Neuroethics and Animals: Report and Recommendations From the University of Pennsylvania Animal Research Neuroethics Workshop

Growing awareness of the ethical implications of neuroscience in the early years of the 21st century led to the emergence of the new academic field of “neuroethics,” which studies the ethical implications of developments in the neurosciences. However, despite the acceleration and evolution of neuroscience research on nonhuman animals, the unique ethical issues connected with neuroscience research involving nonhuman animals remain underdiscussed. This is a significant oversight given the central place of animal models in neuroscience. To respond to these concerns, the Center for Neuroscience and Society and the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society at the University of Pennsylvania hosted a workshop on the “Neuroethics of Animal Research” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At the workshop, expert speakers and attendees discussed ethical issues arising from neuroscience research involving nonhuman animals, including the use of animal models in the study of pain and psychiatric conditions, animal brain-machine interfaces, animal–animal chimeras, cerebral organoids, and the relevance of neuroscience to debates about personhood. This paper highlights important emerging ethical issues based on the discussions at the workshop. This paper includes recommendations for research in the United States from the authors based on the discussions at the workshop, loosely following the format of the 2 Gray Matters reports on neuroethics published by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

IACUC and Veterinary Considerations for Review of ABSL3 and ABSL4 Research Protocols

With the recent upswing of infectious disease outbreaks (coronavirus, influenza, Ebola, etc), there is an ever-increasing need for biocontainment animal use protocols to better address the research of emerging diseases and to increase the health of both animals and humans. It is imperative that we as a research community ensure these protocols are conducted with the utmost scrutiny and regulatory compliance for the welfare of the animals as well as the health and safety concerns of the individual conducting these studies. Both the welfare of the animals and the health and safety of the research staff must be balanced with the integrity of the science being studied. Even prior to reviewing biocontainment protocols, the research stakeholders should have professional and collegial interactions across all levels of the proposed project. These stakeholders should include the attending veterinarian, the principal investigator, the sponsor, and any organic institutional health and safety assets (environmental health and safety, occupational health, biosafety personnel, medical personnel, facilities operations and maintenance, etc). At most institutions, these stakeholders are members of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and may not possess the necessary tools to properly assess an Animal Biosafety Level 3 and 4 animal use protocol. It is the goal of this article to review some basic concepts of biocontainment, discuss critical communications and preapprovals, clinical observations, medical interventions and supportive care, scientific and study endpoints, euthanasia criteria, animal manipulations, documentation, training, emergency response and contingency plans, security, and decontamination and provide a scenario-based and informative thought-provoking process Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee members and veterinary staff may consider during Animal Biosafety Level 3 and 4 protocol review. These topics will enhance the ability of all stakeholders to balance the protection of the people with the integrity of the science and ultimately the welfare of the animal.

Bioethical, Reproducibility, and Translational Challenges of Animal Models

There is no prescribed stage or standardized point at which an animal model protocol is reviewed for reproducibility and translatability. The method of review for a reproducible and translatable study is not consistently documented in peer literature, and this is a major challenge for those working with animal models of human diseases. If the study is ill designed, it is impossible to perform an accurate harm/benefit analysis. In addition, there may be an ethical challenge if the work is not reproducible and translatable. Animal welfare regulations and other documents of control clearly state the role of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees are to look at science justification within the context of animal welfare. This article, concentrating on models not governed by regulations, outlines issues and offers recommendations for refining animal model review with a goal to improve study reproducibility and translatability.

Current Topics in Marmoset Anesthesia and Analgesia

Anesthetic and analgesics are essential components of both clinical and research procedures completed in marmosets. A review of current anesthetic and analgesic regimens for marmosets has been complied to provide a concise reference for veterinarians and investigator teams. Published dose regimens for injectable and inhalant anesthetic drugs and analgesic drugs are included. Appropriate physiological monitoring is key to the success of the procedure and perianesthetic options are provided. Although recent publications have refined anesthesia and analgesia practices, our review demonstrates the continued need for evidence-based resources specific to marmosets.