Advances in Neuroscience Imply That Harmful Experiments in Dogs Are Unethical Jarrod Bailey,1 Shiranee Pereira2
JME Online First, published on July 24, 2017 as 10.1136/medethics-2016-103630 Current controversy J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2016-103630 on 24 July 2017. Downloaded from Advances in neuroscience imply that harmful experiments in dogs are unethical Jarrod Bailey,1 Shiranee Pereira2 1Cruelty Free International, ABSTRACT environments (common features of most laboratory London, UK Functional MRI (fMRI) of fully awake and unrestrained kennels), kennel noise and restricted sight lines are 2People for Animals, Chennai, India dog 'volunteers' has been proven an effective tool to acknowledged stressors, and together these factors understand the neural circuitry and functioning of the lead to well-characterised stereotypies—repeti- Correspondence to canine brain. Although every dog owner would vouch tive, invariant behaviour patterns with no obvious Dr Jarrod Bailey, Cruelty Free that dogs are perceptive, cognitive, intuitive and capable goal or function, which include circling, pacing, International, 16a Crane Grove, of positive emotions/empathy, as indeed substantiated whirling, jumping, wall bouncing, and repetitive London, N7 8NN, UK; by ethological studies for some time, neurological grooming or self-biting—as well as other abnormal ja rrod .bailey@ c rueltyf reeinte rnat iona l. org investigations now corroborate this. These studies show behaviours such as polydipsia or polyphagia (eating that there exists a striking similarity between dogs and drinking to a great degree), compulsive staring Received 18 April 2016 and humans in the functioning of the caudate nucleus and excessive barking, for example (see ref 5). Revised 18 May 2017 (associated with pleasure and emotion), and dogs Such welfare concerns constitute a large part of Accepted 9 June 2017 experience positive emotions, empathic-like responses the ethical objection to dog experimentation.
[Show full text]