Animal Ethics PPT Script PDF

Preview

Summary

notes for the course. thank you for this website...

Description

The Ethical Use of Animals in Teaching and Research Slide 1 The use of animals in teaching and research date back centuries. Many medical and biological advances, most notably in the 20th and 21st century, can be credited to the use of animals. Undoubtedly the vast majority of scientists and educators who use animals would agree that their use is justified and needed. Whether these advances could have been made without the use of animals is almost impossible to quantify at this point. In either case, the use of animals raises questions that anyone who works with them should ask themselves. During this lecture, you will gain an appreciation for some of the basic theories of animal ethics and the regulations in place for animal users in Canadian educational institutions. Slide 2 There is arguably not a single ethical view, for which all consent, that answers the question of whether humans are morally justified in the use of animals for teaching and research. Three such views that play a prominent role in the debate over the use of animals are contractarianism, utilitarianism, and animal rights. Briefly, we will discuss what each of these mean in the context of animals used in research and teaching. Contractarianism in general terms refers to the idea that the moral and political principles we should follow are those we would accept in a hypothetical contract. Animals cannot enter into contracts or agreements because they lack the linguistic and intellectual skills to do so. While this view does not withhold ethical protection of animals, the way it is afforded is more indirect. This can be thought of more broadly as defining the use of animals based on what we as an individual or society are more and less comfortable with. Some species, such as cats, dogs and non-human primates may be afforded more ethical protection because of the way we feel about them. The foundation of this approach is that we care for animals, some differently than others and the scientific community therefore ought to act in ways that people in general would broadly agree to or contract into. Utilitarianism proposes that all sentient creatures, human and nonhuman, deserve equal moral consideration. However, this is under the principle that you should always act so as to maximize the well-being of those affected by your actions. The utilitarian approach, then, requires us to utilize a cost-benefit analysis to all the decisions made which could affect sentient individuals. In short, the utilitarian approach does not necessarily forbid the use of animals in teaching and research as the outcome of such use could largely benefit humans. Instead, a utilitarian would seek to maximize animal welfare in order to attain goals of benefiting people and to some degree, animals as well. If we can maximize animal welfare without cost to human welfare, we are obligated to do so. However, if by maximizing animal welfare (ie not conducting teaching or experiments) we prevent advances in human welfare, we may be unbalanced. While there is a broad range of views within this approach, what all utilitarians typically agree on is that ethical decisions in animal research require us to balance the harm we do to laboratory animals against the benefits we derive for humans and other animals. The 3 R’s as discussed later largely come from this approach. The Animal Rights approach proposes, as the name implies, that animals have rights similar to humans. The main point of moral rights is to define boundaries that should not be crossed under any circumstances unless the holder waives the right which of course is not possible for nonhuman animals. In this regard, sentient animals should not be used in the pursuit of human goals

as no amount of suffering or impairment of welfare can be justified. In other words, animals should not be used as a means to an end. This of course only skims the surface of three main theories on the use of animals for human gain. It should be noted that differences in viewpoint occur in each of these approaches, from more moderate to more extreme. The main takeaway should be that none of these approaches agree upon the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation, whether for teaching, research or food production as examples. Every person will almost always have different limits in this regard. Based on these three approaches, it may be possible to make up one’s own mind about what is right and wrong in our dealings with animals, but perhaps more importantly and understanding of these can also help us all understand each other’s views. Such an understanding is an important requisite for a civilized dialogue about animal use and an important driver for legislation and guidelines revolving around the use of animals. Slide 3 Regardless of one’s personal views, its important to realize that animals are in fact used in many ways for the benefit of people. Whether you are a contractarian or an animal rights advocate, we all have a certain responsibility to animals. These include avoidance of unnecessary pain, deprivation & suffering; welfare protection by improving the environment animals are held in; searching for alternatives to the use of animals such as silicone based tissue for surgical practice, organs on a chip, computer simulations etc.; and setting policies on as well as performing professional review of practices involving animals. Slide 4 As animal users, we also have a responsibility to the public. The vast majority of projects using animals in teaching and research are funded by public dollars. The three general approaches to animal ethics presented previously illustrate the difficulties in appeasing all viewpoints, especially as they change over time. Current legislation, both at the provincial and federal level allow for the use of animals in teaching and research but dictate policies and guidelines that must be strictly followed. It is therefore incredibly important that animal users uphold public trust and adhere to the standards put in place as discussed going forward. Slide 5 Animal Research Oversight Slide 6 McMaster is accountable for the proper conduct of animal-based research and teaching, and subject to rules and regulations set by two bodies: the Canadian Council On Animal Care (CCAC – federal) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs or OMAFRA. Ontario is unique as a province in Canada in that we have specific legislation, The Animals for Research Act that adds a further layer of oversight which other provinces don’t have. The Animal Research Ethics Board (AREB) is responsible for local oversight based on the federal and provincial guidelines and standards. AREB consists of 19 members: scientists, community representatives, technical staff, graduate students, administrative staff and veterinarians. AREB meetings are held the first Tuesday of every month to review protocols involving the use of animals.

Slide 7 The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) is the national peer-review organization responsible for setting, maintaining, and overseeing the implementation of high standards for animal ethics and care in science throughout Canada. Created in 1968, the CCAC is an independent, non-profit organization, acting in the interests of the Canadian people. More than 2,000 volunteer experts serving on more than 190 local animal care committees (ACCs) help fulfill CCAC's mandate and deliver the program in institutions across Canada. The CCAC is financed primarily by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), with additional contributions from annual program participation fees paid by CCAC-certified institutions. Slide 8 An institution's animal ethics and care program is certified every three years based on its compliance with CCAC policies and guidelines and other CCAC-recognized standards. Every institution is subject to regular peer review by the CCAC, which involves an assessment of the institution’s animal ethics and care program, the effectiveness of their animal care committee to oversee the program, and the appropriateness of their animal facilities, practices, and procedures. Assessments are based on CCAC guidelines, policies, and associated documents, and are usually conducted by CCAC assessment panels. A CCAC Certificate of GAP – Good Animal Practice® is earned by institutions which participate fully in the CCAC's programs; have been evaluated by assessment panels composed of scientists, veterinarians, and community representatives; and have been found by the panel and by the CCAC Assessment and Certification Committee to have standards of experimental animal ethics and care which satisfy the CCAC's guidelines and policies. Slide 9 Ontario is unique in having an Act specific to research animals, the Animals for Research Act, which enables an inspectorate to control the registration of research facilities and the issuance of licenses for supply facilities. To prevent animals from suffering unnecessary pain, the Act mandates the administration of anesthetics to animals in experiments that are likely to result in pain, as well as the administration of analgesics during recovery. In addition, the Act mandates that every research facility establish an animal care committee and provides for the operations and duties of established committees. All research facilities are subject to unannounced inspections and must report the number, type, and source of animals used in the facility each year. Slide 10 The essence of ethics approval is based on a number of factors, largely outlined by the CCAC or OMAFRA. That being said, the local animal care committee has leeway in setting its own standards as long as it maintains or exceeds those that are required. Such aspects of a protocol that are important in consideration of approval are: appropriateness of the species selected; the availability of proper housing and care for the proposed species; scientific validity of the proposed experiment, i.e., whether it is statistically sound, peer-reviewed/pedagogical merit; the availability of adequate veterinary oversight and ability of the veterinarian to have the highest say in the welfare of animals; safety of a protocol (isotopes, chemicals, hazards) largely in relation to human safety; proper training to conduct the proposed procedures; and the

implementation of humane endpoints that clearly define a point at which the welfare of the animal cannot be further compromised. Slide 11 Approved animal use protocols must adhere to the 3R’s as developed by Russell and Burch in 1959. They recognized that while the replacement of animals as research subjects was a desirable goal, considerable gains could be made in humane science through reducing the numbers of animals used and refining the techniques that were applied to animals. The 3 R’s are thereby replacement, reduction, and refinement. Replacement refers to methods which avoid or replace the use of animals in an area where they would otherwise have been used. Reduction refers to any strategy that will result in fewer animals being used to obtain sufficient data to answer the research question, or in maximizing the information obtained per animal. Refinement refers to the modification of husbandry or experimental procedures to minimize the pain and distress experienced by an animal, and to enhance the welfare of an animal used in science. A 4th, unofficial R, is reproducibility. Its largely agreed upon that the lack of reproducibility among animal experiments is concerning and as a result, many efforts have been initiated to improve the way experiments are conducted and reported. The ARRIVE and PREPARE guidelines which advise on the reporting and planning of animal experiments respectively, have been adopted by a number of publication bodies and researchers and continues to gain acceptance. Slide 12 The CCAC has initiated a change from ‘Categories of Invasiveness’ to ‘Categories of Welfare Impact’ which signifies a shift from focusing on the procedures carried out on the animals, to a focus on the animals’ experiences. This perspective takes into consideration that not all animals experience similar procedures in the same way, and also acknowledges that the welfare of animals is also affected by elements other than the experimental procedures (for example their living conditions or phenotype). It is the expectation that Categories of Welfare Impact will be assigned to protocols both prospectively, before undertaking any animal-based scientific activity, as well as retrospectively, after the scientific activity is complete in order to create a process that is continually improving and adapting. Slide 13 Humane endpoints are implemented to reduce animal pain and/or distress, while still satisfying the experimental design requirements for objective evaluation when animals are used in biomedical research, teaching and testing. The term humane endpoint is defined as the point at which an experimental animal's pain and/or distress is terminated, minimized or reduced, by taking actions such as euthanizing the animal humanely, terminating a painful procedure, or giving treatment to relieve pain and/or distress. Humane endpoints are a cornerstone in the use of animals and are implemented based on the category of invasiveness and now the category of welfare impact. Humane endpoints are meant to be consistently under review so that they are improved upon and refined over time. Slide 14 To briefly understand humane endpoints, here we can see a normal healthy mouse. The mouse appears alert, well groomed, eyes open with no facial expressions indicating pain or discomfort and has good colour and stance.

Slide 15 Depending on the experiment, we may expect an animal to become ill over time. As shown in this picture, the onset of an experiment is considered to be a physiologic disturbance. Over time, the animal will develop noticeable clinical signs. Humane endpoints and endpoint monitoring is meant to outline what signs to look out for and when to intervene to give the animal supportive care. Limiting clinical signs, those that indicate the animal is in a state that cannot be well supported are typically the determined humane endpoint as animals should not reach a state where they are moribund or found dead. Slide 16 Here we see a mouse that is showing many limiting clinical signs such as hunched posture, ears erected backwards, eyes sunken in and squinty, as well as a bulge in the nose. These all indicate the animal is not doing well and should be considered humane endpoint. Its important these endpoints are well defined in the animal use protocol and consistently measured.

Slide 17 The principle objective of pedagogical review is to assess whether live animals are, or remain, essential in achieving successful learning outcomes in teaching. Aspects of pedagogical merit review include clear learning outcomes, clear learning assessment and a clear description of the learning activities involving live animals. If these aspects align, then the committee must next determine if a live animal is truly the best learning model for the proposed outcome. If required, the final step is to seek potential replacements and if any are identified, they are communicated to the course instructor. Slide 18 Lastly, proper training is the overall end goal for programs that oversee the use of animals in teaching and research. The McMaster University animal care program offers a number of courses that users in research and teaching must take in order to work with animals in their various projects. Proper training is not just important for the ability of the user to conduct their experiment or teaching protocol but to also promote good animal welfare by teaching proper technique that minimizes stress and unintended harm to the animal. Slide 19 Animals in Science and Teaching Slide 20 As part of their accountability to the Canadian public and their commitment to transparency, the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) publishes an annual report on the number of animals included in Canadian science for the purposes of research, teaching, and testing. In 2019, there were 4,562,522 animals used in research, teaching, and testing reported to the CCAC. The largest proportion of animals (43.2%) was used in studies of a fundamental nature/basic research or

Purpose of Animal Use, representing 2,051,079 animals whereas the proportion of animals used in teaching was 7%. Slide 21 In regards to categories of invasiveness, The benefit of assigning CIs prospectively is that it allows animal care committees to signal to the scientific staff, veterinarians, and animal care staff the type of care a cohort of animals should receive. In the highest Category of Invasiveness, CI E, 152,892 (3.2%) animals were counted. The three types of animals most frequently used in CI E were fish, mice, and guinea pigs. The vast majority of animals were assigned to category B which is classified as causing little or no discomfort or stress. Slide 22 The use of animals at McMaster are largely for research purposes with only a small number of animals, mostly rodents and amphibians, used for teaching purposes. McMaster is predominately a rodent based program, where mice make up the overwhelming majority of animals housed. Other species housed include various types of fish, reptiles and amphibians as well as pigs and big brown bats. Slide 23 The Department of Biology teaching labs that utilize animals are the main courses where animals are used for teaching at McMaster. Some of these labs may be within a laboratory facility or out in the field, both of which must be approved by the Animal Research Ethics Board. Slide 24 The most important component when reviewing the animal use protocols associated with these labs is assessing whether they have ‘Merit’ As we discussed previously, pedagogical merit review is necessary for teaching labs utilizing live animals to occur. It’s important that we continue to review the need for animals in teaching labs and strive to implement replacements when and if they become available. Slide 25 In conclusion, the use of animals in teaching, research, and testing is highly regulated. Animal welfare is the number one priority and necessitates continuous review of benefit vs harm. The ultimate goal is replacement of all animals with alternatives when and where those options become available. All users that work with animals must do so only with the proper training and insight on the regulations and standards set in place. Working with animals is a privilege not a right. We must do everything we can to ensure the proper care and use of animals in our keep. Slide 26 Despite some arguments to the contrary, the use of animals in research and teaching has taught us a great deal. Many in vitro experiments cannot fully replicate the complexity of a living organism that has many intertwined physiological systems. While animal research is highly regulated, the use of human tissues and subjects is even more so. It is expected that advances in technology will work to further promote the 3R’s and maybe even achieve the ultimate goal of replacement altogether. Only time will tell.

Slide 27 Thank you for your time and please feel free to reach out with any questions....