognition and exploitation of endogenous pain-suppressing chemicals such as enkephalines in the brain” ( sessle 1987 , p 75-76). best way for animal rights activists to be successful would be to become animal welfare activists instead. it appears i am talking to someone who is, on this issue, at the intellectual level of an apollo moon hoaxer, at least do your homework on the statutory history and framework of animal cruelty laws since the 1800s. the terms “humane care and treatment” and treating animals “humanely” are used by most people, and clearly by the awa, as synonyms for ethical care and treatment and treating animals as we are ethically obligated to do ( tannenbaum 1995 , p 120-121,419-420).(7)the duration of the experiment must be as short as possible and the number of animals kept to a minimum.) perhaps iacuc members as well as investigators can try certain proposed painful stimuli on themselves if knowledge about the species and individuals used does not cast doubt on extrapolation of human reactions to what may be experienced by the animals.
- Resume writers in boston massachusetts
- The best way of travelling essay
- Applying for lecturer position resume
- Avionics technician resume cover letter
- Columbia gsas dissertation office
- Cover letter submit research article
- Cv resume international relations
- Does the uk have a constitution essay
- Final year project dissertation
- Literary analysis of dream deferred
- Miss brill point of view essay
- Multiple case study design
- Online video resume service
- Operation research pa resume or cv
- Parallax basic stamp homework board
animals are looked after by someone trained in, and sympathetic toward.» article details, "a modest proposal for advancing animal rights". they are ethically and legally obligated to find and implement techniques of lessening animal pain. numerous schemes for scoring various levels or severity of animal pain have been proposed to assist iacucs and investigators in estimating and minimizing pain. abbreviations used in this article: awa, animal welfare act; guide, guide for the care and use of laboratory animals; iacuc, institutional animal care and use committee; iasp, international association for the study of pain; phs, public health service; us principles, us government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing research and training. aside from having the force of law, government ethical rules relating to pain in animal research reflect society's most fundamental ethical views regarding animals. cruelty and humane treatment of animals aside, tort law, contract law, wills and trusts law, and family law all deal with issues regarding companion animals (with the exception of actions for damages to livestock where the law actually grants more protection to the animals so long as it is part of one's livelihood). animal contact be trained in appropriate handling techniques and that. university animal researchers are being paid with my tax dollars and with my implied consent, unlike the horrific factory farms.’s important to remember that opponents of animal cruelty have very little sway or influence. when it seems difficult to determine whether one approach minimizes pain because it is difficult to compare the amount of one kind of pain experience with another kind, we must fall back on intuitive judgments and reliable behavioral evidence regarding what appears better or worse for an animal or human to experience.. investigators should characterize and estimate the likely pain and associated negative feelings that will be experienced by the animals as completely and accurately as reasonably possible. animal fighting as a spectator sport michael vick was indicted on some of the most egregious, wanton acts of inhumanity toward animals ever reported. if animals of a “lower” species experience less pain than those of a “higher” species under certain circumstances, this fact could be relevant to determining whether a pain research experiment is justified on them, because it causes them insignificant pain, or is better done on them than on animals of a species that would experience more pain. i have been told by someone eating pork dumplings that there is no legitimate purpose to biomedical animal research. on the recognition of pain, distress, and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. because pain is an evil, we act wrongly if we cause any animal we use for our own benefit or for the benefit of other animals unnecessary or unjustifiable pain.(6)studies of pain in animals paralyzed with a neuromuscular blocking agent should not be performed without a general anesthetic or an appropriate surgical procedure that eliminates sensory awareness. the principle that animals should not be caused unnecessary pain is a deeply held ethical standard of the public, and pain research is typically justified on the grounds that it benefits the public. such ethical deliberation and such techniques for pain minimization will surely be applicable to animal pain associated with other kinds of research. there should be a reasonable expectation that the research will a) increase knowledge of the processes underlying the evolution, development, maintenance, alteration, control, or biological significance of behavior; b) determine the replicability and generality of prior research; c) increase understanding of the species under study; or d) provide results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals ( apa 1992 , p 2); and the scientific purpose of the research should be of sufficient potential significance to justify the use of animals ( apa 1992 , p 2). all animal users are encouraged to explore this and other means of improving animal welfare while still accomplishing our research mission. although one must be careful imputing to animals sophisticated emotional reactions to pain, neither should one preclude the possibility of such reactions. however we decide to characterize the value of research, because pain is an evil to animals and because more pain is a greater evil to them than less pain, the value of research causing that pain must be greater when the pain for the animals is worse. the justification principle follows the ethical principle that is employed most frequently in current laws and regulations governing animal research. american college of laboratory animal medicine foundation funds grants to study alternative methods of animal use. take it that a good number of animal rights supporters feel that their position is philosophically well-grounded, intuitively appealing, and compatible with the flourishing of humans as well as of non-human animals.