Laboratory Animal Science – Summary – partim prof. dr. C.
van Ginneken
Lecture: History, ethics, and legislation
E.g. EXAM question: You have 6 months old mouse. Do you need to chip it?
Animal experiments have been done already in the time of Aristotle. Because of the
increased use of anesthetics more and more experimental animals were used for
experiments. Also a significant number of medical advances were achieved due to
animal experimentation.
In the 1950’s people started to be more careful when conducting animal experiments. So
then people started to consider laboratory animal sciences as a separate field of
expertise. Since the 1970’s there has been a decline in the numbers of animals used.
Ethical issues
You must always ask yourself several questions in regard to ethical issues concerning
animals:
- Do we have ethical obligations to non-human animals? Is this always the case or is this
only in special circumstances?
- Do non-human animals have rights? Where do rights come from and what are the
consequences from having rights?
- What kind of use of treatment in non-human animals is ethically permissible or
required?
Laboratory animals:
The reason people started raising ethical questions in regard to the use of animals in
experiments was that researchers found out that these animals have a well-developed
nervous system. If this wasn’t the case, then there would be much less problems
involving animal experiments. These animals have feelings; they can reason otherwise
they would be machines.
Animal right activists will always reason that these animals cannot consent with what
you are doing with them. The animals were not asked if you could do these experiments
on them. They can’t agree with you or give you any permission to do these experiments
on them. These animals cannot be told what is going to happen to them.
Animal welfare activists will always reason according to Utilitarism and state that
these animals do not benefit from these experiments you do to them and that the
suffering that is done to them is much more then the benefit they get out of doing these
animal experiments. These animals can also suffer from the experiment and is that
allowed? The benefits from these experiments are usually only for the good of men and
the animals do not benefit from them.
Saif Haify Laboratory Animal Science – Summary 6-November-2015
, Animal Welfare
J. Bentham (1742-1832) P. Singer (still alive)
Utilitarism
J. Bentham stated that it is not the question whether these animals can reason or talk but
more importantly, can these animals suffer? Can they enjoy life; can they be happy? This
way these animals have an intrinsic value.
He took his reasoning about suffering and made a cost-benefit analysis from it. In case
you have to choose between two different settings, where you cause a little harm but
you create a large amount of happiness then this suffering is accepted to create due to
the fact that the benefit/happiness/joy you get from this is much larger. This way you
minimize suffering and maximize happiness/benefit from these experiments.
Example used by J. Bentham: slavery would be accepted because the largest population
benefits of the suffering/harm done to a minority of people. In case of animal
experiments, if you harm 100 mice in order to find a cure for AIDS (benefits millions of
people), then the suffering or harm done to these animals is accepted. Even if the
suffering of 100 mice would benefit 100 people, then J. Bentham would still accept this
as to the fact he states that a mouse is per definition less worth then a human being.
P. Singer follows J. Bentham’s reasoning but there is a difference. P. Singer states that the
value of a mouse is of same essence to the value of a human being. Discrimination of
animals because of the fact that they belong to a different species is according to P.
Singer not right.
So P. Singer still thinks that this cost-benefit analysis is right but the suffering of a mouse
should be equal to a human being because pain is pain and thus an animal must be
treated the same as we would treat a human being. So there must be equal consideration
of sentient species.
In an ethical application form things as how much EURO’s we will save, the percentage
of people that have this disease and a severity score must be included of your animal.
Pain, distress, suffering of non-human animals should be minimized at all costs.
Saif Haify Laboratory Animal Science – Summary 6-November-2015
van Ginneken
Lecture: History, ethics, and legislation
E.g. EXAM question: You have 6 months old mouse. Do you need to chip it?
Animal experiments have been done already in the time of Aristotle. Because of the
increased use of anesthetics more and more experimental animals were used for
experiments. Also a significant number of medical advances were achieved due to
animal experimentation.
In the 1950’s people started to be more careful when conducting animal experiments. So
then people started to consider laboratory animal sciences as a separate field of
expertise. Since the 1970’s there has been a decline in the numbers of animals used.
Ethical issues
You must always ask yourself several questions in regard to ethical issues concerning
animals:
- Do we have ethical obligations to non-human animals? Is this always the case or is this
only in special circumstances?
- Do non-human animals have rights? Where do rights come from and what are the
consequences from having rights?
- What kind of use of treatment in non-human animals is ethically permissible or
required?
Laboratory animals:
The reason people started raising ethical questions in regard to the use of animals in
experiments was that researchers found out that these animals have a well-developed
nervous system. If this wasn’t the case, then there would be much less problems
involving animal experiments. These animals have feelings; they can reason otherwise
they would be machines.
Animal right activists will always reason that these animals cannot consent with what
you are doing with them. The animals were not asked if you could do these experiments
on them. They can’t agree with you or give you any permission to do these experiments
on them. These animals cannot be told what is going to happen to them.
Animal welfare activists will always reason according to Utilitarism and state that
these animals do not benefit from these experiments you do to them and that the
suffering that is done to them is much more then the benefit they get out of doing these
animal experiments. These animals can also suffer from the experiment and is that
allowed? The benefits from these experiments are usually only for the good of men and
the animals do not benefit from them.
Saif Haify Laboratory Animal Science – Summary 6-November-2015
, Animal Welfare
J. Bentham (1742-1832) P. Singer (still alive)
Utilitarism
J. Bentham stated that it is not the question whether these animals can reason or talk but
more importantly, can these animals suffer? Can they enjoy life; can they be happy? This
way these animals have an intrinsic value.
He took his reasoning about suffering and made a cost-benefit analysis from it. In case
you have to choose between two different settings, where you cause a little harm but
you create a large amount of happiness then this suffering is accepted to create due to
the fact that the benefit/happiness/joy you get from this is much larger. This way you
minimize suffering and maximize happiness/benefit from these experiments.
Example used by J. Bentham: slavery would be accepted because the largest population
benefits of the suffering/harm done to a minority of people. In case of animal
experiments, if you harm 100 mice in order to find a cure for AIDS (benefits millions of
people), then the suffering or harm done to these animals is accepted. Even if the
suffering of 100 mice would benefit 100 people, then J. Bentham would still accept this
as to the fact he states that a mouse is per definition less worth then a human being.
P. Singer follows J. Bentham’s reasoning but there is a difference. P. Singer states that the
value of a mouse is of same essence to the value of a human being. Discrimination of
animals because of the fact that they belong to a different species is according to P.
Singer not right.
So P. Singer still thinks that this cost-benefit analysis is right but the suffering of a mouse
should be equal to a human being because pain is pain and thus an animal must be
treated the same as we would treat a human being. So there must be equal consideration
of sentient species.
In an ethical application form things as how much EURO’s we will save, the percentage
of people that have this disease and a severity score must be included of your animal.
Pain, distress, suffering of non-human animals should be minimized at all costs.
Saif Haify Laboratory Animal Science – Summary 6-November-2015
