Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals

Bridging the gap: From petri dish to patient - Advancements in translational drug discovery

Translational research serves as the bridge between basic research and practical applications in clinical settings. The journey from "bench to bedside" is fraught with challenges and complexities such as the often-observed disparity between how compounds behave in a laboratory setting versus in the complex systems of living organisms. The challenge is further compounded by the limited ability of in vitro models to mimic the specific biochemical environment of human tissues. This article explores and details the recent advancements and innovative approaches that are increasingly successful in bridging the gap between laboratory research and patient care. These advancements include, but are not limited to, sophisticated in vitro models such as organ-on-a-chip and computational models that utilize artificial intelligence to predict drug efficacy and safety. The article aims to showcase how these technologies improve the predictability of drug performance in human bodies and significantly speed up the drug development process. Furthermore, it discusses the role of biomarker discovery in preparation of more targeted and personalized therapy approaches and covers the impact of regulatory changes designed to facilitate drug approvals. Additionally, by providing detailed case studies of successful applications, we illustrate the practical impacts of these innovations on drug discovery and patient care.

"Killing in the Name of 3R?" The Ethics of Death in Animal Research

Changing relationships with nonhuman animals have led to important modifications in animal welfare legislations, including the protection of animal life. However, animal research regulations are largely based on welfarist assumptions, neglecting the idea that death can constitute a harm to animals. In this article, four different cases of killing animals in research contexts are identified and discussed against the background of philosophical, societal, and scientific-practical discourses: 1. Animals killed during experimentation, 2. Animals killed before research, 3. "Surplus" animals and 4. "Leftover" animals. The scientific community and, accordingly, animal research regulations such as the internationally acknowledged framework 3R ("Replace", "Reduce", "Refine") tend to aim at the reduction of "surplus" and, to some extent, "leftover" animals, whereas the first two classes are rather neglected. However, the perspective that animal death matters morally is supported by both societal moral intuitions and certain theoretical accounts in animal ethics. Therefore, we suggest the implementation of the 3Rs in regulations, so that they: 1. Make their underlying philosophical position transparent; 2. Are based on a weighing account of animal death; 3. Are applicable to procedures on living and dead animals; 4. Apply the "reduction" principle to procedures on dead animals; 5. Entail that methods using (parts of) dead animals need to be replaced by animal free methods, if possible; 6. Do not suggest replacing research on living animals by research on killed animals; 7. Include all kinds of animals, depending on the respective harm of death; 8. Are applied to the broader context of experimentation, including breeding and the fate of the animals after the experiment.

Interdisciplinary Animal Research Ethics-Challenges, Opportunities, and Perspectives

Can nonhuman animals be used for the benefit of humans in a scientifically and morally justified manner and, if yes, how? Based on our own experiences as scholars from various academic backgrounds, we argue that this question can only be answered as an interdisciplinary and international endeavor, considering insights from research ethics and animal ethics as well as scientific and legal aspects. The aim of this article is to contribute to the foundation of the emerging field of animal research ethics. In doing so, we describe the following seven phases of animal research experiments: ethical, legal and social presumptions (phase 0), planning (phase I), review (phase II), conduct of experiments (phase III), publication/dissemination (phase IV), further exploitation of results (phase V), and evaluation (phase VI). In total, 20 key ethical, legal, and practical challenges that an ethical framework for the use of animals in research needs to address are identified and analyzed. Finally, we characterize the following four meta-challenges and opportunities associated with animal research ethics as a field: (1) moral pluralism, (2) the integration of views and positions outside the laboratory, (3) international plurality of conduct, standards, and legal norms, and (4) interdisciplinary education.

Conceptual foundations for a clarified meaning of the 3Rs principles in animal experimentation

Russell and Burch's 1959 original definitions of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) are widely used today as standards for the ethical use of non-human animals in research, although they have a number of limitations. Authors and institutions around the world have addressed some of these, coming up in certain cases with more accurate, functional, and up-to-date definitions. However, not only do there still remain limitations needing to be addressed, but some that have been addressed resulted in discrepancies, contradictions, and general confusion as to how best apply the 3Rs in practice. In order to clarify the meaning of the 3Rs and enable more optimal implementation of these principles in animal experimentation, this article provides a theoretical discussion for revised definitions of the original 3Rs via examination of some of their main limitations and inconsistencies. First, we offer up the original definitions as presented in the context of Russell and Burch's book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Then, we examine the main limitations and present clear specifications and requirements for such revised definitions. After presenting our revised definitions, we conclude with various implications for animal welfare within the context of experimentation.

Embracing Medication Needs of Patients based on Ethical, Dietary, and Religious Preferences

Purpose: Many patients seek medications without animal-derived ingredients for a multitude of reasons. The purpose of this comprehensive qualitative review is to assess current literature on the topic of animal-free medications and identify the roles that key stakeholders can play in addressing the needs of these patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar from inception to June 2022 to identify key articles surrounding the topic of animal-free ingredients and medications. Results: The need for animal-free medications impacts not just vegans and vegetarians, but also those with dietary restrictions due to other beliefs. Three key stakeholder initiatives can address the needs of these patients: 1) Healthcare professionals (HCPs) should strive to select appropriate medications considering their patients' religious and/or cultural background; 2) patients must be involved and notify their providers about their dietary requirements; 3) pharmaceutical industry and manufacturers need to consider animal-free product formulations and provide clear labeling. Conclusion: There is a rising interest in animal-free medications and several organizations and advocacy groups have raised concerns for easier access to these medications. However, more regulatory guidance or oversight is needed. For the nearly 25% animal-free medications available in the market, independent certification marks would facilitate informed consumer decision-making.

Perceptions of 3R implementation in European animal research: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-synthesis of barriers and facilitators

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine how the scientific community in Europe that is involved with research with animals perceives and experiences the implementation of 3R (Replace, Reduce, Refine).

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature published in the past ten years was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Publications were screened for eligibility using a priori inclusion criteria, and only empirical evidence (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodologies) was retained. Quantitative survey items were investigated by conducting a meta-analysis, and the qualitative data was summarized using an inductive meta-synthetic approach. Included publications were assessed using the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies tool.

RESULTS

17 publications were included (eight quantitative, seven qualitative, two mixed-methods). The meta-analysis revealed that scientists are skeptical about achieving replacement, even if they believe that 3R improve the quality of experimental results. They are optimistic concerning the impact of 3R on research costs and innovation, and see education as highly valuable for the implementation of 3R. The meta-synthesis revealed four barriers (systemic dynamics, reification process, practical issues, insufficient knowledge) and four facilitators (efficient use of animals, caring for animals, regulatory uptake, supportive workplace environment).

CONCLUSION

These findings show actionable levers at the local and systemic levels, and may inform regulators and institutions in their 3R policies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered into the PROSPERO database under the number CRD42023395769.

Animal rights, animal research, and the need to reimagine science

What would it look like for researchers to take non-human animal rights seriously? Recent discussions foster the impression that scientific practice needs to be reformed to make animal research ethical: just as there is ethically rigorous human research, so there can be ethically rigorous animal research. We argue that practically little existing animal research would be ethical and that ethical animal research is not scalable. Since animal research is integral to the existing scientific paradigm, taking animal rights seriously requires a radical, wholesale reimagining of science.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05340426.

An investigation of the perceptions of laboratory animal welfare issues among undergraduate and graduate veterinary students in southeastern China

Animal experiments have played a significant role in advancing scientific knowledge and enhancing people's quality of life. In order to better understand the opinions and knowledge of veterinary students in the domain of laboratory animal welfare and to explore and advance the teaching methods used in animal ethics education, a questionnaire was designed and used to conduct a survey among undergraduate and postgraduate students majoring in veterinary medicine. The survey encompassed various topics, such as students' level of knowledge about animal welfare, their perspectives on laboratory animals, their proficiency with animal experiments, and their opinions on teaching methods and content. The respondents were a total of 150 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students. The survey results indicated that most students expressed a strong sense of responsibility for the safeguarding of the welfare of experimental animals. However, there were a few students who lacked compassion for animals. Additionally, there was a general lack of basic theoretical knowledge of animal ethics and an inadequate grasp of experimental techniques among current students. Furthermore, most of the participants expressed a strong sense of responsibility to advocate for animal welfare. Although a substantial number of students were unaware of the existence of agencies for the supervision of work involving laboratory animals, they supported teaching and supervision in the domain of animal welfare and were open to various teaching methods and topics of content. In conclusion, targeted training and education regarding laboratory animal welfare and ethics should be conducted in the future to address the specific needs of students. This study provides a foundation for future animal welfare education and will help to improve the professional skills and humanistic qualities of veterinary students.

When Is Something an Alternative? A General Account Applied to Animal-Free Alternatives to Animal Research

The first "R" from animal research ethics prescribes the replacement of animal experiments with animal-free alternatives. However, the question of when an animal-free method qualifies as an alternative to animal experiments remains unresolved.Drawing lessons from another debate in which the word "alternative" is central, the ethical debate on alternatives to germline genome editing, this paper develops a general account of when something qualifies as an alternative to something. It proposes three ethically significant conditions that technique, method, or approach X must meet to qualify as an alternative to Y: (1) X must address the same problem as Y, under an appropriate description of that problem; (2) X must have a reasonable chance of success, compared to Y, in solving the problem; and (3) X must not be ethically unacceptable as a solution. If X meets all these conditions, its relative advantages and disadvantages determine whether it is preferable, indifferent, or dispreferable as an alternative to Y.This account is then applied to the question of whether animal-free research methods qualify as alternatives to animal research. Doing so breaks down the debate around this question into more focused (ethical and other) issues and illustrates the potential of the account.

The Reification of Non-Human Animals

This paper takes up Axel Honneth's suggestion that we, in the 21st century Western world, should revisit the Marxian idea of reification; unlike Honneth, however, this paper applies reification to the ways in which humans relate to non-human animals, particularly in the context of scientific experiments. Thinking about these practices through the lens of reification, the paper argues, yields a more helpful understanding of what is regarded as problematic in those practices than the standard animal rights approaches. The second part of the paper offers ways of overcoming reification that go beyond Honneth's idea of recognition by introducing Iris Murdoch's idea of attention. This proposed strategy makes the ethical relevance of reification more salient and makes it possible to counter reification through a practice such as attention which, unlike recognition, can be consciously established.