Everyday Research Methods

Respect for "persons" in animal research

On the Farm Sanctuary, chicken pig, and cow participants can only participate in research if they choose to. Credit: Xalanx/Deposit Photos

Here's a second story on animal ethics for the month of February. In this journalist's report, you can read about the Farm Sanctuary in Watkins Glen, NY, USA. The sanctuary has a "new, in-house research team" that is doing a special kind of research on its animal residents. One thing that makes the research special is its view of the autonomy of its animal participants. Each animal only participates in a study if it chooses to. 

According to the journalist, it's been rare to do research on farm animals: 

Chickens can anticipate the future, goats appear to solicit help from humans, and pigs may pick up on one another’s emotions.

But scientists still know far less about the minds of chickens or cows than they do about those of apes or dogs, said Christian Nawroth, a scientist studying behavior and cognition at the Research Institute for Farm Animal Biology in Germany. “I’m still baffled how little we know about farm animals, given the amount or the numbers that we keep,” he said.

The farm hopes its data will help change people's minds, convincing them that animals have emotions and personalities. Indeed, farm animals are sentient, as argued by the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.  At the Farm Sanctuary, research guidelines for their animal work explicitly forbid human dominance and control over them: 

Among other stipulations, the guidelines prohibit invasive procedures — forbidding even blood draws unless they are medically necessary — and state that the studies must benefit the animals. And participation? It’s voluntary.

“Residents must be recognized as persons,” the guidelines state, “and always be provided with choice and control over their participation in an experimental study.”

As an example, the researchers at Farm Sanctuary were studying whether chickens enjoy learning. They created an experimental setting which invited chickens to learn to knock a lid off of a bowl. No chicken was forced to participate in the study; instead, the researchers slowly introduced the setting to the flock, and enticed individual chickens to enter the arena over time with snacks. The journalist reports:

So far, the researchers have tested eight chickens, half of whom were in the control group, and it is too early to draw firm conclusions about chickenkind. (The original group of recruits dwindled after one bird died, another failed to meet the study criteria, and three others dropped out — in one case, to spend time in the nest box instead. “I think she really just was highly motivated to sit on some eggs,” Ms. Prasad-Shreckengast said.)

As this passage describes, waiting for full consent makes the research process slower, but is consistent with the ethical values of these researchers. Another issue with the focus on autonomy concerns generalizability:

 

Personality remains a tricky issue. By limiting their study to chickens who, in essence, raised their wings to volunteer, they may have enrolled an unusually bold group of birds, potentially skewing their results. So the researchers are now administering personality assessments and may try to repeat the study with more birds.

 

In the last part of the article, you can read about the sanctuary's studies on pigs and cows, as well. 

 

Questions:

a) In Chapter 4, you can read about the Three Rs: Researchers are expected to reduce the number of animals used, refine procedures to reduce pain and suffering, and replace animals with computer or cell models. Which of the Three Rs are addressed by the research at Farm Sanctuary? 

 

b)  In what ways do the Farm Sanctuary studies move beyond the minimal considerations required by the Three Rs?

 

c) Are animals in the Farm Sanctuary studies treated the same (ethically-speaking) as human research participants?  Why or why not? You might structure a response around the three core ethical principles of Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. 

 

Animal ethics: What do we owe lab animals?

Researchers are expected to reduce the number of animals used, refine procedures to reduce pain and suffering, and replace animals with computer or cell models. What about repayment of animal subjects? Photo credit: Aleksei Gorodenkov/Alamy Stock Photo

As you read in Chapter 4, the use of animals in research studies is well-regulated around the world. In the United States, many animals are protected by the Animal Welfare Act, and any federally-funded research facilities must follow the review policies of IACUCs. In Canada, researchers follow guidance of the CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care).

In both the U.S. and Canada, animal research is guided the "Three Rs", Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. You're introduced to these terms in Chapter 4, but here's how journalist Brandon Keim defined them: 

Researchers are encouraged to replace animals when alternatives are available, reduce the number of animals used and refine their use so as to minimize the infliction of pain and suffering.

In India, a government body enforces a "Fourth R," Rehabilitation. This means providing care and rehabilitation to animals after they have finished being in experiments.  Now this article, published in January 2023 in the New York Times discusses a similar idea in the U.S, including how people are expressing a form of gratitude to animal participants. What do humans owe lab animals? 

The journalist tells the story of a person who, after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, came to appreciate that lab-reared monkeys had played a role in the vaccine's development: 

“I thought, I’m afraid of a stupid needle,” [Ms. Strohacker] said. “And these animals have to deal with this all the time.” She reflected on how her newfound freedom, and quite possibly her health, came at the expense of animals suffering or dying to develop the vaccines.

Merely being grateful for those animals seemed insufficient; Ms. Strohacker wanted to give something tangible in return. A little online research returned the National Anti-Vivisection Society’s sanctuary fund, which supports the care of retired lab animals. She made a small donation. “To give thanks was the very least I could do,” Ms. Strohacker said.

The Times reports that the COVID-19 vaccines probably helped save 20 million lives in their first year. Some ethicists would argue that animal research may be considered ethical when it does have a clear social benefit; however, even then, the animals must be treated in ways that minimize harm. The Times reports on the view that a fourth R should be "Repayment." Here's an example: 

Inklings of the idea of repayment can already be found in the research community, most visibly in laboratories that make arrangements for animals — primarily monkeys and other nonhuman primates — to be retired to sanctuaries. In the case of dogs and companion species, including rats, they are sometimes adopted as pets.

When adoptions are not possible, another option is a memorial. Some research labs provide plaques or public displays of appreciation for animals that have served in their lab.

Another option, especially if an animal was euthanized in the service of research, is to pay it forward: 

If someone receives a cornea or a heart from a pig — or funding to study those procedures — then they might pay for the care of another pig at a farmed animal sanctuary, Dr. Sharp proposed: “You’re going to have animals who stand in for the whole.”

“You’re contributing to the group, even if you’re not contributing to the individual,” Dr. Walker said. “That can be really relevant to the animal case.” For example, research on captive axolotls, a critically-endangered species of salamander, has yielded insights into breast cancer, spina bifida and tissue regeneration; in return, people might support efforts to help wild axolotls now struggling to survive in polluted canals in Mexico City.

Other researchers in the story described how they provide better-than-required food and housing for the rats in their research, providing large, naturalistic enclosures and playing with the rats every day. 

Questions:

a) It costs money to treat animals well during research and to repay them (or others of their species) after they participate.  Who should pay for these expenses? 

b) Two cases of alleged animal mistreatment in research have been in the news lately. One is the case of a beagle-breeding facility that was ordered to be closed down. In the other case, Elon Musk's company, Neuralink, is being accused of causing undue distress, pain, and harm to monkeys in allegedly "shoddy" experiment.  If you choose, you could research these stories and apply concepts such as the Three Rs to what you find. Specifically, how did these cases violate the Three Rs? 

c) Can you think of additional ways, besides those mentioned, to repay the animals that have been involved in psychological and medical research?