Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:29:55.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 3Rs principles and genetic pain disenhancement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S Camenzind Open the ORCID record for S Camenzind [Opens in a new window]  and
M Eggel Open the ORCID record for M Eggel [Opens in a new window]
S Camenzind*
Affiliation:
Messerli Research Institute, Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal-Studies, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinaerplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
M Eggel
Affiliation:
Philosophisches Seminar, Universität Basel, Switzerland
*
* Contact for correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

William Russell and Rex Burch's 3Rs principles were developed 1959 before animal ethics emerged as a scientific discipline in the 1970s and before many ground-breaking developments in modern biotechnology, such as genetic engineering. From this starting point we sought to analyse the normative foundations of the 3Rs principles in contemporary terms and concepts of animal ethics. After establishing the normative groundwork of the 3Rs, we will look at their practical implications within the context of present-day biotechnology. To this end, we shall investigate whether the genetic disenhancement of research animals to limit their ability to feel pain (GPD) complies with the original 3Rs principles. We use GPD as a practical example, since it is being discussed today as a promising way of solving one of the key moral issues raised by animal research, notably animal pain and suffering. By discussing GPD in the context of the 3Rs we aim also not only to gain insights into whether GPD is compatible with one or more of the 3Rs, but also to develop a better understanding of the specific normative foundation of the 3Rs principles and the conceptual limitations and practical implications of that foundation. We argue that reducing moral concerns about animal research to those that are intelligible within a sentientist framework (eg harm and suffering), as the 3Rs do, represents an oversimplification of the moral issues involved. We suggest that interference with abilities, instrumentalisation, flourishing, and death are all important aspects of animal ethics requiring consideration.

Keywords

animal ethicsanimal research ethicsanimal welfaregenetic engineeringgenetic pain disenhancement3Rs principles
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , November 2022 , pp. 495 - 503
Copyright
© 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 2017 Animal Welfare Act (SR 455). www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20022103/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2019 Swiss researchers struggle to get animal experiments approved. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/swiss-researchers-struggle-to-get-animalexperiments-approved—65293Google Scholar
Bayne, K, Ramachandra, GS, Rivera, EA and Wang, J 2015 The evolution of animal welfare and the 3Rs in Brazil, China, and India. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 54(2): 181–191Google ScholarPubMed
Bentham, J 1996 [1789] An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Blumer, K 2004 Ethische Aspekte zu Tierversuchen und das Solitaritätsprinzip. Senatskommission für tierexperimentelle Forschung Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (ed) Tierversuche in der Forschung pp 27–29. Lemmens Verlag- und Mediengesellschaft: Bonn, Germany. [Title translation: Ethical aspects of animal research and the principle of solidarity]Google Scholar
Broady, BA 1998 The Ethics of Biomedical Research. An International Perspective. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Camenzind, S 2020 Instrumentalisierung. Zur einer Grundkategorie der Ethik der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung. Mentis: Paderborn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.30965/9783957437457. [Title translation: Instrumentalisation. A basic category of the ethics of human-animal interaction]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, DF, Lancto, CA, Zang, B, Kim, ES, Walton, M, Oldeschulte, D, Seabury, C, Sonstegard, TS and Fahrenkrug, SC 2016 Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. National Biotechnology 34: 479–481. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3560CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comstock, G 1992 What obligations have scientists to transgenic animals? Discussion paper by the Center for Biotechnology, Policy and Ethics. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
Comstock, G 2000 Vexing Nature? On the Ethical Case Against Agricultural Biotechnology. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
Devolder, K and Eggel, M 2019 No pain, no gain? In defence of genetically disenhancing (most) research animals. Animals 9(4): 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9040154CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eggel, M and Camenzind, S 2020 Authorization of animal research proposals - a comparison of harm concepts in different European regulations. Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 133: 270–278Google Scholar
Ferrari, A 2006 Genetically modified laboratory animals in the name of the 3Rs? ALTEX 23: 294–307Google ScholarPubMed
Ferrari, A 2008 Genmaus & Co Gentechnisch veränderte Tiere in der Biomedizin. Harald Fischer Verlag: Erlangen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Fischer, B 2020 In defense of neural disenhancement to promote animal welfare. In: Johnson, L, Fenton, A and Shriver, A (eds) Neuroethics and Nonhuman Animals. Advances in Neuroethics pp 135–150. Springer: Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P 2016 Other Minds. The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Grimm, H 2013 Ethik im Kontext des Tierversuchs. In: Binder R. Grimm, H and Alzmann, N (eds) Wissenschaftliche Verantwortung im Tierversuch. Ein Handbuch für die Praxis pp 23–54. Nomos: Baden-Baden, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845250328-21 [Title translation: Scientific responsibility in animal experimentation - a handbook for practice]Google Scholar
Grimm, H, Camenzind, S and Aigner, A 2016 Tierethik. In: Borgards, R (ed) Tiere. Kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch pp 78–97. Metzler: Stuttgart, Germany. [Title translation:Animal ethics. Animal study handbook]Google Scholar
Herrmann, K 2019 Refinement on the way towards replacement: Are we doing what we can? In: Herrmann, K and Kimberly, J (eds) Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change pp 3–64. Brill: Boston, USA. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_002Google Scholar
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) 2011 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-Care-and-Use-of-Laboratory-Animals.pdfGoogle Scholar
Knight, A 2019 Critically evaluating animal research. In: Herrmann, K and Kimberley, J (eds) Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change pp 321–340. Brill: Boston, USA. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_015Google Scholar
Lafollette, H and Shanks, N 1996 Brute Science. Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. Routledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Macer, D 1989 Uncertainties about ‘painless’ animals. Bioethics 3: 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1989.tb00342.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Majeed, MH, Ubaidulhag, M, Rugnath, A and Eriator, I 2018 Extreme ends of pain sensitivity in SCN9A mutation variants case report and literature review. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience (ICNS) 11–12(15): 33–35Google Scholar
Nelson, L 1923 System of Ethics.Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USAGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS, Franco, NH, Weary, DM and Sandøe, P 2012 The 3Rs principle - mind the ethical gap! ALTEX Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences pp 333–336. Montreal, Canada. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, USAGoogle Scholar
Palmer, C 2011 Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: a response to Thompson. Nanoethics 5: 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0115-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ploner, M, Freund, HJ and Schnitzler, A 1999 Pain affect without pain sensation in a patient with postcentral lesion. Pain 81: 211–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00012-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redmond, C 2019 When is an alternative not an alternative? Supporting progress for absolute replacement of animals in science. In: Herrmann, K and Kimberley, J (eds) Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change pp 654–672. Brill: Boston, USA. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_028Google Scholar
Rippe, KP 2008 Ethik im Ausserhumanen Berich. Mentis: Paderborn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.30965/9783969750926. [Title translation: Ethics in the non-human realm]Google Scholar
Rippe, KP 2009 Güterabwägungen im Tierversuchsbereich. Anmerkungen zu einem ethischen Paradigmenwechsel. ALTEX 26: 3–10. [Title translation: Weighing of interests in justifying animal experiments]Google Scholar
Rollin, BE 1986 On telos and genetic manipulation. Between the Species 2(14): 88–89. https://doi.org/10.15368/bts.1986v2n2.9Google Scholar
Rollin, BE 1996 The Frankenstein Syndrome. Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139172806Google Scholar
Russell, WMS 2005 The three Rs: Past, present and future. Animal Welfare 14: 279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, WMS and Burch, R 1959 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Rutger, B and Heeger, R 1999 Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity. In: Dol, M (ed) Recognising the Intrinsic Value of Animals pp 41–51. Van Gorcum: Assen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Ryder, R 1995 Animal genetic engineering and human progress. In Wheale, P and McNally, R (eds) Animal Genetic Engineering: Of Pigs, Oncomice and Men pp 1–16. Pluto Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Forsman, B and Hansen, AK 1996 Transgenic animal: the need for an ethical dialogue. Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 1: 279–285Google Scholar
Sandøe, P, Hocking, P, Förkman, B, Haldane, K, Kristensen, H and Palmer, C 2014 The blind hen's challenge: Does it undermine the view that only welfare matters in our dealings with animals? Environmental Values 23: 727–742. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327114X13947900181950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, H 1980 [1892] Animals’ Rights. Considered in Relation to Social Progress. Society for Animal Rights: Clarks Summit: PA, USAGoogle Scholar
Schweitzer, A 1923 [1987] The Philosophy of Civilization. Prometheus: New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Shriver, A 2009 Knocking out pain in livestock: Can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics 2(3): 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-009-9048-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shriver, A 2015 Would the elimination of the capacity to suffer solve ethical dilemmas in experimental animal research? In: Grace, L, Illes, J and Ohl, F (eds) Ethical Issues in Behavioral Neuroscience pp 117–132. Springer: Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2014_318Google Scholar
Shriver, A and McConnachie, E 2018 Genetically modifying livestock for improved welfare: A path forward. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31(2): 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9719-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The National Centre for the Replacement (NC3R) 2021 Refinement and Reduction of Animal Research. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/the-3rsGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P 2008 The opposite of enhancement: nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. Nanoethics 2(3): 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0052-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorstenbosch, JMG 2005 The ethics of the Three Rs principle: a reconsideration. Animal Welfare 14: 339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) 2010 Terrestrial Animal Health Code. https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htm-file=chapitre_aw_research_education.htmGoogle Scholar