Phase-out planning for animal experimentation A definition, an argument, and seven action points
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Since the late 2010s, the idea of phase-out planning for animal experimentation (PPAE) has come to the foreground of political debates, but central notions and arguments are understood differently by different participants and stand in need of clarification. This article draws on public communications on ten political projects related to PPAE to propose a philosophical explication of PPAE and to articulate the proponents’ central moral argument. According to the argument, the phase-out of animal experimentation is morally desirable, and planned interventions are both necessary and sufficient to achieve it. The normative and descriptive premises of the argument are stated and discussed, flagging questions that need answering for a more thorough assessment of the argument. This results in a series of seven action points for researchers and stakeholders of PPAE. The overall goal is to enable an open and productive discussion about PPAE in public, political, and academic settings.
Plain language summary
In recent years, a new demand has entered the political arena: that the phase-out of animal experimentation should be planned. But it is important to understand exactly what this means. This article draws on ten documents from governments, parliaments, and NGOs to tease out what they mean by “planning the phase-out of animal experimentation.” It also discusses the main argument that is advanced in favor of phase-out planning and highlights seven gaps in our knowledge that we should try to fill to move the discussion forward. In sum, the article is the first to explicitly define phase-out planning for animal experimentation and to directly discuss its pros and cons from a philosophical point of view. This is helpful in avoiding misunderstandings and talking past each other, enabling an open and productive debate.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is appropriately cited (CC-BY). Copyright on any article in ALTEX is retained by the author(s).
Abarkan, F. Z., Wijen, A. M. A., van Eijden, R. M. G. et al. (2022). Identifying key factors for accelerating the transition to animal-testing-free medical science through co-creative, interdisciplinary learning between students and teachers. Animals 12, 2757. doi:10.3390/ani12202757
Abraham, J. (2017). Just transitions for the miners: Labor environmentalism in the Ruhr and Appalachian coalfields. New Political Sci 39, 218-240. doi:10.1080/07393148.2017.1301313
AFR – Animalfree Research (2023a). Petition “Forschungsplatz Schweiz sichern” [Website in German]. https://forschung-mit-zukunft.ch/ (accessed 03.10.2023)
AFR (2023b). Forschungsplatz Schweiz sichern: Fakten und Zahlen [Website in German]. https://forschung-mit-zukunft.ch/fakten-und-zahlen/ (accessed 09.10.2023)
AFRUK – Animalfree Research UK (2022). Petition “Plan to phase out animal experiments.” https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/590216
Baranzke, H. (2004). Does beast suffering count for Kant: A contextual reading of §17 in the doctrine of virtue. Essays Philos 5, 375-390. doi:10.5840/eip2004529
Baumgartl-Simons, C. and Hohensee, C. (2019). How can the final goal of completely replacing animal procedures successfully be achieved? In K. Herrmann and K. Jayne (eds), Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change (88-123). Leiden/Boston: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004391192_004
Bayertz, K. (2006). Three arguments for scientific freedom. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 9, 377-398. doi:10.1007/s10677-006-9022-x
Bloomfield, A. (2015). Norm antipreneurs and theorising resistance to normative change. Rev Int Stud 42, 310-333. doi:10.1017/S026021051500025X
Brophy, B. (1972). In pursuit of a fantasy. In S. Godlovitch, R. Godlovitch and J. Harris (eds), Animals, Men and Morals: An Enquiry into the Maltreatment of Non-humans (125-145). New York, USA: Taplinger Publishing Company.
Cirefice, G., Schütte, K., Spreitzer, I. et al. (2023). The future of pyrogenicity testing: Phasing out the rabbit pyrogen test. A meeting report. Biologicals 84, 101702. doi:10.1016/j.biologicals.2023.101702
Confederation (2022). Popular initiative “Yes to the ban on animal and human experiments – Yes to research that brings safety and progress.” https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20220213/the-ban-on-animal-and-human-experiments.html (accessed 11.09.2023)
Denktank (2015). In transitie! Nederland internationaal toonaangevend in proefdiervrije innovaties [Report in Dutch]. Denktank Aanvullende Financiering alternatieven voor dierproeven. https://bit.ly/4adGJ5B
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manage Rev 70, 35-36.
EC – European Commission (2015). Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative “Stop Vivisection.” Brussels: European Commission.
EC (2023). Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “Save cruelty-free cosmetics – Commit to a Europe without animal testing.” Brussels: European Commission.
ECI – European Citizens’ Initiative (2013). About Stop Vivisection. http://www.stopvivisection.eu/en/content/why-stop-vivisection (accessed 03.10.2023)
ECI (2021a). Save cruelty-free cosmetics (Annex document). https://register.eci.ec.europa.eu/core/api/register/document/5863 (accessed 03.10.2023)
ECI (2021b). Save cruelty-free cosmetics – Commit to a Europe without animal testing. https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2021/000006_en (accessed 03.10.2023)
Eggel, M. and Würbel, H. (2020). Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research. Lab Anim 55, 233-242. doi:10.1177/0023677220968583
EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018). Strategic Plan to Promote the Development and Implementation of Alternative Test Methods Within the TSCA Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Research and Development; Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/epa_alt_strat_plan_6-20-18_clean_final.pdf
EPA (2020). New Approach Methods Work Plan (June 2020). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Research and Development; Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2020-06/documents/epa_nam_work_plan.pdf
EPA (2021). New Approach Methods Work Plan (December 2021). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Research and Development; Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/nams-work-plan_11_15_21_508-tagged.pdf
EU Parl – European Parliament (2021). Plans and actions to accelerate a transition to innovation without the use of animals in research, regulatory testing and education. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0387_EN.html
Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K. et al. (2018). Science of science. Science 359, eaao0185. doi:10.1126/science.aao0185
Franco, N. H. (2013). Animal experiments in biomedical research: A historical perspective. Animals 3, 238-273. doi:10.3390/ani3010238
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31, 1257-1274. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Gerritsen, V. (2015). Evaluation process for animal experiment applications in Switzerland. ALTEX Proc 4, 37-40. doi:10.58847/ap.1501
Grimm, D. (2019). EPA plan to end animal testing splits scientists. Science 365, 1231. doi:10.1126/science.365.6459.1231
Grimm, D. (2024). EPA scraps plan to end mammal testing by 2035. Science 383, 248. doi:10.1126/science.zbmpq89
Grimm, H., Eggel, M., Deplazes-Zemp, A. et al. (2017). The road to hell is paved with good intentions: Why harm-benefit analysis and its emphasis on practical benefit jeopardizes the credibility of research. Animals 7, 70. doi:10.3390/ani7090070
Gruen, L. (2015). Entangled Empathy: An Alternative Ethic for Our Relationships with Animals. New York, USA: Lantern Books.
Gupta, A. and Mackereth, S. (2023). Definitions. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (eds), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/definitions/ (accessed 08.10.2023)
Hebinck, A., Diercks, G., von Wirth, T. et al. (2022). An actionable understanding of societal transitions: The X-curve framework. Sustain Sci 17, 1009-1021. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-01084-w
Herrmann, K. (2019). Refinement on the way towards replacement: Are we doing what we can? In K. Herrmann and K. Jayne (eds), Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change (3-64). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004391192_002
Innovate UK (2015). A non-animal technologies roadmap for the UK: Advancing predictive biology. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IUK-071221-RoadmapNonAnimalTech.pdf (accessed 03.10.2023)
Kagan, S. (2019). How to Count Animals, More or Less. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829676.001.0001
Kanger, L., Sovacool, B. and Noorkõiv, M. (2020). Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature review. Res Policy 49, 104072. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104072
Kasperbauer, T. J. and Sandøe, P. (2016). Killing as a welfare issue. In The Ethics of Killing Animals (17-31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.003.0002
King, M. and Zohny, H. (2022). Animal researchers shoulder a psychological burden that animal ethics committees ought to address. J Med Ethics 48, 299-303. doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-106945
Korsgaard, C. M. (2018). Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198753858.001.0001
LaFollette, H. and Shanks, N. (1995). Two models of models in biomedical research. Philos Q 45, 141-160. doi:10.2307/2220412
LaFollette, H. and Shanks, N. (1996). Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. Routledge.
Lohse, S. (2021). Scientific inertia in animal-based research in biomedicine. Stud Hist Philos Sci 89, 41-51. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.06.016
Loorbach, D. and Rotmans, J. (2006). Managing transitions for sustainable development. In X. Olsthoorn and A. J. Wieczorek (eds), Understanding Industrial Transformation: Views from Different Disciplines (187-206). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4418-6_10
Marshall, L. J., Constantino, H. and Seidle, T. (2022). Phase-in to phase-out – Targeted, inclusive strategies are needed to enable full replacement of animal use in the European Union. Animals 12, 863. doi:10.3390/ani12070863
Marty, M. S., Andrus, A. K. and Groff, K. A. (2022). Animal metrics: Tracking contributions of new approach methods to reduced animal use. ALTEX 39, 95-112. doi:10.14573/altex.2107211
McCauley, D. and Heffron, R. (2018). Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy 119, 1-7. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.014
Meigs, L., Smirnova, L., Rovida, C. et al. (2018). Animal testing and its alternatives – The most important omics is economics. ALTEX 35, 275-305. doi:10.14573/altex.1807041
Menon, J. M. L., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., Pound, P. et al. (2021). The impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on researchers and their research: A mixed method case study. PLoS One 16, e0260619. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260619
Müller, N. (2022). From here to utopia: Theories of change in nonideal animal ethics. J Agr Environ Ethics 35, 21. doi:10.1007/s10806-022-09894-3
Müller, N. (2023). The 3Rs alone will not reduce total animal experimentation numbers: A fundamental misunderstanding in need of correction. J Appl Anim Ethics Res 5, 269-284. doi:10.1163/25889567-bja10042
NCad – Netherlands National Committee for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (2016). Transition to non-animal research: On opportunities for the phasing out of animal procedures and the stimulation of innovation without laboratory animals.
NCad (2021a). Target image: Cardiovascular research. https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/documents/videos/2021/9/2/streefbeeld-cardiovasculair-onderzoek
NCad (2021b). Target image: (Post)academic education. https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/documents/videos/2021/9/2/streefbeeld-postacademisch-onderwijs
NCad (2021c). Target image: Vocational education. https://english.ncadierproevenbeleid.nl/documents/videos/2021/9/2/streefbeeld-beroepsonderwijs
NCad (2023). Ambition statement on animal free innovations in immunology. https://bit.ly/48PV4UG
Neuhaus, W., Reininger-Gutmann, B., Rinner, B. et al. (2022). The rise of Three Rs Centres and platforms in Europe. Altern Lab Anim 50, 90-120. doi:10.1177/02611929221099165
Nussbaum, M. C. (2007). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA, USA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1c7zftw
Palmer, C. (2012). Does breeding a bulldog harm it? Breeding, ethics and harm to animals. Anim Welf 21, 157-166. doi:10.7120/09627286.21.2.157
PETA (2021). The Research Modernization Deal. https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/peta-2021-Research-Modernization-Deal.pdf (accessed 03.10.2023)
Regan, T. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley/Los Angeles, USA: University of California Press.
Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. and Pound, P. (2022a). The role of systematic reviews in identifying the limitations of preclinical animal research, 2000-2022: Part 1. J R Soc Med 115, 186-192. doi:10.1177/01410768221093551
Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. and Pound, P. (2022b). The role of systematic reviews in identifying the limitations of preclinical animal research, 2000-2022: Part 2. J R Soc Med 115, 231-235. doi:10.1177/01410768221100970
Rodriguez Perez, C., Persson, K., Cajiga Morales, R. M. et al. (2023). Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: The case of Switzerland. ALTEX 40, 635-648. doi:10.14573/altex.2303061
Russell, W. M. S. and Burch, R. L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London, UK: Methuen.
Schiffelers, M.-J. W. A., Blaauboer, B. J., Hendriksen, C. F. M. et al. (2012). Regulatory acceptance and use of 3R models: A multilevel perspective. ALTEX 29, 287-300. doi:10.14573/altex.2012.3.287
Schindler, S. (2013). The animal’s dignity in Swiss Animal Welfare Legislation – Challenges and opportunities. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 84, 251-254. doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2013.02.013
Schot, J. and Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol Anal Strateg 20, 537-554. doi:10.1080/09537320802292651
SDA – Schweizerische Depeschenagentur (2021). Auch Ständerat verwirft Tier- und Menschenversuchsverbotsinitiative [Article in German]. https://www.parlament.ch/de/services/news/Seiten/2021/20210607164002217194158159038_bsd142.aspx
SID – Stichting Informatie Dierproeven (2023). An abrupt ban on animal research stops access to latest, lifesaving medication. https://www.stichtinginformatiedierproeven.nl/nieuws/an-abrupt-ban-on-animal-research-stops-access-to-latest-lifesaving-medication-2/ (accessed 27.07.2023)
Singer, P. (2002). Animal Liberation. New York, USA: Ecco Press.
Taylor, K. and Alvarez, L. R. (2019). An estimate of the number of animals used for scientific purposes worldwide in 2015. Altern Lab Anim 47, 196-213. doi:10.1177/0261192919899853
UvN and NFU – Universiteiten van Nederland, Nederlandse Federatie van Universitair Medische Centra (2023). Ambition statement on innovation in higher education: Using fewer laboratory animals. https://bit.ly/3TBS228
Wang, X. and Lo, K. (2021). Just transition: A conceptual review. Energy Res Soc Sci 82, 102291. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102291
Wilholt, T. (2010). Scientific freedom: Its grounds and their limitations. Stud Hist Philos Sci 41, 174-181. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.03.003
Williams, B. (1965). Ethical consistency. Proc Aristot Soc Suppl 39, 103-124. doi:10.1093/aristoteliansupp/39.1.103
Zeng, A., Shen, Z., Zhou, J. et al. (2019). Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics. Nat Commun 10, 3439. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11401-8