The use of animals in research and teaching is a subject that stirs controversy among many people. The reasons for this are complex and are rooted deep in history, religion and culture. These are further affected by personal experience.
In general, the root of the controversy stems from the relative moral value that individual human beings place on animals. Individuals’ attitudes range from those who attribute all animals with the same moral value as a human, to those who see animals solely as a resource for human consumption. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.
Judeo-Christian teachings have long held that humans hold dominion over animals, using them for their needs. However, these teachings also place value on the kind treatment of animals, indicating that deliberate cruelty represents a flawed morality.
Early Greek philosophers felt that animals did not deserve moral consideration because they did not have the ability to make moral decisions themselves. Moral value is often extended to animals based on attributes that humans see as desirable. Thus animals that provide a resource or a service to humans may be seen as having more value. Likewise, animals with behaviors that are either beneficial or non-threatening to humans may also be attributed with more value.
Another ethical principle that affects human attitudes toward animal use is that of minimizing the harm done to animals. The assumption is that all animals will avoid pain, distress, or death if given the choice, and therefore it is ethical for humans to minimize exposing animals to these events. Because the concepts of pain and distress require some level of neurological development, the extent to which animals can experience them varies with the animals’ physical characteristics. All of these concepts have contributed to society’s current concepts of the morality of the use of animals.
The primary concepts that have evolved are:
- It is acceptable to use animals for human ends, but the purpose of the use must be of some benefit to the world as a whole.
- Overall use of animals should be minimized.
- Pain and distress caused by the use should be minimized.
These concepts are reflected in the regulations and guidelines that govern our use of animals. The two primary sets of regulations that the Psychology Department at Carleton College must adhere to are the Animal Welfare Act and the US Government Principles for the Use of Animals in Research, Testing and Training, and these are summarized briefly below.
Before stating the details, it is worth noting here that there is a difference between concerns about animal welfare (which these regulations address) and animal rights, which asserts that animals have a right not to be used for research or as a means to human ends. Traditional antivivisectionists (who are concerned with animal welfare) may accept high quality animal care and use programs as addressing animal welfare concerns. Animal rights activists who believe animals have a right not to be a part of any research or human use (including consumption, or clothing) would not find acceptable the development of steps toward high quality animal care. On this moral point, there is unlikely to be a compromise.
The Animal Welfare Act is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Division of Animal Care. A veterinarian employed by USDA inspects all facilities covered by the Act at least annually for compliance with animal welfare regulations. This set of regulations covers research facilities, exhibitors (e.g. zoos), breeders and retailers of all dead or alive warm-blooded animals, except birds and domestic rats and mice. Research for agricultural purposes is not covered.
The US Government Principles are further outlined in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and must be followed by any institution receiving federal research money working with live vertebrate animals. They are administered through the granting agency, such as the NSF or NIH. It is quite common for psychology to have active grants from NSF or NIH and we read and adhere to the requirements in the Guide.
The general scope of both sets of regulations is similar. Some specific areas covered are listed below:
- Standards are established for animal caging, cleaning, feeding, environmental conditions, environmental enrichment and transportation.
- All animal use must be justified scientifically, and pain and distress, and overall animal use must be minimized by reducing numbers of animals used, refining experiments and replacing vertebrate animals with either lower animals or non-animal alternatives.
- Pain or distress incurred during an experiment must be treated appropriately with anesthetics, analgesics or sedatives. Unrelieved pain or distress necessitates euthanasia of an animal.
- Personnel using animals must be trained in their use and a veterinarian with expertise in the area of laboratory animals must oversee the program.
- A committee consisting of at least one scientist, a veterinarian, and a member unaffiliated with the institution must approve all animal use, and any exceptions to the above guidelines.
Carleton College is registered with the USDA as a research institution and Psychology’s animal care programs are compliant with the US Government Principles for animal care and use and with USDA. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) meets twice annually to approve animal use protocols, and to review the animal care program and facilities. Any animal welfare concerns should be directed to the IACUC, either to Fernan Jaramillo, chair of that committee, or Gretchen Hofmeister, Institutional representative and Associate Dean of the College, to be addressed.