Search

This chapter addresses the question of killing animals in research, primarily from a moral perspective, but also taking into account some of the practical and scientific considerations with moral consequences in this context. We start by exploring in which situations animals are killed in research and whether these are always inevitable, analysing re-use and re-homing of animals as potential alternatives. We then discuss for whom – and under what circumstances -killing matters, considering situations where there may be a conflict between the wish to avoid killing and that to avoid suffering, and further take human-animal interactions into account. We argue that, although there are relevant practical, scientific and ethical arguments favouring the euthanasia of animals in most research contexts, there is a potential for rehabilitating more animals than is currently the practice.

Food futures: ethics, science and culture, p. 499 –504. Within the ethical discussion of animal experimentation, the questions of why, how many, and under what circumstances animals are (or should be) used takes precedence over the fact that virtually all lab animals are killed after their scientific utility. When death is indeed an issue, the discussion often concerns the circumstances of death, from a welfare point-of view. This is a likely consequence of two factors: firstly, killing being seen as an inevitable consequence of animal use and, second, a predominantly “welfarist-utilitarian” influence in the ethical and legal framework on the acceptability of animal research. While the former leads to the killing of lab animals being implicitly accepted along with the acceptance of animal research itself, the latter makes death a lesser issue (provided it is carried out humanely), as “being dead” is not in itself seen as a welfare problem, and the early euthanasia of animal models of disease can moreover prevent avoidable suffering (i.e. by humane end-points). In this landscape, animal experimentation without the burden of killing animals seems unfeasible, if not undesirable. However, while acknowledging that most studies do require killing animals out of scientific (e.g. from the need to extract large-enough samples from small animals) or ethical (when animals would otherwise suffer needlessly) necessity, it remains to be ascertained whether a) this is true for all cases or b) that curtailing the life of laboratory animals is of little ethical importance. Accepting that – at least some – animal research is relevant, ethically acceptable and presently not replaceable, it should nevertheless be reflected upon whether there can be a scientific, ethical and legal framework within which a “no-kill” approach may be equated, for some cases. A few examples are herein presented to discuss current possibilities and constraints, and help identify under which circumstances can a new set of “3Rs” – Re-use, Rehabilitation and Rehoming – be applied as an alternative to the killing of animals when their scientific usefulness ends.

The Animal welfare science is mostly focused on evaluating and improving the quality of life of animals that actually exist. This leaves out a range of ethically relevant issues regarding the quantity of life – in terms of number of animals living and the longevity of each animal. In many cases quantity and quality are related, and often there is a tension between the two. In this chapter, we develop a discussion around four practical cases presenting quality-quantity dilemmas: a) the issue of dairy cow longevity, b) the early slaughter of male dairy calves, c) the killing of newly-hatched male layer chicks and d) the conflict between reduction and refinement in animal research. The practical, economic and animal welfare aspects characterizing each case are presented together with relevant stakeholders’ perspective. We discuss the cases in light of the most relevant currents of thought in animal ethics, highlighting the main values at stake and which possible solutions may be sought according to each perspective.

An increasing number of academic researchers blog – most as a form of science communication to a wider public. This tool is particularly interesting as it provides a way for scientists to communicate directly with a public rather than depending on journalists. When we launched Animalogos (animalogos.blogspot.com) in December 2009, our main aim was to establish a forum of communication for people working professionally with animal ethics and animal welfare, in order to provide a Portuguese-language professional perspective on issues previously almost exclusively commented on by animal rights and animal protection NGOs. Increasingly, we have also integrated the blog into animal ethics teaching, where we now use it as the main examination tool in the animal ethics discipline of two courses: a postgraduate course in animal welfare and an undergraduate course in veterinary medicine. Individually, students have to write a comment to one of the existing blog posts, a comment which is published by the students themselves. In groups, they have to write a post on a topic of their own choice, which is published after revision. For examination purposes, the texts thus produced by the students are evaluated as a short written essay. Whether to be anonymous or not is the students’ own choice. Using the blog as a resource for teaching and examination started as a pilot project during the academic year 2010/11, during which the method was evaluated from the teachers’ perspective. The main advantages with involving students in the blog activity is that firstly students get to make a real contribution to the public debate and secondly that this draws attention to the blog. The main disadvantage we observed was that most posts written by students require substantial revision before they can be published, sometimes resulting in negative reactions from the students. Continuing the project in 2011/12, we have asked feedback from students. Overall, they view the experience as positive and consider examination through writing for the blog preferable to traditional exams (written or oral), essays or oral presentations. More than half of the students would like this examination approach for more disciplines within the course they are taking. All respondents think that anonymity should be an option when they are writing for the blog.