DOCSLIB.ORG

The Ethics of Research Involving Animals Published by Nuffield Council on Bioethics 28 Bedford Square London WC1B 3JS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The ethics of research involving animals Published by Nuffield Council on Bioethics 28 Bedford Square London WC1B 3JS Telephone: +44 (0)20 7681 9619 Fax: +44 (0)20 7637 1712 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org ISBN 1 904384 10 2 May 2005 To order a printed copy please contact the Nuffield Council or visit the website. © Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2005 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of the publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without prior permission of the copyright owners. Designed by dsprint / redesign 7 Jute Lane Brimsdown Enfield EN3 7JL Printed by Latimer Trend & Company Ltd Estover Road Plymouth PL6 7PY The ethics of research involving animals Nuffield Council on Bioethics Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC, FBA (Chairman) Professor Catherine Peckham CBE (Deputy Chairman) Professor Tom Baldwin Professor Margot Brazier OBE* Professor Roger Brownsword Professor Sir Kenneth Calman KCB FRSE Professor Peter Harper The Rt Reverend Richard Harries DD FKC FRSL Professor Peter Lipton Baroness Perry of Southwark** (up to March 2005) Professor Lord Raymond Plant Professor Martin Raff FRS (up to March 2005) Mr Nick Ross (up to March 2005) Professor Herbert Sewell Professor Peter Smith CBE Professor Dame Marilyn Strathern FBA Dr Alan Williamson FRSE * (co-opted member of the Council for the period of chairing the Working Party on the ethics of prolonging life in fetuses and the newborn) ** (co-opted member of the Council for the period of chairing the Working Party on the ethics of research involving animals) Secretariat Dr Sandy Thomas (Director) Dr Catherine Moody (Deputy Director) Mr Harald Schmidt Ms Caroline Rogers Ms Catherine Joynson (from January 2005) Ms Julia Fox (up to March 2005) Ms Carol Perkins (from April 2005) Ms Elaine Talaat-Abdalla Mr Mun-Keat Looi The terms of reference of the Council are: 1 to identify and define ethical questions raised by recent advances in biological and medical research in order to respond to, and to anticipate, public concern; 2 to make arrangements for examining and reporting on such questions with a view to promoting public understanding and discussion; this may lead, where needed, to the formulation of new guidelines by the appropriate regulatory or other body; 3 in the light of the outcome of its work, to publish reports; and to make representations, as the Council may judge appropriate. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is funded jointly by the Medical Research Council, the Nuffield Foundation and the Wellcome Trust III Foreword The issues addressed in this Report have been a subject of intense public debate over at least the past four hundred years. Feelings are strong on all sides of the issues, and in recent years reports of violent action against those conducting animal research in the UK have brought the matter to the forefront of public attention. Members of the Working Party, like members of the public, hold many different and sometimes opposing views. Nevertheless, the group has been able to conduct its inquiry in an atmosphere conducive to gaining a better understanding of the scientific and ethical issues involved, and avoiding the polarisation of views which has so often stifled proper debate. It is in this spirit that we present our Report. Throughout the Working Party’s meetings, many varied opinions were quite properly represented and argued through, and we have tried to analyse the ethical bases on which different opinions are held. A respect for the basis of beliefs different from one's own has enabled members of the group to agree on a consensus statement and to present conclusions and recommendations which, while not always necessarily representing the views of all, do as comprehensively as possible offer a clarification of the debate. Where widely different views are held, we have sought to set them out as clearly as possible. This approach, we believe, should contribute to fair and balanced discussions among individuals and to decision making by those in government or other official and regulatory bodies. We have been conscious that conclusions about the use of animals involved in research, diverse as this is, must be seen in the wider context of the use of animals in food, in clothing, as pets and as working animals in farming and other occupations. Science, however, is progressing rapidly in new technologies such as cloning, genetic modification and also in the development of alternatives to the use of animals. The Report sets out in some detail the range of scientific uses of animals including the uses being made of these new advances. It considers the ethical issues of research involving animals in the light of these developments, the implications for regulation, and the provision of information and education. As Chair of the Working Group, I would like to record my thanks to all members, who have worked so hard to produce a Report which, I hope, will genuinely provide helpful analysis and insight into this topic, often at great personal cost. I also thank the Council for their help and advice throughout the two years of the Group's work. We all owe a great debt also to the Secretariat who have taken the burden of producing a long and comprehensive Report, agreed as fair and balanced by the Group as well as by those who so helpfully read and refereed early drafts for us. I should like to pay special tribute to Harald Schmidt, Secretary to the Working Party, whose skills and knowledge were invaluable. We hope that the Report will be a useful starting point of reference for all those concerned with this important issue in the time ahead. Baroness Perry of Southwark V Acknowledgements The Council wishes to thank the members of the Working Party for their contribution. Their expertise has been invaluable. It also wishes to thank the many organisations and individuals who have responded to the invitation to comment on the Consultation paper. The Council is very grateful to Professor Nancy Rothwell, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, Professor Mary Midgley, Professor Stephen Clark, Professor Alan Holland, Dr Ray Hill, Dr Gill Langley, Dr Richard Ryder, Mike Radford and David Thomas who reviewed an earlier version of this Report. Their comments were extremely helpful. It further wishes to thank the following individuals who provided valuable insights in fact-finding meetings: Michele Corrado, Dr Gill Samuels, Graham Moore and colleagues, Rosie Barnes, Christine Cryne, Robert Meadowcroft, Dr Patricia Coulson, Dr Betsy Pownall, Dr Harv Isaacs, Professor Henry Leese, Professor Alan Wilson, Mike Snelling, Professor Alistair Fitter, Piran White, Professor Geoff Hall, Dr Chris Springall and colleagues, Professor Michael Balls, Dr Gill Langley, Dr Jon Richmond, Professor Michael Banner, Richard West, Dr Ray Greek, Kathy Archibald, Professor Roger Lemon, Robert Walker, Martin Lawton, John Frogley, Brian Cass, Andrew Gay, and David Whittaker. The Council and the Working Group are also grateful to individuals who responded to requests for advice on specific parts of the Report, including Professor Colin Allen, Professor Marc Bekoff, Dr Derek Fry, Dr Penny Hawkins, Dr Gill Langley, Professor David Morton, Dr Barry Philips, Dr Jon Richmond, Dr Vicky Robinson, Stefan Schleim, Dr Jane Smith, Dr Peter Thornton, Martin Walsh, and David Wood. VI Table of contents Council membership and terms of reference ..................................................................................iii Foreword..............................................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................vi Members of the Working Party ......................................................................................................viii Working Party terms of reference ...................................................................................................xv Summary and recommendations....................................................................................................xvii SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT . .1 Chapter 1 – Introduction ...........................................................................................................3 Research involving animals: outline of the controversy ..................................................................5 Types of research and numbers of animals used..............................................................................6 Issues raised by specific types of animal research ............................................................................7 The context of the debate .................................................................................................................8 Structure of the Report ......................................................................................................................9 Chapter 2 – The context of animal research: past and present .........................13 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................15 Early forms of animal research in the biological and medical sciences........................................15 Scientific developments and public opinion in the 18th
Recommended publications
  • Animal Farm" Is the Story of a Farm Where the Animals Expelled Their

    Animal Farm" Is the Story of a Farm Where the Animals Expelled Their

    Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/32376 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation Author: Vugts, Berrie Title: The case against animal rights : a literary intervention Issue Date: 2015-03-18 Introduction The last four decades have shown an especially intense and thorough academic reflection on the relation between man and animal. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of journals on the question of the animal within the fields of the humanities and social sciences worldwide.1 Yet also outside the academy animals now seem to preoccupy the popular mindset more than ever before. In 2002, the Netherlands was the first country in the world where a political party was established (the so-called “Partij voor de Dieren” or PvdD: Party for the Animals) that focused predominantly on animal issues. Heated discussions about factory-farming, the related spread of diseases (BSE/Q Fever), hunting and fishing practices, the inbreeding of domestic animals, are now commonplace. Animals, as we tend to call a large range of incredibly diverse creatures, come to us in many different ways. We encounter them as our pets and on our plates, animation movies dominate the charts and artists in sometimes rather experimental genres engage in the question of the animal.2 Globally speaking, animals might be considered key players in the climate debate insofar as the alarming rate of extinction of certain species is often taken to be indicative of our feeble efforts at preserving what is commonly referred to as “nature.” At the same time, these rates serve, albeit indirectly, as a grim reminder of the possible end of human existence itself.
  • "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations

    "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations

    Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182 brill.nl/soan Framing Animal Rights in the “Go Veg” Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations Carrie Packwood Freeman Georgia State University [email protected] Abstract How much do animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating nonhuman animals? Th is study serves as the basis for a unique evaluation and categorization of problems and solutions as framed by fi ve major U.S. animal rights organizations in their vegan/food campaigns. Th e fi ndings reveal that the organiza- tions framed the problems as: cruelty and suff ering; commodifi cation; harm to humans and the environment; and needless killing. To solve problems largely blamed on factory farming, activists asked consumers to become “vegetarian” (meaning vegan) or to reduce animal product con- sumption, some requesting “humane” reforms. While certain messages supported animal rights, promoting veganism and respect for animals’ subject status, many frames used animal welfare ideology to achieve rights solutions, conservatively avoiding a direct challenge to the dominant human/animal dualism. In support of ideological authenticity, this paper recommends that vegan campaigns emphasize justice, respect, life, freedom, environmental responsibility, and a shared animality. Keywords animal rights, campaigns, farm animal, framing, ideology, vegan, vegetarian How much do or should animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating animals? As participants in a counterhegemonic social movement, animal rights organiza- tions are faced with the discursive challenge of redefi ning accepted practices, such as farming and eating nonhuman animals, as socially unacceptable practices.
  • Do You Know How Your Mascara Is Made?

    Do You Know How Your Mascara Is Made?

    LOTION, MOISTURIZER: developmental toxicity tests performed on rabbits and rats HAIR SPRAY, DEODORANT: acute inhalation toxicity tests performed on rats UR MASCARA, EYE SHADOW, EYELINER, SHAMPOO: blindnesseye irritation and corrosion tests performed on rabbits BLUSH, FOUNDATION: skin tests performed on rabbits, mice, and guinea pigs INFLAMMATION h REDNESS LIPSTICK, LIP GLOSS: acute oral toxicity tests performed on rats BLEEDING FROM THE MOUTH d Do you know how your is made? BY ARNA COHEN ACROSS THE GLOBE, COUNTLESS ANIMALS CONTINUE TO SUFFER IN PAINFUL TESTS CUSTOMERS GRABBING A LATE-MORNING cup of SIMPLY TO BRING NEW SKIN CREAMS, HAIR coffee in downtown Brussels caught a strange sight DYES, AND OTHER NONESSENTIAL two years ago: Suddenly, across the street, on the COSMETICS TO MARKET. BUT THE BE CRUELTY- grounds of the European Commission, there were rab- bits everywhere. FREE CAMPAIGN IS LEADING THE CHARGE Some seemed to emerge from nearby bushes. Others TO BAN COSMETICS ANIMAL TESTING slipped out from behind city walls as pedestrians stopped to watch and curious faces peered down from WORLDWIDE BY ENGAGING CONSUMERS AND office windows. And then, right there on an open stretch COMPANIES, REWRITING LAWS, AND AD- of sidewalk, on a Wednesday in June, those rabbits VANCING THE SCIENCE OF SAFETY TESTING. began to dance. As a happy burst of music piped out over a nearby sound system—“Saturday night, I feel the air is getting hot”—27 advocates in white rabbit costumes stepped, hopped, clapped, and spun in unison. Reporters snapped photos. A few onlookers began to move with the song. And atop a stone wall, two women unfurled a large white banner: “350,000 Petition for EU Cosmetics to be Cruelty-Free in 2013.” The flash mob gathered to shine a spotlight on the issue of cosmetics animal testing in the European Union—one white rabbit representing each member country.
  • Position on Bioethics

    Position on Bioethics

    Position on Bioethics Background Bioethics refers to the application of ethical principles to address potential ethical questions arising from biological research, science and medicine. Bioethics may include ethical dimensions of medical research, clinical trials, use of different forms of technology in healthcare, public policy, prioritization of research and resources, and much more. For any company involved in healthcare, bioethics questions frequently arise and require resolutions based on accepted bioethics principles. The four commonly accepted principles of bioethics1 are: • Autonomy: Requires that the patient have autonomy of thought, intention and action when making decisions regarding healthcare procedures and must give fully informed consent with knowledge of all risks and benefits of the procedure and the likelihood of success. • Justice: Requires that procedures uphold the spirit of existing laws and are fair to all players involved, ensuring that no population be overly burdened or overly valued in research and scientific progress. • Beneficence: Requires that the procedure be provided with the intent of doing good for the patient involved, considers individual circumstances of all patients and strives for net benefit. • Non-maleficence: Requires that a procedure does not harm the patient involved or others in society. Relevance Bioethics plays a critical role in the advancement of human health by ensuring safe, ethical and just applications of new science and technological and therapeutic breakthroughs. As the world’s largest and most broadly based healthcare company, reaching patients and consumers each day with our medicines, consumer care products and medical devices, Johnson & Johnson is a leader in healthcare research and development. We employ significant resources in the development of new medicines and medical devices and their application.
  • Peta Looks Cruelty Straight in the Eye

    Peta Looks Cruelty Straight in the Eye

    ‘s augustusCLUB 2017 | No. 3, Issue 76 PETA LOOKS CRUELTY STRAIGHT IN THE EYE PETA’s Cruelty Investigations Department contains a unique subdivision called The Eye—so named because it serves as the public’s eye into places that animal exploiters try to keep hidden. The Eye initiates and oversees PETA’s eyewitness exposés. buy cruelty-free products, shun circuses that use animals, Since its founding in 1980, PETA has released hundreds and much more. of exposés featuring video footage secretly shot inside slaughterhouses, laboratories, “pet” breeding mills, Our exposés also often result in criminal convictions fur farms, dairy and meat farms, wool shearing sheds, against animal abusers, prompt major changes in circuses, roadside zoos, racetracks, and other corporate policies, and lead to the rescue of many animals cruel facilities. living in terrible conditions. Operating under the principle that all animals have the right not to be abused, PETA has released exposés that document the abuse of species that many people seldom consider, including lobsters and crabs, who were killed by Inside THIS ISSUE being torn apart at a “seafood” slaughterhouse while still alive, and octopuses, who were dismembered and eaten alive in some U.S. specialty restaurants. PETA Looks Cruelty Straight in The Eye ................... 1 From the deadly pigeon-racing industry in Taiwan to the hideously cruel crocodile-skin industry in Zimbabwe, PETA Meet Daniel Paden, PETA’s Associate Director has exposed shocking cruelty to animals all over the world, of Evidence Analysis ................................................. 4 cruelty that the public had never seen before. These exposés serve as persuasive tools to motivate Rescued at Last! ......................................................
  • Enacted and Vetoed State Laws Affecting Animals for the Year 2003

    Enacted and Vetoed State Laws Affecting Animals for the Year 2003

    ENACTED AND VETOED STATE LAWS AFFECTING ANIMALS FOR THE YEAR 2003 The following list is a compilation of laws and resolutions that were passed by state legislatures in 2003 and then signed into law or vetoed. The list includes legislation that had a positive, negative, or neutral impact on animals. Please e-mail Julie Janovsky at [email protected] , to obtain a copy of these bills, or if you have any questions, additions or corrections to the list. ALABAMA H.B. 37 (Buskey) - Greyhound Euthanasia Requires that the only method allowed for euthanasia of greyhounds is by lethal injection and makes it a crime to remove greyhounds from the state for the purpose of euthanizing. Signed into law on 6/20/03. ALASKA H.B. 208 (Fate) & S.B. 155 (Seekins) - Airborne Shooting Allows the Department of Game and Fish to authorize a predator control program involving airborne or same day airborne shooting of wolves. Signed into law on 6/18/03 S.B. 147 (Green) - NWCO BILL Provides for licensing and regulating of nuisance wildlife control operators. Signed into law on 6/28/03. ARIZONA H.B. 2121 (Carruthers) - Dogs Changes the minimum age for a dog to be considered a stray from four months to three months, and adds an additional $10 to the $2 late payment fee for a dog license if more than a year late, or an additional $20 if more than 2 years late. Signed into law on 5/6/03. S.B. 1351 (Weiers) - Pet Trusts Creates trusts for pets. Signed into law on 5/12/03.
  • The Ethics of the Meat Paradox

    The Ethics of the Meat Paradox

    The Ethics of the Meat Paradox Lars Ursin* The meat paradox—to like eating meat, but dislike killing and harming animals—confronts omnivores with a powerful contradiction between eating and caring for animals. The paradox, however, trades on a conflation of the illegitimacy of harming and killing animals. While harming animals is morally wrong, killing animals can be legitimate if done with minimal suffering and respect for the moral status of the animal. This moral status demands the ac- knowledgement of a certain justification for killing animals that makes modesty a virtue of the omnivore. The psychological problem with regard to killing animals can persist even if the moral tension is weakened, but only to a certain degree, since emotions and principles are interdependent in moral reasoning. Virtuous meat consumption demands a willingness to face the conflicting feelings involved in killing animals and to tolerate the resulting tension. INTRODUCTION Humans and animals interact in a number of ways and establish a diversity of relationships. Humans relate to animals as members of the family, as research objects in the laboratory, as guide dogs, trained animals in sports and shows, and still many other kinds of relations. In some of these relations, animals are edible beings. The relation between humans and animals that are eaten is a special one. Like animals sacrificed for research purposes, the animals we eat are killed by us. The acceptance and legitimacy of this killing is thus an essential part of eating animals. By eating animals, we enter into a very intimate relation with the animal. We eat parts of the animal and digest the parts, thus allowing these parts to be absorbed into our bodies.
  • A Study of Stephen Crane and Tim O

    A Study of Stephen Crane and Tim O

    Life at War and the Heroic Illusions Created to Cope with War: A Study of Stephen Crane and Tim O‘Brien By Gaye L. Allen A thesis submitted to the Graduate School-Camden Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Graduate Program in Liberal Studies written under the direction of Professor Richard M. Drucker and approved by ________________________ Richard Drucker Camden, New Jersey May 2011 i Abstract of the Thesis Life at War and the Illusions Created to Cope with War: A Study of Stephen Crane and Tim O‘Brien By Gaye L. Allen Thesis Director: Professor Richard M. Drucker This thesis will examine the fictional war novels, The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane and Going after Cacciato by Tim O‘Brien. It will examine the heroic illusions created by soldiers on the frontline as psychological coping mechanisms as a means to escape the realities of war. It will also examine how Stephen Crane and Tim O‘Brien create protagonists and characters that struggle to understand the conflicts within themselves as consequences of their developing point of view toward themselves, their war comrades, and their society‘s values and how each of these writers through observing battlefield experience comes to question the meaning of war and its effects. Stephen Crane and Tim O‘Brien investigate the moral and cultural values of their respective societies. Crane portrays the Victorian era O‘Brien examines1960‘s America. Each novel asks us to view their war with both irony and sympathy.
  • Top 50 Bioethics Journals and Top 250 Most Cited Bioethics Articles Since 2011, 2016 Edition May 23, 2016 | BRL Blog, Featured

    Top 50 Bioethics Journals and Top 250 Most Cited Bioethics Articles Since 2011, 2016 Edition May 23, 2016 | BRL Blog, Featured

    U a Top 50 Bioethics Journals and Top 250 Most Cited Bioethics Articles Since 2011, 2016 Edition May 23, 2016 | BRL Blog, Featured This 2016 edition of the “top bioethics journals and articles” list includes updated rankings for bioethics journals and new citation metrics for articles published in 2015, as well as updates for previous years’ top articles. Links to the publisher pages are included for each article as well as links to their citation page on Google Scholar. The average H5 index for the top fifty-two journals is 13.38, with a tied high of 28 and a minimum of 6. Here are the top top 52 journals and 252 most cited articles from the top bioethics journals published in 2009 through 2015. View the Top Articles by Year: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011. About this Analysis This is an updated citation analysis for 2011 through 2015 of the top 100 bioethics journals. I’ve included the top 50 journals and the top cited articles per year including the h5 ranking. Just over 20,000 articles were analyzed in this dataset, shared here as a spreadsheet. If you’re interested in using this study in a publication or presentation please let me know so I can share a link to your research on this blog post. I utilized Harzing’s Publish or Perish software over a period of 10 days to gather this new data in May, 2016. The citation metrics are from Google Scholar’s index. Author: Mark Hakkarinen, M.A. Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University.
  • THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A

    THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A

    s l a m m a y t T i M S N v I i A e G t A n i p E S r a A C a C E H n T M i THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity The Humane Society of the United State s/ World Society for the Protection of Animals 2009 1 1 1 2 0 A M , n o t s o g B r o . 1 a 0 s 2 u - e a t i p s u S w , t e e r t S h t u o S 9 8 THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons, and Richard Farinato, 4th edition Editors: Naomi A. Rose and Debra Firmani, 4th edition ©2009 The Humane Society of the United States and the World Society for the Protection of Animals. All rights reserved. ©2008 The HSUS. All rights reserved. Printed on recycled paper, acid free and elemental chlorine free, with soy-based ink. Cover: ©iStockphoto.com/Ying Ying Wong Overview n the debate over marine mammals in captivity, the of the natural environment. The truth is that marine mammals have evolved physically and behaviorally to survive these rigors. public display industry maintains that marine mammal For example, nearly every kind of marine mammal, from sea lion Iexhibits serve a valuable conservation function, people to dolphin, travels large distances daily in a search for food. In learn important information from seeing live animals, and captivity, natural feeding and foraging patterns are completely lost.
  • The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research in Primates Non-Human of Use The

    The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research in Primates Non-Human of Use The

    The use of non-human primates in research The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatherall FRS FMedSci Report sponsored by: Academy of Medical Sciences Medical Research Council The Royal Society Wellcome Trust 10 Carlton House Terrace 20 Park Crescent 6-9 Carlton House Terrace 215 Euston Road London, SW1Y 5AH London, W1B 1AL London, SW1Y 5AG London, NW1 2BE December 2006 December Tel: +44(0)20 7969 5288 Tel: +44(0)20 7636 5422 Tel: +44(0)20 7451 2590 Tel: +44(0)20 7611 8888 Fax: +44(0)20 7969 5298 Fax: +44(0)20 7436 6179 Fax: +44(0)20 7451 2692 Fax: +44(0)20 7611 8545 Email: E-mail: E-mail: E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Web: www.acmedsci.ac.uk Web: www.mrc.ac.uk Web: www.royalsoc.ac.uk Web: www.wellcome.ac.uk December 2006 The use of non-human primates in research A working group report chaired by Sir David Weatheall FRS FMedSci December 2006 Sponsors’ statement The use of non-human primates continues to be one the most contentious areas of biological and medical research. The publication of this independent report into the scientific basis for the past, current and future role of non-human primates in research is both a necessary and timely contribution to the debate. We emphasise that members of the working group have worked independently of the four sponsoring organisations. Our organisations did not provide input into the report’s content, conclusions or recommendations.
  • AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition*

    AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition*

    AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition* Members of the Panel on Euthanasia Steven Leary, DVM, DACLAM (Chair); Fidelis Pharmaceuticals, High Ridge, Missouri Wendy Underwood, DVM (Vice Chair); Indianapolis, Indiana Raymond Anthony, PhD (Ethicist); University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska Samuel Cartner, DVM, MPH, PhD, DACLAM (Lead, Laboratory Animals Working Group); University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama Temple Grandin, PhD (Lead, Physical Methods Working Group); Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Cheryl Greenacre, DVM, DABVP (Lead, Avian Working Group); University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee Sharon Gwaltney-Brant, DVM, PhD, DABVT, DABT (Lead, Noninhaled Agents Working Group); Veterinary Information Network, Mahomet, Illinois Mary Ann McCrackin, DVM, PhD, DACVS, DACLAM (Lead, Companion Animals Working Group); University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia Robert Meyer, DVM, DACVAA (Lead, Inhaled Agents Working Group); Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi David Miller, DVM, PhD, DACZM, DACAW (Lead, Reptiles, Zoo and Wildlife Working Group); Loveland, Colorado Jan Shearer, DVM, MS, DACAW (Lead, Animals Farmed for Food and Fiber Working Group); Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa Tracy Turner, DVM, MS, DACVS, DACVSMR (Lead, Equine Working Group); Turner Equine Sports Medicine and Surgery, Stillwater, Minnesota Roy Yanong, VMD (Lead, Aquatics Working Group); University of Florida, Ruskin, Florida AVMA Staff Consultants Cia L. Johnson, DVM, MS, MSc; Director,