In this chapter, Mylan Engel Jr. argues that animal experimentation is neither epistemically nor morally justified and should be abolished. Engel argues that the only serious attempt at justifying animal experimentation is the benefits argument, according to which animal experiments are justified because the benefits that humans receive from the experiments outweigh the costs imposed on the animal subjects. According to Engel, the benefits we allegedly receive from animal-based biomedical research are primarily epistemic, in that experimenting on animal models is supposed to provide us with knowledge of the origin and proper treatment of human disease. However, Engel argues that animal models are extremely unreliable at predicting how drugs will behave in humans, whether candidate drugs will be safe in humans, and whether candidate drugs will be effective in humans. Engel concludes that animal-based research fails to provide the epistemic, and thereby moral, benefits needed to justify its continued use.
Governance Framework for Biomedical Research in Singapore: A Risk-Based Account. Global Bioethics and New Evolutionary Challenges. Animal Experimentation: Right vs Rights. Bioethics - A Plethora of Perspectives. Clinical Ethics Committees in Western Europe: A Developmental Model for Asia. Bioethics: An Overview.
Introduction: The use of animals in experiments and their role in the development of medical sciences are undeniable. Humane endpoints terminate pain and distress in laboratory animals, which are experimented in painful procedures and an involuntary manner. This study was going to review studies published in this area to assist researchers in developing their approach. Methods: Articles used in this review study were obtained from relevant databases including Pubmed, Scopus, Science Direct, OVID, SID, Magiran and Google scholar. Results: “Humane endpoints” or killing the animal humanely means the point at which an experimental animal’s pain and/or distress is terminated. This pain and distress are not necessarily accompanied by clinical symptoms and it can also be recognized by biochemical, physiological and molecular biomarkers testing. Conclusion: Regarding the extensive use of laboratory animals, the aim is not only to take care of animals but also to develop knowledge and prevent unintentional animal suffering and death. Increasing awareness of ethical issues regarding research animal use needs scientific information and designing experiments, which are terminated immediately after achieving main goals. Otherwise, it threatens the life of animal and leads to the animal suffering.
Anti-vivisectionists charge that animal experimenters are speciesists—people who unjustly discriminate against members of other species. Until recently most defenders of experimentation denied the charge. After the publication of The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research in the New England Journal of Medicine, experimenters had a more aggressive reply: I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible, it is essential for right conduct .... Most researchers now embrace Cohen's response as part of their defense of animal experimentation. Cohen asserts that both rights and utilitarian arguments
Biomedical research is essential to the health and well-being of our society. Animal use for biomedical research has a long history and is routinely performed in new drug discovery and development processes. Animal experiments are an integral part of the curriculum for students in the life sciences, including pharmacy, to learn how to conduct animal experiments. These experiments may cause pain and distress to the animals. Laws and regulations have been enacted to make it illegal to cause undue pain or suffering to animals. These guidelines provide that due and full consideration should be given to alternative technologies not involving animal testing. Despite the movement to minimize animal use in research, pieces of evidence show that there has been a continuous increase in the worldwide use of laboratory animals over 10 years, from 115.2 animals to 192.1 million. The lack of suitable animal-alternative technologies and unavailability of required infrastructures are some of the reasons for animal use. As per directives of the University Grant Commission, the Pharmacy Council of India has decided to prohibit animal experimentation in pharmacy education. This adversely affected teaching and research activities in pharmacy institutions. As a result, the number of seats available for the postgraduate course (Master of Pharmacy) in Pharmacology is decreasing every year. In 2021, the highest number of seats are available for Pharmaceutics (9510, 35%) followed by that for the Pharmacology (4620, 17%). This article mainly focuses on the background of Indian legislation for animal experimentation and the impact of these regulations on animal experiments for pharmacy education and research in India.
Volume 25, Issue 1 (March 2021) Physiol Pharmacol 2021, 25(1): 1-6 | Back to browse issues page 10.32598/ppj.25.1.10 XML Print Download citation: BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks Send citation to: Mendeley Zotero RefWorks Najafi H, Zarei R, Alimoradian A, Asafari M, Mohammadi M, Samadi F, et al . A review on humane endpoints in animal experimentation for biomedical research. Physiol Pharmacol. 2021; 25 (1) :1-6 URL: http://ppj.phypha.ir/article-1-1606-en.html A review on humane endpoints in animal experimentation for biomedical research