Biomedical Science and Engineering 2019; volume 3(s2):95

For an ethics of experimenta- issues about animal use in research involves tion. Moral arguments support- that: i) the debate developed since modern Correspondence:Franco Manti, Department of age to these days about ontological status of Education Sciences, University of Genoa, ing 3Rs animals and what is required or we have to Genoa, Italy. recognize to them; ii) new knowledge E-mail: [email protected] Franco Manti issues initiated from ethology, antrozoolo- gy, animal psicology; iii) evidences sup- Key words: 3Rs; moral questions; animal; Department of Education Sciences, experimentation; ethics. porting or in contrast with animal use in University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy experimentation, with reference to new Conference presentation: this paper was pre- points of view initiated from alternative sented at the Second Centro 3R Annual methods. Meeting - 3Rs in Italian Universities, 2019, Reference to 3Rs is an important start- June 20-21, University of Genoa, Italy. Abstract ing point for critical consideration of the A non-ideological approach to the impasse caused from the contrast between Received for publication: 28 October 2019. moral questions posed by the use of animals human and animal “wellbeing” (that is dif- Accepted for publication: 6 November 2019. for experimental purposes involves taking ficult to define) or humans’ benefits – ani- mal costs. This work is licensed under a Creative into account: i) the debate that has devel- Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 We need to critically analyze (pseudo) oped since the modern age on the ontologi- License (CC BY-NC 4.0). cal status of animals and on what is due to utilitarian approach upon which cost-bene- them or we must recognize; ii) the new fit analysis rests. ©Copyright: the Author(s), 2019 frontiers of knowledge opened up by disci- A correct cost-benefit analysis requires: Licensee PAGEPress, Italy plines such as ethology, anthrozoology, ani- i) same consideration for all stakeholder Biomedical Science and Engineering 2019; 3(s2):95 mal psychology; iii) the arguments in sup- interests; ii) measurable and predictive con- doi:10.4081/bse.2019.95 port of or against experimentation with ani- sequences; iii) agent neutral position; iv) mals, referring also to new perspectives results not influenced by morally irrelevant only parameters. opened up by methodologies commonly Results defined as alternatives. All these conditions are usually not con- Referring to the 3Rs, an important start- sidered in the project evaluation. The result is that the management of ing point is to critically consider the J. Harsanyi introduced the notionuse of animal suffering in experimentation and impasse generated by the conflict of inter- “imaginative empathy” to enable an inter- cost-benefit analysis (in the case of use) ests between human and animal welfare or, personal comparison of utilities and explain must be reconsidered. We should replace in another respect, by the conflict of bene- how we can imagine to be in the shoes of the word “cost” with “harm”. fits for humans - costs for animals. another person, simulating another’s desires In view of this, I support an effective, Effective development of the 3Rs requires and discover his preferred course of action. aware, increasingly widespread use of 3R epistemological awareness and ethical com- If we assume the “similarity postulate”, a through the implementation and the devel- petence as the assumption of responsibility priori we can look at human reactions and opment of an ethics competence of by researchers and OPBA members for the basic feelings as similar, considering differ- researchers and animal-welfare bodies well-being of humans and animals, giving ence factors. How far is possible to extend members. Ethics competence is the ability reasons for the choices that are made. this postulate to animals? to make moral judgments, justifying the Researchers, ethics committees, ani- choices, and the extension of ethics of care mal-welfare bodies, do not look at the issue to interspecific relations. of developing a related interspecific social Environment is very important in biog- Introduction utility (assuming it was possible). raphy of animal used in experimentation, If we support the method of calculation, just like “sentience” and opportunity of D.L. no. 26/2014, art.1, proclaims that is cost-benefit analysis the most appropriate realize their cognitive abilities in the con- the use of animals for scientificNon-commercial or educa- to answer to the question: “animal experi- text they are living in. tional purposes should only be considered mentation can considerably reduce human That means issues of animal use in where a scientifically valid, non-animal risk?”. experimentation need to be studied and con- alternative is unavailable to achieve the As to animal welfare we can consider sidered as processes in a complex system. result. This is a principle assertion, very the issue from two perspectives. The first is In this complex system, animal-human oth- demanding and difficult to apply. The defi- that instrumentally animal welfare is func- erness is, ethically, and requires a specific nition of “desired result” raises specific tional to the experiment’s correct outcome; and aware accountability: researchers and epistemological and ethical problems in the second is that humans are responsible of animal-welfare bodies members have a experimentation, for example the use and animal welfare, whether in captivity or in moral duty to take care of animal welfare. function of ad hoc assumptions, as well as cohabitation with them. Anywhere, this Moral responsibility ensures possible the methods and modality of experimenta- issue involves: i) centrality of animals’ cog- well-being of animals used in experimenta- tion. History teaches that scientifically nitive dimension; ii) the transition, both for tion, so we have to deal with underestima- valid, reasonable and desirable methods are humans and animals, from a quantitative tions in customary practices. In particular, not neutral at all, but strictly connected to (material resources based) to a qualitative we have to consider: i) the environmental philosophic, metaphysic, scientific views. approach to welfare; iii) consider wellbeing conditions in which animals are kept or Galileo’s theories, in fact, were not scientif- as opportunity of realize the capabilities in used influence animal’s stress and quality of ically valid or reasonable for his time, and specific contexts, and develop physical and life; ii) these conditions are usually not con- raised ethical and theological issues. cognitive abilities, both species specific or sidered as researcher’s responsibility; iii) A non-ideological approach to moral biographically gained. assessment of psycological stress must be

[Biomedical Science and Engineering 2019; 3(s2):95] [page 28] Article associated to no invasive procedures too, D.L. no. 26/2014, art.1 requires, ethical- effective ethics competence that they can- because animals don’t get easily used to ly, that researchers and therefore animal- not delegate to experts. Everyone is respon- routine procedures; iv) ethics committee welfare bodies members must assume the sible to himself, to others (animals too) for and animal-welfare bodies members, often burden of proof about the need for use of his choices. Everyone must evaluate critical underestimate the harm and distress caused animals for scientific purposes, considering issues of his choices and rationally justify to animals by daily routine procedures; v) rigorously all the available alternatives. them. the animals’ capacity to experience pleasure For this to happen there is a need for a is underestimated. strong epistemological awareness and an

only use

Non-commercial

[page 29] [Biomedical Science and Engineering 2019; 3(s2):95]