The first two years of the new millennium have brought the Swiss and now also the German animal protection laws changes, which can well be termed the beginning of a possible revolution of traditional legal thought. With the decision of the German Bundestag on the 17th of May 2002, animals were included under the protection of the constitution: The anthropocentric exclusivity of the constitution has been broken. And even though the established anthropocentricity in Germany as in Switzerland will do everything to minimise what it deems 'the damage', the decisive step to open new paths has been taken. in light of this new situation, some statements made in this report have now fortunately become obsolete.
The ability of humans to think further than and feel moral obligations towards more than themselves and their own species reaches back into antiquity, as shown by example in this report addressed to Pythagoras: The concept that humanity as a moral duty also includes other living creatures is old, protective legislation for animals was a fruit of the 19th century, but the legal-constitutional acknowledgement of this duty only took place in our time: in 1980 in the constitution of the Swiss canton Aargau, in 1992 in the national constitution of Switzerland and in 2002 in the constitutional law of Germany. But, these are all only symbols of intentions which are not self-fulfilling. The European thinking tradition which has re-emerged over the past years, has mainly regional meaning, especially in the context of historical-humanitarian monographs and anthologies, e.g. from Peter Dinzelbacher, Manuela Linnemann, Paul Münch and Hans-Peter Schütt (see Chapter 3.1 of this report), and only recently from Monica Libell (Chapter 3.1.1) and Helena Röcklinsberg (3.2). Possibly, this development has strengthened the increase of challenging instead of sales-orientated literature.

The framework of legal regulations for biomedical research is characterised by the conflicts which a look into the constitution typically reveals for all complex questions. Weighty constitutional aspects support scientific advances, but numerous aspects also call for prohibition or limitation. After wise deliberations the concrete legislative answer must reach a suitable compromise between the two poles ('practical concordance'). In a concordant, sustainable social order, the ethical conditions for the continuation of biomedical development may not differ too much from the legal guidelines. Otherwise, acceptance of the regulations must be questioned. If 'animal protection' should be entered into the constitution as a state aim, restrictions of experimental research on animals could be the consequence. However, the simple legislator would still have to fixate the (new) aspects to be considered in a binding form. In the end, this does not necessarily need to lead to more regulations than are already set out in the animal protection law.

The Jewish-Christian convictions than man was created as the image of God founded the "ethics of unavailability" which contrast with the utilitarian "ethics of interests." As man's nature is imperfect according to biblical understanding, those responsible in the field of experimental medicine should counteract all tendencies in society which promote an utopian definition of health and an eugenic mentality (idea of the "perfection of mankind"). Consequently, scientists must reflect their own image of man and the effects of their actions on this image. The goals of experimental medicine must also be examined under the aspect of fairness: do they only benefit a minority in the rich industrial nations?
As in research on humans, the ethical evaluation of animal experiments must consider the question of the underlying image of humanity and the responsibility of mankind connected to it. Because of changes in society's values, the validity of traditional anthropocentrism is increasingly questioned. However, this does not affect the view of the special position of man as the bearer of responsibility.
Even though there are different biblical statements on the relationship between man and animal, the Christian maxim to minimise violence towards animals can be derived from them. In the case of animal experiments this means: experiments which cause the animals severe suffering must be avoided by waiving the potential gain of knowledge from them.
In general: in an ethical discussion on medical experiments using humans or animals, the public must be informed completely and involved effectively. A moratorium must be possible before plans become facts. Thinking about ethical problems in the area of experimental medicine should not be separated from the far-reaching questions about changes in our lifestyle and consumer behaviour.

Large parts of our modern world are products of science and technology. Natural structures are decreasing, artificial (technical) structures are increasing. This is not only true for technical or technically-based developments in the strict sense (e.g. information and communication technologies), but also for developments in the fields of medicine and biology (e.g. reproductive medicine, gene technology). At the same time, progress based on science and technology is proving limitless. So, it is necessary to think about human measures that can be applied to scientific and technological advances, and to realise them. These are questions posed by scientific ethics, about contrasting pure knowledge provision with orientated knowledge finding. Scientific ethics show themselves to be part of general civil ethics, instead of special ethics in the usual sense, and are connected with them through a special ethos, the scientist's ethos.

1) The goal of modern science, to which also today's medicine is obliged, is the unlimited advance of knowledge and ability. It objectifies, neutralises and levels all of its objects to parameters which can be analysed, calculated, manipulated and performed; it abstracts from all personal mentality, experience and achievements in our surroundings and from all goals and personal daily appraisals of ourselves and the world around us.
2) The goal of scientific knowledge, its progress and its translation into technology is in today's understanding the abolition of distress, disease and suffering as well as the increase of ways and means to make human existence more endurable, comfortable, richer in experience and longer. As such a functionally defined good, science is bound to the laws and dynamics of the (national and global) market.
3) The term 'human dignity' as it is used in article 1 of the German constitution is based on the idea of self-purpose, respectively self-worth, which a human has a right to for his own sake, irrespective of other goods or purposes. This term finds its binding interpretation in the system of basic rights (R. Zippelius). Here, an elemental legal right of the individual is addressed, which cannot be put to disposition for any benefit or damage to the state or the society, one last taboo which protects every individual 'without consideration of the person' from interference and complete instrumentation by others.
4) Man as an object of modern, scientific research is 'objectified' like any other object. The drive to knowledge is limitless. The general and scientific relations between the progress of knowledge and ability and the goods and market values mentioned above offer no protection of man as a person from complete objectification and instrumentation. In the context of a society-dominated naturalistic concept of man, in which man is considered no more than a complex system of needs and interests, human dignity does in fact seem to be endangered. Some see a prime example of the conflict on the limits of man's self-instrumentation in the current discussion on the ethical limitations of stem cell research.

ECVAM CORNER
Veränderungen bei ECVAM
ESAC Stellungnahmen

NEWS
EU: Thomas Hartung ist Nachfolger von Michael Balls
EU: Sechstes Rahmenprogramm im Bereich Forschung ermöglicht Projekte zur Entwicklung von Alternativmethoden
CH: Tier keine Sache
D: Felix-Wankel-Tierschutz-Forschungspreise 2002 verliehen
D: Ausschreibung des Felix-Wankel-Tierschutzpreises 2003
D: BMVEL - 22. Ausschreibung eines Forschungspreises zur Förderung von Alternativmethoden
D: Förderung der Life-Science-Industrie durch das BMBF
D: Neuer Kommentar zum Deutschen Tierschutzgesetz
L: Anny-Eck-Hieff-Preis 2002 geht an Lisa Wiesmüller und Frank Bootz
UK: Neu erschienen: Cell of Biological Culture Models Barriers
USA: Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences
USA: David Morton erhält den Russel & Burch Award 2002
USA: CAAT Anerkennungspreis für Paul Flecknell
USA: Coenraad Hendriksen wird mit dem Doerenkamp-Zbinden Award geehrt
USA: Organ Simulator revolutioniert Chirurgen Training
USA: "Mini-Hirn" auf Glas-Chip für Medikamententests
USA: Vögel, Mäuse und Ratten "für immer" nicht schutzwürdig?
USA: Ehemalige Versuchsaffen der Coulston Foundation übersiedeln in Florida-Schutzpark
USA: Resolution der United States Animal Health Association zur Prüfung von Veterinärimpfstoffen

COMMENTS
Michael Balls: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Some thoughts on Leaving ECVAM
Toni Lindl, Manfred Schmitt und Manfred Völkel und Markus Deutsch
Zum Artikel von Kay Brune in ALTEX 19, 3, 2002: Animal experimentation in sciences: Sadistic nonsense or indispensable necessity?

AUTHOR INDEX 2002