Bioethics Research Library at Georgetown University

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/503786

The author made this article openly available online at the Georgetown University Institutional Repository.

The Bioethics Research Library is collaborating with Georgetown’s University Library to digitize, preserve and extend the history of Bioethics.

Please tell us how this access affects you. Your story matters.

Visit us at https://bioethics.georgetown.edu/.

Copyright © 2001 The Johns Hopkins University Press. This article first appeared in Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Volume 11 Issue 1; March 2001, pages 91-112.

Collection Permanent Link: hdl.handle.net/10822/503786

This material is made available online with the permission of the author, and in accordance with publisher policies. No further reproduction or distribution of this copy is permitted by electronic transmission or any other means.

SCOPE NOTE 40 Scope Note 40

Animals in Research and Education: Ethical Issues

LAURA JANE BISHOP AND ANITA LONNES NOLEN

Scientific enquiry is inexorably tied to animal experimentation in the popular imagination and human history. Many, if not most, of the spectacular innova- tions in the medical understanding and treatment of today’s human maladies have been based on research using animals. However, the use of animals in re- search and experimentation has been debated, defended, and protested by both individuals and organizations at various levels. Responses range from personal lifestyle decisions and fervent philosophical treatises to strident arguments, vio- lent demonstrations, and direct action. The continuum of attitudes about ani- mals and the human relationship with animals spans the range between those who support no regulation of the human use of animals and those who advocate absolute animal liberation from all human use (see II, Orlans 1993, p. 22).

HISTORY

The first recorded experimentation on animals occurred in ancient Rome, but not until the Renaissance did scholars begin serious study of how the body works. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and other artists and anatomists pursued ana- tomical investigations of muscle and bone structure. William Harvey (1578-1657) discovered the circulation of the blood via his experiments on live deer. During this period, much live animal experimentation both in England and France was based on the view of French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) that ani- mals are incapable of feeling pain. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the English utilitarian philosopher, thought otherwise. In his “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” in 1789, Bentham declared, “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer? Despite Bentham and others, the belief that animals could not perceive pain persisted in many quarters into the twentieth century. Nineteenth century French physiologist Claude Ber-

Produced at the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Box 571212, Washington, DC 20057-1212. The Center operates on Con- tract N01 LM73529 from the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Addi- tional support is provided by Grant P4 1 HG01115 from the ELSI Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, and by other public and private sources.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Vol. 11, No. 1, 91–112 © 2001 by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature [ 91 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001

nard (1813-1878)–and his teacher, François Magendie (1783-1855)–conducted wide-ranging animal experiments including surgery, use of drugs, and removal of body parts from many species. Bernard argued that while no amount of bene- fit could justify any harm to human research subjects, even extreme harm and pain for animal research subjects could be justified by the potential benefit to human beings. Although he did use anesthetics in his work after their discovery in 1847, even Bernard’s later work was controversial because of the numbers of animals used and the repetitive nature of his research. The experiments of Magendie and Bernard both laid the foundations for animal experimentation as a practice for scientific advance and contributed in large measure to the emer- gence of the anti-vivisection movement. Public protests over animal experiments conducted in France and the fear that these might come to England led to the passage of the first law controlling animal experimentation, the “1876 Cruelty to Animals Act” in England. This history and the dynamic tension between sci- entific inquiry and public concern set the stage for the activism and scholarship of the twentieth century. Since the 1960s, the amount of attention, activism, and scholarship related to animal use has increased at a rapid pace. The modern animal protection move- ment, led by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in his book, Animal Libera- tion (II, 1975), based its advocacy on animals’ ability to experience pain and suffering (Bentham’s argument). Singer’s book and other investigations into ani- mal research, such as LIFE magazine’s photojournalism piece on pet theft, ani- mal cruelty, and animal experimentation (Concentration Camps for Dogs. LIFE (4 February 1966), pp. 22-29), brought the use of animals in research, testing, and education to the attention of the general public. Activists, advocates, layper- sons, scientists, lawmakers, and animals themselves, have created the interesting, complicated, and complex history of animal rights and animal welfare over the last several decades.

CURRENT STATISTICS

Worldwide, approximately 35 million animals are used in research each year; the United States alone uses 12 million animals annually—more than any other country. In 1998, the official number of research animals recorded in the United States was 1,213,814. However, this number must be increased tenfold to ac- count for laboratory rats, mice, and birds, which comprise about 90 percent of all animals used in research, but are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and therefore, are not counted. The most frequently used species in the United States is mice, followed by rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, pigs, dogs, sheep, primates, and cats. The annual Animal Welfare report prepared by the U.S. De- partment of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service contains annual statistics for animals used in U.S. research (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ ac/publications.html). Animal research data for other countries may be found at national web sites, but reporting requirements vary around the globe and gener- ally emanate from regulations governing the use and treatment of animals in research. Nowadays, the purpose of most experiments is to help treat human

[ 92 ] SCOPE NOTE 40 disease; a small amount of experimentation involving animal pain or death is for educational purposes. Although some countries still conduct unregulated animal research, more than 20 countries have specific legislation governing the humane use of animals in biomedical research and education. These include the U.S., Canada, all countries in the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan. Much of this legislation is more stringent than that in the U.S. Typical legislation requires adequate housing conditions, controls on animal pain, and critical prior review of experimental protocols. Some countries, such as the U.S., also include provisions for the use of animal alternatives (see the 3 R’s below), and a few require some explicit ethical justification for the use of animals in harmful experiments. Several websites list international animal welfare legisla- tion and guidelines, along with explanations (see http://altweb.jhsph.edu/science/ regs/reg.htm).

MAIN FEATURES OF U.S. LEGISLATION

In the United States, the use of animals in biomedical research is regulated by two federal laws, the Public Health Service Guide for the Care and Use of Labo- ratory Animals, administered by the Office for Laboratory Animal Welfare of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Animal Welfare Act, adminis- tered by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The AWA controls research involving only the specifically named animal species, while the Public Health Service (PHS) guidelines regulate any animal research supported by federal funds—e.g., animal research in all federal agencies. The full text of these laws and other regulations is available online at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awicregs.htm. The PHS regulations, which are rooted in the 1963 standards for animal care and use developed by scientists gathered by the Institute of Laboratory Animals Resources of the National Research Council and in the 1971 guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health, were first published in 1973 and revised in 1979 and 1986. Although the policies at first were voluntary and addressed only standards for animal husbandry, under the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-158), the guidelines became law and now describe require- ments for experimental animal procedures conducted by all federal agencies. NIH, a branch of the PHS, has been responsible for administering federal grants for animal experiments since 1946. The PHS guidelines established the oversight system of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) to evaluate research protocols, review care programs and inspect laboratory facilities, assess and educate laboratory personnel, and investigate complaints about the misuse or mistreatment of animals. The Animal Welfare Act, first adopted in 1966 as a result of mounting public concern about animal research, and amended in 1970, 1976, 1985, and 1990, compels registration of animal research facilities with the USDA, sets minimum standards for the general and veterinary care of animals used in research, re- quires inspections of laboratory facilities, and adopts the use of local IACUCs to review research protocols for compliance with regulations governing research

[ 93 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001 and measures to promote animal welfare. At first, the law (Public Law 89-544) regulated the humane treatment in research of only six species: dogs, cats, ham- sters, guinea pigs, rabbits, and nonhuman primates. The 1970 amendment au- thorized the Secretary of Agriculture to include additional warm-blooded ani- mals within its purview, and gave the legislation its current name. As a result of this amendment, research on farm animals is governed by the AWA. Other amend- ments to the AWA required the use of pain-relieving drugs (Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act of 1985), adopted the IACUC oversight system, and extended coverage to include college and university student work with animals. The U.S. National Agricultural Library established the Animal Welfare Informa- tion Center in 1986 to serve as a resource and education center about animal welfare and the AWA. One difficulty with this present situation is that animal research conducted by pharmaceutical companies or genetic engineering firms often falls outside the federal regulations. Because it neither involves named species nor is supported by federal funds, this research is not governed by the requirements of law. This fact is one of the main driving forces behind the efforts to include rats, mice, and birds under the AWA. A lawsuit filed against the USDA in 1998, ARDF v. Glickman (U.S. Secretary of Agriculture), eventually won coverage of those spe- cies when it was settled out of court in September 2000. However, although the USDA is now ready to draft regulations, the FY 2001 Congressional appropria- tions bill specifically states that no USDA monies can be used for this purpose, thereby effectively delaying any further action.

THE “3 R’S”

In recent years, the concern within the scientific community and in the general public over the use of nonhuman animal subjects in research and education has taken focus and direction from the 1959 book, The Principles of Humane Ex- perimental Technique by W. M. S. Russell and R. L. Burch, which laid out the concept of the “Three R’s” for the first time, and thereby, inspired the movement for alternatives to the use of animals in biomedical research and testing. The “Three R’s” are: replacement of conscious living animals with nonsentient ani- mals or materials, reduction of the number of animals used in an experiment or procedure, and refinement of the techniques used in order to decrease the inci- dence or amount of animal pain and distress. Russell and Burch believed that following the 3 R’s would result in more ethical and humane treatment of ani- mals. These concepts have been adopted by a number of scientists and many animal advocacy organizations and have been written into the laws of several countries.

ANIMALS IN EDUCATION

Another area in which animal alternatives are sought is in education. At the graduate or professional level, experimentation or surgery on live animals (vivi- section) raises a host of concerns about unnecessary pain and suffering and the

[ 94 ] SCOPE NOTE 40 unethical use of animals. At some veterinary and medical schools, students have refused to do nontherapeutic surgery on healthy animals or to kill them. Several veterinary schools now teach animal surgery by using only animals that are in need of surgery. Similarly, many medical schools have eliminated their live-animal labs or have reduced the number of healthy animals they use for surgical practice. At the middle, secondary, and college levels, the major focus has been to eliminate all experiments that involve infliction of pain on live vertebrate animals and to reduce or eliminate animal dissection, which became a regular part of the Ameri- can high school biology curriculum in the 1920s, and was common in U.S. col- leges as early as the late 1800s (IV. D. Balcombe 2000). Animal dissection raises many ethical and environmental concerns: the practice involves the unnecessary killing of animals; undermines conservation efforts; ignores welfare standards during animal capture, preparation, and shipping; releases formaldehyde into the environment; focuses on descriptive biology to the detriment of creative sci- entific thinking and research; causes some students to abandon further science education or careers; and weakens the respect for life and the humane treatment of animals. Justification for the use of dissection and vivisection in education may be lessened by Balcombe’s distinction that in education, animals generally are used as a means to transfer existing knowledge from one person (the teacher or instructor) to another (the student), either by demonstration or by direct ex- perience, rather than as a method to advance existing knowledge. He does ac- knowledge, though, that what students learn may enable them to advance hu- man knowledge in the future. Persons who support dissection and vivisection argue that these practices provide better quality education, offer the best prepa- ration for scientific careers, and are justified if the animals are treated humanely. Alternatives to the use of live or dead animals, such as interactive 3-D com- puter models, video footage, and plastic life-size models, have been shown to be as effective as traditional methods. A number of states have humane education laws that require teaching students about the important role of animals and birds in the natural universe and teaching them that kind, just, and humane treatment and protection should apply to all animals. Some states also have dissection choice legislation, which permits students to select educational alternatives to dissec- tion. Discussion materials, alternative resource catalogues, and guidance on cre- ating dissection choice policies are available from organizations such as the Ethi- cal Science and Education Coalition (ESEC). The role animals play in education now is just as likely to include a featured role in courses on animal ethics, animal welfare, and animal rights at all educational levels and fields.

GENETIC MANIPULATION OF ANIMALS

Advances in genetics have produced cloned animals (not covered in this Scope Note) and transgenic animals, in which there has been a deliberate modification of the genome so that it contains foreign DNA. In transgenic animals, recombi- nant DNA technology is used to make a heritable or nonheritable modification so that the resulting animals, or their offspring, might be used to study the biol- ogy of genetic regulation and the influence of certain proteins or hormones in the

[ 95 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001 body, to produce specific proteins or hormones, to test the toxicity of drugs or other interventions, and/or to improve growth and yields in agriculture. This type of genetic alteration goes beyond selective breeding for desired traits be- cause it inserts genetic material foreign to the animal’s genome. One potential use for this technology is to create animals with organs or tissue suitable for transplant to humans–xenotransplantation. Nuclear transfer or other techniques can be used to clone animals either to preserve a genetically altered animal or to create identical animal lines. Polly, a sheep created by PPL Therapeutics of Edinburgh, Scotland (who also created Dolly, the first cloned animal), was the first transgenic animal to be cloned. Born in September 1997, her genome con- tained a human gene that would cause her to produce alpha-1-antitrypsin, a human blood protein used to treat cystic fibrosis, in her milk. ANDi, the first genetically-altered primate was born in January 2001. Although this Scope Note focuses on animal use in research and education, other areas also raise ethical concerns about animal rights and animal welfare. These include the use of animals as companions, in agriculture, in zoos, for en- tertainment or sport, and the treatment of wildlife and endangered species. This bibliography contains only a small portion of the vast amount of materials avail- able; more can be found in the resources that have been included.

Note: Included below are databases, websites, print and online periodicals, and general books. The format of resource information is often overlapping, so we have included all types of general information in this one list. Annotations have been omitted when information is readily available to researchers with Internet access. Finally, these URLs were last accessed in January 2001. We regret that some addresses may be changed before you use this document.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. General IV. Special Topics A. Databases A. Genetic Manipulation of Ani- mals B. Websites, Journals, Books II. Philosophical and Religious Perspe B. Great Apes tives C. Rats, Mice, and Birds III. Regulating Animal Experimenta- D. Science Education and the Use tion of Animals E. Xenotransplantation

[ 96 ] SCOPE NOTE 40

I. GENERAL

A. Databases Animal Welfare Information Center [AWIC], National Agricultural Li- Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives brary, United States Department of to Animal Testing [CAAT]—http:// Agriculture; http://www.nal.usda. caat.jhsph.edu gov/awic/ offers the quarterly AWIC This site is the home of Altweb–an Bulletin online. international online clearinghouse of alternatives resources–http://altweb. Animal Welfare Institute; http:// jhsph.edu. www.awionline.org; offers AWI Quarterly online. National Reference Center for Bioeth- ics Literature (NRCBL), Kennedy Animals’ Voice Online, bimonthly, online Institute of Ethics–http://bioethics. at http://www.animalsvoice. com georgetown.edu. Australian and New Zealand Council To search the BIOETHICSLINE for the Care of Animals in Research database of journal articles and other and Teaching–[ANZCCART]; document types for literature on: ani- http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZC mal care committees, animal experi- CART/; offers a quarterly newslet- mentation, animal organs, animal ter online. rights, animal testing alternatives, or Bekoff, Marc, with Meaney, Carron transgenic animals, enter the selected A., eds. Encyclopedia of Animal term from the above list in the “search Rights and Animal Welfare. West- query box” provided using the follow- port, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. ing format: /*animal care committees 446 p. (kw). BIOETHICSLINE and the other This collection of short essays cov- Internet Grateful Med databases will ers many topics relating to animal wel- not be available after June 2001. We fare and the use of animals by humans, encourage you to search and download including “Laboratory Animal Use,” the animal experimentation literature “Antivivisectionism,” “Alternatives to before then. After that time contact Animal Experiments,” and “Education NRCBL for assistance. and the Use of Animals.” An appen- To access citations to hundreds of dix lists numerous organizations as ad- books on: animal rights, animal experi- ditional resources that can provide mentation, or animal production, educational materials concerning ani- search 22.1, 22.2, or 22.3, respectively, mal rights and animal welfare. as SUBJECTS in the GEORGE cata- log (http://library.georgetown.edu/ Bridging the Gap: Newsletter of The search/). Great Ape Project–International, full-text online at: http://www. B. Websites, Journals, Books greatapeproject.org/newsletters/. Animal Welfare, quarterly, Universities Canadian Council on Animal Care. Federation for Animal Welfare Ethics of Animal Investigation. Ot- (UFAW) at http://www.ufaw.org.uk tawa: The Council, 1989. [Online]. or [email protected]. http://www.ccac.ca

[ 97 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001

Donnelly, Strachan, and Nolan, Kath- See any of the many articles that leen, eds. Animals, Science and Eth- address a broad array of issues arising ics. Hastings Center Report. 20 (3, from the intersection of biotechnology May/June), 1990. [Special Supple- and animals, e.g., “Patents and Licens- ment]. 32 p. ing, Ethics, Ownership of Animals and This report discusses the moral sta- Plant Genes;” “Research on Animals, tus of animals; justification of animal Law, Legislative and Welfare Issues in experimentation; animal suffering; the Use of Animals for Genetic Engi- policies and practices in using animals neering and Xenotransplantation;” for research and education; alternatives and “Transgenic Animals: An Overview.” to animal use; and regulation and the National Association for Biomedical role of animal care and use committees. Research; http://www.nabr.org/ Fund for the Replacement of Animals labanimalissues.html. in Medical Experiments [FRAME] National Research Council. Institute of (United Kingdom); http://www. Laboratory Animal Resources. frame-uk.demon.co.uk; publishes Committee on Pain and Distress in the journal ATLA(Alternatives to Laboratory Animals. Recognition Laboratory Animals), bimonthly, and Alleviation of Pain and Distress partially available online. in Laboratory Animals. Washing- Humane Society of the United States ton, DC: National Academy Press, [HSUS]; http://www.hsus.org. 1992. 137 p. Kraus, A. Lanny, and Renquist, David, Netherlands Centre Alternatives to eds. Bioethics and the Use of Labo- Animal Use [NCA]; http://prex.las. ratory Animals: Ethics in Theory vet.uu.nl/nca/; publishes NCA- and Practice. Dubuque, IA: Gregory Newsletter. C. Beniot, 2000. 233 p. New Scientist, weekly, Reed Business Lab Animal: Information, Ideas, Information, online at http://www. Methods & Materials for the Ani- newscientist.com. mal Research Professional, 11 issues People for the Ethical Treatment of per year, Nature Publishing, par- Animals; http://www.peta.org. tially online at http://www.lab animal.com/. Psychologists for Ethical Treatment of Animals; http://www.psyeta.org: Manzo, Bettina. The Animal Rights Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Movement in the United States, Science (JAAWS), quarterly, Law- 1975-1990: An Annotated Bibliog- rence Erlbaum Associates, some raphy. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow abstracts online; and Society & Press, 1994. 296 p. Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Murray, Thomas H., and Mehlman, Studies, three times per year, Brill, Maxwell, J., eds. The Encyclopedia free, full-text online for volumes 1-8. of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues Reich, Warren T., ed. Encyclopedia of in Biotechnology. New York: John Bioethics. New York: Macmillan, Wiley & Sons, 2000. 2 volumes. 1995. 5 volumes.

[ 98 ] SCOPE NOTE 40

See articles entitled: “Animal Re- of Science, Ethics, and Policy. Se- search,” “Animal Welfare and Rights,” attle: Hogrefe & Huber, 1998. 328 p. “Veterinary Ethics,” and “Xeno- Using eating disorders as a case grafts.” “Ethical Directives Pertaining study, Shapiro, the Executive Director to the Welfare and Use of Animals” of Psychologists for the Ethical Treat- comprises Section V of the Appendix. ment of Animals, examines ethical is- Rollin, Bernard E. An Introduction to sues in psychology’s use of animals in Veterinary Medical Ethics: Theory research and provides the field’s offi- and Cases. Ames, IA: Iowa State cial position on animal welfare and use. University Press, 1999. 417 p. SSEA Newsletter, biannual, online, Society for the Study of Ethics & Russell, W. M. S., and Burch, R. L. The Animals at http://www.phil.vt.edu/ Principles of Humane Experimen- ssea.html. tal Technique. London: Methuen & Co., 1959. 238 p. University of California, Davis—Center The authors introduced the concept for Animal Alternatives (UCCAA); of the 3 R’s–Replacement, Reduction http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ and Refinement. Animal_Alternatives/main.htm–and the Center for Animal Welfare; Shapiro, Kenneth Joel. Animal Mod- http://animalwelfare.ucdavis.edu. els of Human Psychology: Critique

II. PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES

Adams, Carol J., and Donovan, Clark, Stephen R. L. Animals and Josephine, eds. Animals & Women: Their Moral Standing. New York: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Routledge, 1997. 194 p. Durham: Duke University Press, In this collection of essays, Chris- 1995. 381 p. tian philosopher Clarke explores a va- This collection of essays explores riety of topics to support his claim that the theoretical connections between “all creatures with feelings and wishes feminism and animal advocacy and the [he argues that animals fall into this historical connections between women group] should be thought of as ends- and animals. in-themselves, and not merely as Cavalieri, Paola, ed. Nonhuman means.” Personhood. Etica & Animali 9, DeGrazia, David. Taking Animals Se- 1998. 127 p. [Special Issue] riously: Mental Life and Moral Sta- Philosophical essays address the tus. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- question of whether nonhuman per- sity Press, 1996. 302 p. sons exist. Topics include moral prin- DeGrazia provides a short philo- ciples and speciesism, animal minds, sophical history and orientation to personhood and great apes, dolphins, theories of animal ethics. He uses a co- and elephants, and a historical over- herence or reflective equilibrium model view of the concept of a “person.” of justification to argue that “many animals have moral status and that

[ 99 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001 much of our current use of animals is Gluck, John P.; DiPasquale, Tony; and ethically indefensible” and incoherent. Orlans, F. Barbara, eds. Applied Drawing on philosophical theory and Ethics in Animal Research: Philoso- empirical data, he affirms a principle phy, Regulation and Laboratory of equal consideration for animals, but Applications. West Lafayette, IN: identifies relevant differences between Purdue University Press, Forthcom- individuals who bear moral status, ing 2001. even as he demonstrates that self- Greek, C. Ray, and Greek, Jean awareness, language, and other fea- Swingle. Sacred Cows and Golden tures of mental life can be found in Geese: The Human Cost of Experi- animals. ments on Animals. New York: Con- Donovan, Josephine, and Adams, tinuum, 2000. 256 p. Carol J., eds. Beyond Animal Anesthesiologist and veterinarian Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for respectively, the authors argue that the the Treatment of Animals. New continued use of animals in research is York: Continuum, 1996. 216 p. unnecessary to develop new drugs, The editors argue that care theory technologies, or medical techniques is more appropriate for animals than beneficial to human beings. Not only rights theory. Care theory does not is animal experimentation unethical privilege rationality, acknowledges and cruel, but “extrapolating data unequal relationships, values the emo- from animals to humans is either mis- tions, and considers sympathy, empa- leading, unnecessary, dangerous, or all thy, and love to be moral responses. three” and the dependence on an animal model is a scientific fallacy supported Finsen, Lawrence, and Finsen, Susan. by mass deception and confusion. The Animal Rights Movement in America: From Compassion to Re- Isaacs, Ronald H. Animals in Jewish spect. New York: Twayne, 1994. Thought and Tradition. Northvale, 309 p. NJ: Jason Aronson, 2000. 250 p. Offering an account of the histori- Rabbi Isaacs draws on biblical, Tal- cal antecedents, participating organi- mudic, and midrashic writing for in- zations, political concerns and tactics, formation about the role and relation- and philosophies of and opposition to ship of Jews to animals in thought, ritual, animal rights, the authors also address liturgy, law, and tradition. The ancient the influence of environmentalism, eco- text “Perek Shira,” containing songs of feminism, and animal liberation on the praise ascribed to animals, is reprinted. movement. Kalechofsky, Roberta, ed. Judaism and Frey, R. G. Interests and Rights: The Animal Rights: Classical and Con- Case Against Animals. Oxford: temporary Responses. Marblehead, Clarendon Press, 1980. 176 p. MA: Micah Publications, 1992. 356 p. Frey provides an early philosophi- Classical and contemporary authors cal account of why animals have no address animal research and experi- interests, and therefore lack significant mentation from the Jewish perspective; moral status. other sections examine vegetarianism and ritual slaughter.

[ 100 ] SCOPE NOTE 40

Leahy, Michael P. T. Against Libera- Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff, and tion: Putting Animals in Perspective. McCarthy, Susan. When Elephants Revised edition. New York: Rout- Weep: The Emotional Lives of Ani- ledge, 1994. 286 p. mals. New York: Dell Publishing, Leahy draws on Wittgenstein’s theo- 1995. 291 p. ries of philosophy of language to argue This best-selling book written for that animals lack linguistic ability and, popular audiences uses scientific re- therefore, self-consciousness. He char- search and anecdotes to argue that acterizes them as “primitive beings.” animals possess consciousness and a Linzey, Andrew. Animal Theology. capacity to feel. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why 1995. 214 p. They Matter. Athens: University of Linzey holds “that human domin- Georgia Press, 1984. 158 p. ion over animals needs to take as its Midgley charges that the rational- model the Christ-given paradigm of ist tradition’s absolute dismissal of ani- lordship manifested in service.” He ex- mals as worthy of consideration does tends theological arguments to animals not score a clear victory. She argues for (including constructing a liberation an approach that recognizes species- theology), and then addresses specific based bonds and barriers as important areas of animal abuse: experimenta- and generally operative, but not exclu- tion, killing for food, genetic engineer- sive, infallible, or concentric; rather ing, patenting, and sport hunting. these bonds are overlapping and the boundaries are flexible. Midgley also Linzey, Andrew, and Regan, Tom, eds. offers an early examination of the re- Animals and Christianity: A Book lationship between women and ani- of Readings. New York: Cross- mals. roads, 1988. 210 p. Drawn from classical and contem- Miller, Harlan B., and Williams, Will- porary writing, this anthology explores iam H., eds. Ethics and Animals. both the compassion and indifference Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1983. toward animals found within Chris- 400 p. tianity, as well as the meaning of hu- This book contains original papers man dominion over animals, the pur- by seminal thinkers presented at the pose for which animals were created, May 1979 conference “The Moral and any moral obligations that might Foundations of Public Policy: Ethics arise from the unity of creation. and Animals” at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The es- Mack, Arien, ed. Humans and Other says cover the spectrum and diversity Animals. Columbus: Ohio State of views on human-animal relation- University Press, 1999. 439 p. ships and human uses of animals. Appearing first as a special issue of the journal Social Research entitled “In Noske, Barbara. Beyond Boundaries: the Company of Animals,” these con- Humans and Animals. Buffalo, NY: ference papers were presented at the Black Rose Books, 1997. 253 p. New School for Social Research in 1995. Anthropologist and philosopher Noske analyzes the sociohistorical con-

[ 101 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001 text, cultural notions, and subtle mes- e.g., for biomedical, behavioral, and sages of language and their influences wildlife research; safety testing; edu- on human-animal and animal-human cation; food and farming; companion relationships. After exploring continu- animals; and religious rites. The ities and discontinuities between ani- premise that certain characteristics— mals and humans, Noske concludes e.g., self-consciousness, purposeful ac- with an anthropology of animals. tions, and the ability to reason and On Animal Experimentation: Seeking communicate—confer on a living crea- Common Ground. Cambridge ture a certain level of moral standing Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8 that then influences ethical choices (1): 9-87, Winter 1999. [Special Sec- about animal treatment is asserted in tion] the introduction. Schools of thought, A series of essays explores the op- such as utilitarianism, deontological posing viewpoints in the animal experi- theory, and various animal rights theo- mentation debate and how the two ries, are discussed. sides can compromise and reach a Paul, Ellen Frankel; Miller, Fred D.; “common ground.” and Paul, Jeffrey, eds. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of of Animals in Medical Research. Science: Issues in Responsible Animal New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, Experimentation. New York: Ox- 2000. 258 p. ford University Press, 1993. 297 p. Convinced equally of the benefits of Pimple, Kenneth D.; Orlans, F. Bar- research on animal subjects and of the bara; and Gluck, John P., eds. Ethi- need vigorously to pursue alternatives cal Issues in the Use of Animals in to harming and killing animals, Orlans Research. [Special Issue] Ethics & provides a comprehensive, balanced, Behavior 7 (2): 1997. 192 p. and clear overview of the history, cur- This is a collection of articles from rent status, and attitudes toward ani- presentations made at workshops held mal experimentation and alternatives. in 1995 and 1996 entitled “Ethical Is- She also offers the facts about legisla- sues in Animal Research.” The first tion, protocol review, and animal use four essays explore the questions of in education, as well as community whether animals have rights, how such participation in animal review commit- rights are derived, and whether animals tees, international efforts to measure are members of a moral community. and reduce animal pain and suffering, Other essays cover animal experimen- and the availability of information tation from a religious point of view about animal research. and look at the role of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. Orlans, F. Barbara; Beauchamp, Tom L.; Dresser, Rebecca; et al. The Hu- Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal man Use of Animals: Case Studies Rights. Berkeley: University of Cali- in Ethical Choice. New York: Ox- fornia Press, 1983. 425 p. ford University Press, 1998. 330 p. In this now classic text, Regan of- Sixteen case studies span the broad fers a philosophical analysis and argu- spectrum of ways humans use animals– ment for animal rights based on a prin-

[ 102 ] SCOPE NOTE 40

ciple of respect and animals’ concomi- ment against continued use of animals tant right not to be harmed. in research. Regan, Tom, and Singer, Peter. Animal Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Rights and Human Obligations, 2d Changing Attitudes Towards Spe- ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice ciesism. New York: Oxford Univer- Hall, 1989. 280 p. sity Press, 2000. 284 p. This rich collection of essays from Ryder presents an interesting history important historical and contemporary of humankind’s changing attitudes to- sources presents both sides of the de- ward and relationships with animals bate about animal rights. Sections on from the ancient world through mod- the treatment of farm animals, animals ern times. Ryder, who coined the term in science, and wildlife are included. “speciesism,” relies chiefly on British history as a framework and emphasizes Regan, Tom, ed. Animal Sacrifice: Re- the influence of the Victorian era on ligious Perspectives on the Use of animal welfare in Britain, but does dis- Animals in Science. Philadelphia: cuss the issue from the broader world Temple University Press, 1986. 270 p. perspective. Scholars draw on scriptural writ- ings, written and oral tradition, law, Scruton, Roger. Animal Rights and religious parables, and folklore to ex- Wrongs, 2d ed. London: Demos, plain religious teachings on animals 1998. 111 p. and their use in science. Religions in- Scruton charges that the arguments clude: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, of Singer, Regan, and Ryder are philo- Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and sophically insufficient to support their Confucianism. positions on animal rights and blur the distinction between moral beings and Rudacille, Deborah. The Scalpel and the rest of nature. Scruton argues that the Butterfly: The War Between animals are not moral beings and do Animal Research and Animal Pro- not possess rights, but finds that hu- tection. New York: Farrar, Strauss man beings often have a duty of care and Giroux, 2000. 390 p. toward animals and always must treat Science writer and former research them properly as governed by moral writer at the Johns Hopkins Center for considerations stemming from virtue, Alternatives to Animal Testing, Ruda- sympathy, and piety. cille sets in historical perspective the contributions made to biomedical ad- Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation, 2d ed. vances by both scientists and animal New York: New York Review of protectionists. Books, 1990. 320 p. Ryder, Richard. Victims of Science. The acknowledged inspiration for Revised edition. London: National the modern animal rights movement, Anti-Vivisection Society, 1983. 180 p. Singer argues that the “power of ethi- Ryder’s comprehensive overview of cal reasoning can prevail over the self- animal experimentation worldwide interest of our [human] species” to provides early statistics on animal use, cause thinking persons to oppose any photographs of animals undergoing infliction of suffering on animals. It is, experimentation, and a strong argu- in fact, the capacity to suffer that iden-

[ 103 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001 tifies animals as moral beings. Singer September 1999 [Progress in the describes the unethical pain and suf- Reduction, Refinement and Re- fering imposed on animals in scientific, placement of Animal Experimenta- military, and commercial animal re- tion, 2000] search and in the food production in- Begun in 1993 by Alan Goldberg of dustry. the Johns Hopkins Center for Alterna- Smith, Jane A., and Boyd, Kenneth M., tives to Animal Testing, the aims of the eds. Lives in the Balance: The Eth- Congresses are “to review progress ics of Using Animals in Biomedical made toward refining, reducing, and Research. New York: Oxford Uni- replacing (the 3R’s) the use of animals versity Press, 1991. 352 p. in education, research, and testing; to This report of a Working Party that develop a realistic understanding of the the Institute of Medical Ethics in Great status of alternatives; to create an un- Britain established in 1986 to study the derstanding that in research, animal ethical issues in the use of animals in studies, together with clinical studies biomedical research covers philosophi- and in vitro methods, advance science cal and moral arguments, pain and dis- and contribute to our basic under- tress in animals, benefits of research standing of biology and disease; and versus harm to animals, and develop- to promote dialogue between animal ment and use of nonanimal alternatives. protection and scientific communi- ties.” World Congresses on Alternatives and Zurlo, Joanne; Rudacille, Deborah; Animal Use in the Life Sciences. Pro- and Goldberg, Alan M. Animals ceedings from . . . Meeting 1, Balti- and Alternatives in Testing: History, more, MD, November 1993 [Edu- Science, and Ethics. New York: cation, Research, Testing, 1995]; Mary Ann Liebert, 1994. 86 p. Meeting 2, Utrecht, The Nether- The use of animals in toxicity test- lands, October 1996 [Animal Alter- ing, the scientific status of alternatives, natives, Welfare and Ethics, 1997]; and the legal regulations governing Meeting 3, Bologna, Italy, August/ animal experimentation are discussed.

III. REGULATING ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

American Association for Laboratory American Psychological Association. Animal Science (AALAS). Institu- Committee on Animal Research and tional Animal Care and Use Com- Ethics. Guidelines for Ethical Con- mittees: A Comprehensive Online duct in the Care and Use of Ani- Resource. [Online at http://www. mals. Washington, DC: The Asso- iacuc.org.] ciation, 1993. 11 p. [Online at http:/ This provides an organized resource /www.apa.org/science/anguide. for institutional animal care and use html.] committees to find information on the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Internet. The listserv IACUC-Forum Guide to the Care and Use of Ex- supports the discussion of topics of perimental Animals. Ottawa, On- interest. [ 104 ] SCOPE NOTE 40

tario, Canada: The Council, Vol. 1, An Introduction. Oslo: Laboratory 2d ed., 1993, Vol. 2, 1984. [Online Animal Unit, Norwegian School of at http://www.ccac.ca.] Veterinary Science, 1998; 22 p. National Research Council. Commis- [Online at http://oslovet.veths.no/ sion on Life Sciences. Institute for booklet/Booklet.pdf.] Animal Laboratory Resources. United Kingdom. Home Office. Draft Guide for the Care and Use of Guidance on the Operation of the Laboratory Animals. Washington, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act DC: National Academy Press, 1996; 1986: Consultation [Online at http:/ 125 p. /www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ccpd/ cons.htm.] Smith, Adrian. The Regulation of Ani- mal Experimentation in Norway:

IV. SPECIAL TOPICS

A. Genetic Manipulation of ment) 21 (1, Spring/Summer), 1997. Animals 7 p. [Online at http://www.ccac.ca/ english/transsup.htm.] Bruce, Donald, and Bruce, Ann, eds. In conjunction with other CCAC Engineering Genesis: The Ethics of statements, these guidelines pertain to Genetic Engineering in Non-Human the review of transgenic protocols and Species. London: Earthscan, 1998. the production, use, and management 337 p. of transgenic animals. Ethical stan- The Working Group on Genetic En- dards require that the creation and use gineering in Non-Human Life Forms of transgenic animals be justified. of the Society, Religion and Technol- Donnelley, Strachan; McCarthy, ogy Project of the Church of Scotland, Charles R.; and Singleton, Rivers, discusses ethical and theological issues eds. The Brave New World of Ani- associated with genetic engineering and mal Biotechnology. Hastings Cen- considers the broad social context and ter Report 24 (1) [Special Supple- implications of this technology. The ment], January/February 1994. 32 p. Group does not find genetic engineer- The first major report under the ing wrong in itself but objects to the Center’s Ethics and Environment Pro- rapid pace of developments and the gram, these essays address the ethical, lack of accountability to the public. An legal, scientific, and public policy regu- appendix contains models to guide lations surrounding the creation and decision making about biotechnology. protection of transgenic animals and Canadian Council on Animal Care the environment. (CCAC). CCAC Guidelines: On European Commission. Group of Ad- Transgenic Animals, 1997, [Online visers on the Ethical Implications of at http://www.ccac.ca/english/ Biotechnology. Opinion of the gdlines/transgen/transge1.htm] and Group of Advisers on the Ethical Transgenic Animals, Animal Wel- Implication of Biotechnology to the fare and Ethics. Resource (Supple-

[ 105 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001

European Commission. Ethical As- rodents, large mammals, and minor pects of Genetic Modification of animal systems in medicine, science, Animals. No. 7. 21 May 1996. 5 p. and agriculture. [Online at http://europa.eu.int/ Mepham, T. Ben; Combes, Robert D.; comm/secretariat_general/sgc/eth- Balls, Michael; et al. The Use of ics/oldversion/en/biotec10.htm] and Transgenic Animals in the European Ethical Aspects of Cloning Tech- Union: The Report and Recommen- niques. No. 9. 28 May 1997. 7 p. dations of ECVAM Workshop 28. [Online at http://europa.eu.int/ [Online at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/ comm/secretariat_general/sgc/eth- science/pubs/ECVAM/ecvam28. ics/oldversion/en/biotec12.htm.] htm.] These Opinions accept the genetic Summarizing the current status of modification of animals only when the transgenic animal research in the EU, aims of such technology are ethically the ECVAM Workshop draws conclu- justified and the conditions for the sions about this technology, develops making, use, care, release, and market- a monitoring scheme, and proposes ing of genetically modified animals and recommendations to aid EU regulatory their products are ethical as assessed authorities in formulating regulations on specific points by Member States’ governing the appropriate production licensing bodies. and use of transgenic animals. Fox, Michael W. Beyond Evolution: Rollin, Bernard E. The Frankenstein The Genetically Altered Future of Syndrome—Ethical and Social Is- Plants, Animals, the Earth . . . and sues in the Genetic Engineering of Humans. New York: Lyons Press, Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge 1999. 256 p. University Press, 1995. 241 p. Against a historical overview of de- Rollin argues that public ability to velopments in the area of genetic engi- understand and think about the scien- neering of plants and animals, veteri- tific and ethical concerns truly raised narian/bioethicist Fox focuses on the by genetic engineering has been stymied ethical, social, and environmental con- because these technologies are too lit- sequences he believes will follow from erally equated with the “Frankenstein “the development of a new industry myth” of monstrous life. He unpacks and world order based on genetic ma- these concerns and explains the reasons nipulation, control, and monopoly.” behind the radical change in the domi- He urges an approach that treats ani- nant social ethic for the treatment of mal, plant, and human life with more animals–from a focus simply on anti- compassion. cruelty and kindness to an ethic of Maclean, Norman, ed. Animals with rights concerned about abuse, suffer- Novel Genes. Cambridge: Cam- ing, justice, and fairness. bridge University Press, 1994. 266 Tudge, Colin. Engineer in the Garden: p. Genes and Genetics from the Idea Individual chapters examine the ac- of Heredity to the Creation of Life. tual and potential future contributions New York: Hill and Wang, 1995. of and ethical concerns related to 388 p. transgenic animals, insects, fish, birds,

[ 106 ] SCOPE NOTE 40

Science journalist Trudge offers a troversial use of primates in research is history of genetic theory from its clas- based on her Pulitzer Prize winning sical Darwinian roots in the mid-1800s (1992) newspaper articles. She provides to its modern day expression in scien- a detailed history of primate research tific techniques that “engineer” genet- and the efforts to regulate and/or end ics. He argues that scientific literacy is it from her interviews with scientists a requirement for citizenship in the glo- and researchers on both sides of the bal community because it has become issue, as well as with moderate animal fundamental to our ability to discuss advocates and radical activists, and her deep philosophical questions about the observations in research laboratories. meaning and manner of life. Cavalieri, Paola, ed. The Great Ape U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Project. Etica & Animali 8: 1-178, Center for Biologics Evaluation and 1996. Research. Points to Consider in the This international, refereed, re- Manufacture and Testing of Thera- search journal devotes the first issue peutic Products for Human Use in its English incarnation to discuss- Derived from Transgenic Animals. ing and developing the view that non- 1995. [Online at http://www.fda. human great apes are the moral equals gov/cber/ptc/ptc_tga.txt.] of human great apes. Contributing This and many other documents authors address the topic from a vari- regulating transgenic animals and ety of cultural backgrounds and posi- xenotransplantation are available tion it within contemporary debates in online at http://www.fda.gov/cber/. evolutionary biology, philosophy of mind, anthropology, and applied eth- Wheale, Peter, and McNally, Ruth, eds. ics. They address how dominant world Animal Genetic Engineering: Of views must change to support a theory Pigs, Oncomice and Men. London: of universal anthropoid rights. Pluto Press, 1995. 293 p. Conference papers by scientists, civil Cavalieri, Paola, and Singer, Peter, eds. servants, biotech entrepreneurs, animal The Great Ape Project: Equality welfare advocates, and philosophers of Beyond Humanity. New York: St. science ethics address the welfare of Martin’s Press, 1994. 312 p. transgenic farm and laboratory animals; This book launched the Great Ape patenting; production of transgenic ani- Project (GAP) as an international mals for disease models, organ sources, movement and its associated Website or therapeutic products; and the use of (http://www.greatapeproject.org), jour- embryo transfer and reproductive tech- nal, and newsletter; inspired animal niques in animals. A glossary is included. studies courses at universities and law schools; and inaugurated a new chap- B. Great Apes ter in the relationship between ethics and ethology. It is edited and written Blum, Deborah. The Monkey Wars. by well-respected scholars from the New York: Oxford University Press, sciences and the humanities who are 1994. 306 p. all “committed to the single goal of in- Science writer Blum’s wide-ranging cluding nonhuman great apes within and balanced exploration of the con-

[ 107 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001 the moral community” and extending National Research Council [NRC] to them the moral equality and basic (United States). Commission on Life rights enjoyed by human great apes. Sciences. Institute for Laboratory These 34 persons were the authors and Animal Research. Committee on first signatories of the “Declaration on Long-Term Care of Chimpanzees. Great Apes,” which was published here Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for the first time (see also online at for their Ethical Care, Management, http://www.greatapeproject.org or and Use. Washington, DC: National http://www.planet.it/freewww/gap_ Academy Press, 1997. 92 p. etica/ape.html). The declaration con- The Committee studied the dilemma tains three principles that must govern of an overpopulation of U.S. federal relations between human and nonhu- research chimpanzees who were bred man great apes: (1) the right to life; and born for research, but never were, (2) the protection of individual liberty; or no longer are, needed for biomedi- and (3) the prohibition of torture. GAP cal research. Recommendations in- is undertaking a census of all great apes clude imposing a five-year breeding during 2001, and the organization’s moratorium, not endorsing euthanasia long-term goal is a United Nations for population control, and assuring Declaration of the Rights of Great lifetime support for the core popula- Apes. tion of chimpanzees. Coetzee, J. M. The Lives of Animals. New Zealand. Animal Welfare Act Princeton: Princeton University 1999 (passed into law on 1 Octo- Press, 1999. 127 p. ber 1999 and operational beginning Awarded the Booker Prize for this 1 January 2000). [Online at http:// book, Coetzee argues for according rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/ basic legal rights to animals, especially gpacts/public/text/1999/an/142. to the great apes. html.] This act is the first to grant specific Fouts, Roger, with Mills, Stephen legal protection for nonhuman homi- Tukel. Next of Kin: What Chimpan- nids, Great Apes. It prohibits the use zees Have Taught Me about Who of all great apes in research, testing, or We Are. New York: William Mor- teaching “unless such use is in the best row, 1997. 420 p. interests of the non-human hominid” Roger Fouts taught American Sign or its species and “the benefits to be Language to Washoe, who became the derived from the use of the non-human first chimpanzee to communicate with hominid in the research, testing, or humans by this means. Fouts has en- teaching are not outweighed by the joyed a 30-year relationship with likely harm to the non-human homi- Washoe, campaigned to improve liv- nid.” ing conditions for captive research chimps, and founded the Chimpanzee Wise, Steven M. Rattling the Cage: and Human Communications Institute Toward Legal Rights for Animals. at Central Washington University to Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, train researchers in animal psychology 2000. 362 p. in humane research methods.

[ 108 ] SCOPE NOTE 40

A 20-year practitioner of animal by U.S. federal agencies, but are now protection law, Wise argues that we surplus to the needs of biomedical re- must expand fundamental legal and searchers or are retired from partici- moral rights to encompass great apes pation in active research. Senate Bill, because their intelligence and emo- S. 2725 is the companion bill. tional sensitivity demand it, and be- cause failure to do so is unjust and C. Rats, Mice, and Birds undermines the foundation of human Plous, Scott, and Herzog, Harold. rights. The law must cease its treatment Should the AWA Cover Rats, Mice, of animals as “things,” “objects,” or and Birds? The Results of an IACUC “property.” Survey. Lab Animal 28 (6): 38-40, United Kingdom. Home Secretary’s June 1999. Supplementary Note to the Home As part of a recent survey of IACUC Secretary’s Response to the Animal members, the authors questioned re- Procedures Committee. 6 Novem- spondents about their attitudes con- ber 1997. cerning including rats, mice, and birds In response to the Animal Proce- under the AWA definition of warm dures Committee 1997 Annual Report blooded animals. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anim Orlans, F. Barbara. The Injustice of act/aspaf.htm ), the British Home Of- Excluding Laboratory Rats, Mice, fice issued a formal government ban and Birds from the Animal Welfare on the use of great apes as laboratory Act. Kennedy Institute of Ethics animals. Even though the great apes Journal 10 (3): 229-38, September (chimpanzees, gorillas, pygmy gorillas, 2000. bonobos, and orangutans) have not been used as laboratory animals even Trull, Frankie L., and Rich, Barbara under the Animals (Scientific Proce- A. More Regulation of Rodents dures) Act 1986, this ban, although not [editorial]. Science 284 (5419): a legislative statute, virtually ensures 1463, 28 May 1999. that great apes will not be used for re- Vergano, Dan. Law Injected into Ani- search in the future. mal Testing: Researchers Cite Ob- United States. Congress. House. Com- stacles If More Animals Are Pro- mittee on Commerce. Subcommit- tected. USA Today (31 October tee on Health and Environment. 2000). [Online at http://www. Biomedical Research: Protecting usatoday.com/life/health/general/ Surplus Chimpanzees: Hearing on lhgen108.htm.] H.R. 3514. Serial No. 106-109. 18 Shalev, Moshe. USDA Agrees to Regu- May 2000. [Online at http://com- late Rats, Mice, and Birds. Lab Ani- notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings mal 29 (10), November 2000. 106.nsf/hemain/.] [Online at http://www.labanimal. “The Chimpanzee Health Improve- com/col/reg1100.htm.] ment, Maintenance and Protection Act” or CHIMP Act would establish a United States. District Court. District system of sanctuaries for chimpanzees of Columbia. Animal Legal Defense who were bred and used for research Fund v. Madigan [Date of Decision:

[ 109 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001

8 January 1992]. Federal Supple- Medicine 8 (1, Winter 1999). ment 781: 797-806, 1992. [Online at http://www.pcrm.org/ The court found that the exclusion magazine/GM99Winter/GM99 of rats, mice, and birds from the defi- Winter5.html.] nition of “animal” under the Animal Since its creation in 1985, the non- Welfare Act was arbitrary and capri- profit Physicians Committee for Re- cious and a violation of the act. The sponsible Medicine (PCRM) has court ordered the USDA to reconsider worked to promote alternatives to the the plaintiff’s rule-making petition. use of animals in medical schools and This decision was overturned on ap- medical research. PCRM’s education peal to the United States Court of Ap- and advocacy campaign has been in- peals, District of Columbia Circuit strumental in the decisions of 72 of the (Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Secre- 127 U.S. medical schools to use “more tary of Agriculture (Mike Espy). [Date clinically relevant, humane, and cost- of Decision: 20 May 1994]), which effective alternatives [to live animal held that the plaintiffs did not demon- research labs].” strate constitutional standing to sue Ethical Science and Education Coali- and/or a statutory right to judicial re- tion (ESEC) and the New England view under the APA [Administrative Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS); Procedure Act]. http://www.neavs.org/esec.html and D. Science Education And The http://www.neavs.org, respectively. Use of Animals The educational affiliate of NEAVS, ESEC focuses on dissection and edu- Balcombe, Jonathan. The Use of Ani- cation and advocates for dissection mals in Higher Education: Prob- “choice” legislation, offers a guide on lems, Alternatives and Recommen- “how to pass a student “choice” dis- dations. Washington, DC: Humane section policy in your school district,” Society Press, 2000. 104 p. [Online and prepares a catalogue of dissection at http://www.hsus.org/programs/ alternatives. Founded in 1895, NEAVS research/monograph.html.] protects and advocates for animals Balcombe, then associate director for used in education through education, education in the animal research issues legislation, litigation, and direct action section of the Humane Society of the campaigns. United States, focuses on the educa- Humane Society of the United States tional use of animals at the secondary (HSUS). Animals & Society: A List school and college level, especially when of Courses (animal ethics, animal there is significant harm or “cost” to the rights, animal welfare) [Online at animal, but includes middle school http://www.hsus.org/programs/re- through advanced study in graduate, search/courses.html] and Dissection medical, or veterinary schools. He makes and Related Issues [Online at http:/ 28 recommendations for change. /www.hsus.org/programs/research/ Drone, Jennifer. PCRM Steps Up Cam- animals_education.html]. paign to End Live Animal Labora- HSUS provides summaries and con- tories in Medical Education. Good tact information about college (and a

[ 110 ] SCOPE NOTE 40

few veterinary school) courses con- respect for life” and “teach about the cerned with animal ethics, animal interrelationship and interdependency rights, and/or animal welfare. Listings of all things.” NABT endorses and can be reviewed by discipline or by adopts the 10 principles developed by state. HSUS links to state dissection the Institute of Laboratory Animals choice laws, an annotated list of stud- Resources (ILAR) for the use of ani- ies on attitudes toward dissection, and mals in precollege education. other education links to virtual dissec- Shapiro, Kenneth, and Church, Jill tions and alternatives databases. Howard. It’s Academic: The Grow- Institute for Laboratory Animal Re- ing Field of Animal Studies. The sources. Commission on Life Sci- Animals’ Agenda (15 April 2000). ences. National Research Council. [Online at http://www.animals Principles and Guidelines for the agenda.org/articledetail. asp?menu= Use of Animals in Precollege Edu- News&NewsID=316.] cation. April 1989. In Fulfilling the Increasing numbers of animal stud- Promise: Biology Education in the ies courses are being taught at aca- Nation’s Schools, pp. 125-26, 1990. demic institutions. This article provides [Online at http://www4.nas.edu/cls/ an overview of these developments; the ilarhome.nsf/web/Principles/.] philosophy behind formalized educa- The National Research Council rec- tion about animal issues; a compari- ommends compliance with 10 prin- son of British and American ap- ciples whenever animals are used in proaches to ethics education by Rich- precollege education or in science fair ard Ryder; and concludes with a sam- projects. pling of animal-related educational programs, courses, journals, books, Mukerjee, Madhusree. Trends in Ani- conference series, and university ap- mal Research. Scientific American. pointments. [Online at http://www.sciam.com/ 0297issue/0297trends.html.] E. Xenotransplantation: Trans- The text of this overview article has planting Animal Organs into been embellished with links to other Humans Web resources. National Association of Biology Teach- Cooper, David K.C., and Lanza, Rob- ers (NABT). The Use of Animals in ert P. Xeno: The Promise of Trans- Biology Education. October 1995. planting Animal Organs into Hu- 2 p. [Online at http://www.nabt.org/ mans. New York: Oxford Univer- animals.html.] sity Press, 2000. 274 p. A membership association whose Fox, Marie, and McHale, Jean. Xeno- mission is to empower “educators to transplantation: The Ethical and provide the best possible biology and Legal Ramifications. Medical Law life science education for all students,” Review 6 (1): 42-61, Spring 1998. NABT’s policy statement “recom- mends the prudent and responsible use France. National Consultative Bioeth- of animals in the life science class- ics Committee for Health and Life room.” Teachers also “should foster a Sciences. Opinion on Ethics and

[ 111 ] KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • MARCH 2001

Xenotransplantation: Opinion No. p. [Partially online at http://www. 61. Paris: The Committee, 11 June nuffield.org/bioethics/publication.] 1999. 16 p. [Online at http:// This report addresses alternatives to www.ccne-ethique.org/english/avis/ xenotransplants, the likely success of a_061.htm#deb.] xenotransplants, concerns regarding Great Britain. Department of Health. the rights and welfare of the animals Advisory Group on the Ethics of used, the potential for transmitting in- Xenotransplantation. Animal Tis- fections, and other ethical and social sue into Humans: A Report by The implications. Advisory Group on the Ethics of United States. Department of Health Xenotransplantation. London: Sta- and Human Services. PHS Guide- tionery Office, 1996. 258 p. line on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation: Draft-Not for Institute of Medicine [IOM] (United Implementation. Washington, DC: States). Division of Health Sciences The Department, October 2000. 58 Policy. Committee on Xenograft p. [Online at http://www.fda.gov/ Transplantation: Ethical Issues and cber/gdlns/xenophs 1000.pdf.] Public Policy. Xenotransplantation: Science, Ethics and Public Policy. Veatch, Robert M. The Ethics of Xeno- Washington, DC: National Acad- grafts. In his Transplantation Eth- emy Press, 1996. 126 p. ics, pp. 259-73. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000. Nuffield Council on Bioethics Animal- This chapter includes an overview to-Human Transplants: The Ethics of the issues raised in xenotrans- of Xenotransplantation London, plantation since Baby Fae was given a England: The Council, 1996. 147 chimpanzee heart in 1984.

The authors acknowledge the advice and contributions of F. Barbara Orlans, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow; Harriet Hutson Gray, M.T.S., M.S.L.S., Refer- ence and Digital Librarian; and Doris M. Goldstein, M.L.S., M.A., Director of Library and Information Services at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics; and John P. Gluck, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, in the preparation of this Scope Note.

[ 112 ]