Revista de Biología Tropical ISSN Impreso: 0034-7744 ISSN electrónico: 2215-2075

OAI: https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/rbt/oai
Moving forward in the ethical consideration of invertebrates in experimentation: Beyond the Three R’s Principle
PDF
HTML

Keywords

five R´s Principle; responsibility; respect; precautionary principle; animal ethics.
principio de las Cinco R; responsabilidad; respeto; principio de precaución; ética; epistemología.

How to Cite

Crespi-Abril, A.-C., & Rubilar, T. (2021). Moving forward in the ethical consideration of invertebrates in experimentation: Beyond the Three R’s Principle. Revista De Biología Tropical, 69(S1), S346-S357. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v69iSuppl.1.46366

Abstract

Introduction: The Three R´s Principle (Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement), postulated more than 60 years ago, is the main ethical framework currently applied for conducting animal research. This principle has never been reviewed applying a philosophical reflection during all of these years, even though a variety of animal ethics studies have presented new insights. The Three R´s Principle was designed to be used as a policy tool to ameliorate the suffering of animals and to reduce the use of animals in research, but has failed in achieving these goals. This principle is only applied when using sentience vertebrates, and fails to consider invertebrates as their capacity to sentience is still disputed. In this way, invertebrates are reified, which has been determined to be detrimental as their suffering has been consistently denied. As a consequence, new insights are necessary to improve scientific practices. Epistemology and ethics have always been viewed as opposing approaches. ´Epistemology-based Ethics’ subordinate ethical concern to scientific facts and ‘Ethics-based Epistemology’ purports that ethical practice should guide epistemological practices. Objective: In this paper, we maintain that unifying both approaches under a broader conceptual framework may result in the view that these are not, actually, opposite approaches. We propose to progress beyond the Three R’s Principle and extend it to a position equal to the level of the ethical and epistemological approaches. We also propose to use the Precautionary Principle as it is always better to be safe than sorry, and to include two more Rs. Methods: This paper is based on the analysis of different ethical frameworks used in biology and ecology that can be implemented in invertebrates experimentation. Results: The analysis revealed that different ethical approaches are frequently used in biological research, but not all of them are implemented in experimental research that involves invertebrates. We argue that the ethical considerations used in any research field can be implemented in invertebrate research. Conclusion: We propose a Five R´s Principle: the traditional Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement, used along with Respect and Responsibility (a respectful relationship with every living being regardless of its complexity and personal commitment to conscientiously apply ethics concepts).

https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v69iSuppl.1.46366
PDF
HTML

References

Andrews, P.L., Darmaillacq, A.S., Dennison, N., Gleadall, I.G., Hawkins, P., Messenger, J. B., … Smith, J.A. (2013). The identification and management of pain, suffering and distress in cephalopods, including anaesthesia, analgesia and humane killing. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 447, 46-64.

Archibald, K., Coleman, R., & Drake, T. (2019). Replacing animal tests to improve safety for humans. In K. Hermann & K. Jayne (Eds.), Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change (pp. 417-442). The Netherlands: Brill.

Baldwin, A.L., Primeau, R.L., & Johnson, W.E. (2006). Effect of Noise on the Morphology of the Intestinal Mucosa in Laboratory Rats. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 45(1), 74-82

Bayne, K., Ramachandra, G.S., Rivera, E.A., & Wang, J. (2015). The evolution of animal welfare and the 3Rs in Brazil, China, and India. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 54(2), 181-191.

Bentham, J. (1823). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London, UK: W. Pickering.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive Management. Ecological Application, 10, 1251-1262.

Blattner, C.E. (2019). Rethinking the 3Rs: From whitewashing to rights. In K. Hermann & K. Jayne (Eds.), Animal Experimentation: Working towards a paradigm change (pp. 168-193). The Netherlands: Brill.

Burden, N., Chapman, K., Sewell, F., & Robinson, V. (2015). Pioneering Better Science through the 3Rs: An Introduction to the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 54(2), 198-208.

Burwell, A.K., & Baldwin, A.L. (2006). Do Audible and Ultrasonic Sounds of Intensities Common in Animal Facilities Affect the Autonomic Nervous System of Rodents?. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 9(3), 179-200.

Capaldo, T. (2004) The psychological effects on students of using animals in ways that they see as ethically, morally, or religiously wrong. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 1(32), 525-532.

Chandroo, K.P., Duncan, I.J., & Moccia, R.D. (2004). Can fish suffer? Perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 86(3), 225-250.

Cheney, J., & Weston, A. (1999). Environmental ethics as environmental etiquette: Toward an ethics-based epistemology. Environmental Ethics, 21(2), 115-134.

Crespi-Abril, A.C., & Rubilar, T. (2018). Ética e invertebrados: análisis de los casos de los cefalópodos y equinodermos. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Críticos Animales, 8, 210-232.

de Waal, F. B., & Preston, S. D. (2017). Mammalian empathy: behavioural manifestations and neural basis. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(8), 498-509.

Della Rocca, G., Di Salvo, A., Giannettoni, G., & Goldberg, M.E. (2015). Pain and suffering in invertebrates: an insight on cephalopods. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 10(2), 77.

Di Salvo, C.P., & Raymond, L. (2010). Defining the precautionary principle: an empirical analysis of elite discourse. Environmental Politics, 19(1), 86-106.

Drinkwater, E., Robinson, E.J., & Hart, A.G. (2019). Keeping invertebrate research ethical in a landscape of shifting public opinion. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(8), 1265-1273.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (2005). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related to the “Aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes”. EFSA J. 292, 1-136.

Elwood, R.W. (2011). Pain and suffering in invertebrates?. Ilar Journal, 52(2), 175-184.

European Parliament. (2010). Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Communities, L276, pp. 33–79. [online] Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0063 [Accessed 4 September 2020].

Fiorito, G. (1986). Is there “pain” in Invertebrates?. Behavioral Proceeding, 12, 383-388.

Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22, 151-6.

Gerritsen, V. (2015). Evaluation Process for Animal Experiment Applications in Switzerland. Alternatives to Animal Experimentation: Proceedings, 4(1), 37-40.

Greek, R., & Kramer, L.A. (2019). The scientific problems with using non-human animals to predict human response to drugs and disease. In K. Hermann & K. Jayne (Eds.), Animal Experimentation: Working towards a paradigm change (pp. 391-416). The Netherlands: Brill.

Griffin, D.R., & Speck, G.B. (2004). New evidence of animal consciousness. Animal cognition, 7(1), 5-18.

Haraway, D.J. (2008). When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Harvey-Clark, C. (2011). IACUC challenges in invertebrate research. Ilar Journal, 52(2), 213-220.

Hermann, K., & Jayne, K. (2019). Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change. The Netherlands: Brill.

Honneth, A. (2006). Reification: A Recognition Theoretical View. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Berkeley: University of California.

Horta, O. (2011). La argumentación de Singer en Liberación animal: concepciones normativas, interés en vivir y agregacionismo. Diánoia, 56(67), 65-85.

Horvath, K., Angeletti, D., Nascetti, G., & Carere, C. (2013). Invertebrate welfare: an overlooked issue. Annali dell’Istituto superiore di sanità, 49, 9-17.

Johnson, J., & Degeling, C. (2012). Animals-as-Patients: Improving the Practice of Animal Experimentation. Between the Species, 15(1), 43-58.

Johnson, J., & Smajdor, A. (2019). Human Wrongs in Animal Research: A Focus on Moral Injury and Reification. Human-Animal Studies. In K. Hermann & K. Jayne (Eds.), Animal Experimentation: Working towards a paradigm change (pp. 305-317). The Netherlands: Brill.

Kellert, S.R. (1993). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation biology, 7(4), 845-855.

Knight, A. (2019). Critically evaluating animal research. In K. Hermann & K. Jayne (Eds.), Animal Experimentation: Working towards a paradigm change (pp. 321-340). The Netherlands: Brill.

Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E.L., & Stoto, M. (2001). The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental health perspectives, 109(9), 871-876.

Lewbart, G.A., & Mosley, C. (2012). Clinical anesthesia and analgesia in invertebrates. Journal of exotic pet medicine, 21(1), 59-70.

Mather, J.A. (2016). An invertebrate perspective on pain. Animal Sentience: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Animal Feeling, 1(3), 12.

MPG. (2020). Reduce, refine, replace – responsibility. Max Planck Society. [online] Available at: https://www.mpg.de/10973438/4rs [Accessed 4 September 2020].

Pemberton, S. (2004). Canine technologies, model patients: The historical production of hemophiliac dogs. In S. Shrepfer & P. Scranton (Eds.), American Biomedicine. In Industrializing Organisms (pp. 191- 213). New York: Routledge.

Preston, S. D. & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). The communication of emotions and the possibility of empathy in animals. In: S. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, & W. B. Hurlburt (Eds.), Altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in dialogue. (pp. 284–308). Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

Raffensperger, C., & Tickner J. (1999). Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Ram, R. (2019). Extrapolation of animal research data to humans: an analysis of the evidence. In K. Hermann & K. Jayne (Eds.), Animal Experimentation: Working towards a paradigm change (pp. 341-375). The Netherlands: Brill.

Regan, T. (2003). Animal rights, human wrongs: an introduction to moral philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield.

Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights. Univ of California Press.

Reyes-García V., & Martí, S.N. (2007) Etnoecología: punto de encuentro entre naturaleza y cultura. Ecosistemas, 16(3), 46-55.

Riebli, N., & Reichert, H. (2015). Perspective - The first brain. In A. Schmidt-Rhaesa, S. Harzsch & G. Purschke (Eds.), Structure and Evolution of Invertebrate Nervous System (p. 67-74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rubilar, T., & Crespi-Abril, A. (2017). Does Echinoderm research deserve an ethical consideration?. Revista de Biología Tropical, 65, 11-22.

Russell, W.M.S., & Burch, R.L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. London, UK: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Singer, P (1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. New York Review/Random House, New York.

Smith, J. (1991). The ethics of using animals in biomedical research: the findings of a working party of the Institute of Medical Ethics. Bulletin of medical ethics, 13-17.

Smith, J.A., Andrews, P.L.R., Hawkins, P., Louhimies, S., Ponte, G., & Dickel, L. (2013). Cephalopod research and EU Directive 2010/63/EU: Requirements, impacts and ethical review. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 447, 31-45.

Smith, S.A., Scimeca, J.M., & Mainous, M.E. (2011). Culture and maintenance of selected invertebrates in the laboratory and classroom. ILAR journal, 52(2), 153-164.

Smyth, D.H. (1978). Alternatives to Animal Experiments. London, UK: Scholar Press [for] the Research Defense Society.

Stewart, R.B. (2002). Environmental regulatory decision making under uncertainty. Research in Law and Economics, 20, 71-126.

Sunstein, C.R. (2003). Beyond the precautionary principle. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1003-1058.

Taylor, K., & Rego, L. (2016). EU statistics on animal experiments for 2014. ALTEX, 33(4), 465-468.

Toledo, V.M., & Barrera-Bassols, N. (2008). La memoria biocultural. La importancia ecológica de las sabidurías tradicionales. Barcelona: Icaria.

Tomasik, B. (2014). Suffering in Animals vs. humans, essays on reducing suffering. Retrieved from http://reducing-suffering.org/suffering-in-animals-vs-humans/

Von Staden, H. (1989). Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Weston, A. (2009). The incomplete eco-philosopher: Essays from the edges of environmental ethics. Nueva York: SUNY Press.

Wilson, E.O. (1999). The diversity of life. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Wilson-Sanders, S.E. (2011). Invertebrate models for biomedical research, testing, and education. ILAR journal, 52(2), 126-152.

Comments

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.