Animal
Subjects
Case
Studies
1.
Laboratory
Decisions
You
are
entering
your
second
year
as
a
graduate
student
in
a
biosciences
program
at
a
top
rated
research
university.
For
your
second
year
you
are
expected
to
work
in
a
lab
on
biological
systems
that
you
are
interested
in
and
may
provide
experience
with
techniques
you
should
be
familiar
with
for
your
PhD.
You
have
narrowed
down
the
choices
to
two
different
labs.
The
lab
of
Dr.
A
works
exclusively
with
cell
cultures
derived
from
animal,
and
never
with
live
animals.
Dr.
A
is
known
to
object
to
the
use
of
live
animals
in
many
types
of
experiments.
The
lab
of
Dr.
Z,
on
the
other
hand,
studies
similar
cell
systems
but
uses
a
combination
of
cell
cultures
and
live
animal
models,
usually
mice.
Recently
Dr.
Z
has
expanded
the
animals
used
to
include
some
dogs.
Dr.
Z
evidently
doesn’t
object
to
using
live
animals
in
research.
Even
though
there
is
a
difference
in
approach,
assume
each
lab
will
provide
you
with
much
of
the
same
type
of
laboratory
experience.
Discussion
Questions
1. Which
lab
would
you
prefer
to
work
in?
Why?
Does
the
use
of
animals
in
these
labs
concern
you?
2. Dr.
Z’s
new
research
protocol
will
subject
the
dogs
to
a
noticeable
degree
of
pain
and
discomfort,
resulting
in
the
need
to
euthanize
the
dogs.
What
effect
does
this
information
have
on
your
decision
of
labs?
3. Do
you
think
there
are
significant
differences
in
what
you
can
learn
from
in
vitro
studies
versus
in
vivo
studies
that
require
live
animals?
What
would
justify
focusing
on
in
vivo
studies
and
thus
risking
harm
to
animals?
2.
Animal
Models
of
Human
Disease
One
of
the
great
promises
in
medical
research
is
the
use
of
transgenic
animals
to
better
model
human
genetic
diseases.
The
first
attempt
to
produce
an
animal
model
of
human
genetic
disease
by
transgenic
means
was
the
development,
by
embryonic
stem
cell
technology,
of
a
mouse
that
was
designed
to
replicate
Lesh‐Nyhan’s
disease.
Lesh‐Nyhan’s
disease
is
a
particularly
horrible
genetic
disease,
leading
to
devastating
and
untreatable
neurologic
and
behavioral
disorders.
Patients
rarely
live
beyond
their
third
decade,
and
suffer
from
spasticity,
mental
retardation,
and
choreoathetosis
(involuntary
movements).
The
most
striking
aspect
of
the
disease,
however,
is
an
irresistible
compulsion
to
self‐mutilate,
usually
manifested
as
biting
fingers
and
lips.
As
it
turned
out
the
resulting
mouse
model
of
the
disease
was
asymptomatic,
but
still
useful
for
research.
Using
cloning
techniques,
the
mouse
was
reproduced
for
numerous
studies.
However,
it
is
clear
that
a
better
animal
model,
a
higher‐fidelity
model
of
the
disease,
would
be
one
that
was
symptomatic.
Assume
for
the
sake
of
argument
that
the
relevant
metabolic
pathways
could
be
replicated,
and
the
resulting
animal
could
be
cloned
successfully
for
various
trials.
The
creation
of
such
animals
would
generate
both
invaluable
research
and
inestimable
amounts
of
pain
and
suffering
from
these
animals.
(This
case
study
was
adapted
from
Bernard
E.
Rollin,
“Biotechnology
and
Animals:
Ethical
Issues
in
Genetic
Engineering
and
Cloning.”
In
A
Companion
to
Genethics,
edited
by
Justine
Burley
and
John
Harris.
Blackwell,
2002,
pp.
70‐81.)
Discussion
Questions:
1. Should
higher‐fidelity
animal
models
of
genetic
diseases,
such
as
Lesh‐
Nyhan’s
disease
which
have
severe
symptoms,
be
produced?
Why
or
why
not?
2. If
such
mice
were
in
fact
produced,
how
should
the
pain
and
suffering
experienced
by
these
animals
be
managed
or
alleviated?
3. Does
the
fact
that
the
animal
is
produced
through
transgenic
and
cloning
technology
provide
additional
or
heightened
ethical
concerns?
Explain.
4. Imagine
that
the
transgenic
animals
used
for
research
on
Lesh‐Nyhan’s
disease
can
progress
from
mice
to
dogs
to
monkeys,
and
possibly
to
chimpanzees.
Is
there
a
point
at
which
the
research
should
no
longer
continue
in
this
chain
of
potential
animals?
Why
or
why
not?
3. The Human Neuron Mouse
In
the
1980s
Dr.
Irvig
Weissman,
a
professor
of
pathology
and
developmental
biology
at
Standford,
developed
a
SCID‐hu
mouse
which
allowed
the
study
of
human
immune
system
functioning
under
laboratory
conditions
in
mice.
In
early
2000,
Weissman
was
considering
developing
experiments
that
would
result
in
a
human‐mouse
hybrid,
named
the
“Human
Neuron
Mouse”.
He
was
familiar
with
an
inbred
strain
of
mouse
that
formed
brains
in
early
fetal
development,
but,
died
before
birth
because
most
or
all
of
the
developing
neurons
died.
However,
the
glial
cells,
which
make
up
about
90
percent
of
the
brain,
remained
unharmed.
Weissman’s
proposal
was
to
transplant
human
brain
stem
cells
into
the
fetal
mice
just
before
the
mice’s
own
neuron
cells
died.
If
successful,
the
experiments
would
result
in
mice
with
human
derived
neuron
cells
and
mouse
glial
cells.
The
Human
Neuron
Mouse
would
promise
a
humanized
model
organism
ideal
for
studying
human
neurons
in
vivo.
To
date
the
experiments
that
would
lead
to
the
Human
Neuron
Mouse
have
not
been
attempted,
yet
the
proposed
experiments
generated
substantial
debate
about
the
ethics
of
creating
such
a
human‐mouse
hybrid.
Some
argued
that
the
potential
research
and
medical
benefits
favored
the
development
of
the
Human
Neuron
Mouse.
Research
into
human
neural
development
and
longevity
might
provide
breakthroughs
for
various
developmental
and
neurodegenerative
diseases
of
the
brain.
It
would
certainly
aid
in
the
understanding
of
the
basic
biochemical
functions
of
neuron
signaling
and
the
effect
of
different
drugs
on
neural
transmitters.
Others
argued
that
the
proposed
hybrid
was
too
humanized,
and
raised
too
many
unanswered
questions
about
the
moral
status
of
the
human‐mouse
hybrid.
Since
the
hybrid
would
effectively
have
an
entire
brain
developed
from
human
neural
stem‐
cells
suggests
the
possibility
that
the
brain
may
develop
more
human‐like
functions.
Even
though
it
was
unlikely
a
fully
human
brain
would
result,
the
differences
that
did
develop
would
have
serious
ethical
implications
for
how
one
ought
to
treat
the
Human
Neuron
Mouse.
(For
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
ethical
issues
involved,
see
the
target
article
and
peer
commentary
in
Thinking
About
the
Human
Neuron
Mouse,
by
Henry
T.
Greely,
Mildred
K.
Cho,
Linda
F.
Hogle,
Debra
M.
Satz.
American
Journal
of
Bioethics,
May
2007;
7(5):27;
available
online
at
www.bioethics.net/journal.)
Discussion
Questions:
1. In
your
view,
would
it
be
ethical
to
develop
the
Human
Neuron
Mouse?
Explain
your
answer.
2. How
seriously
should
we
take
the
argument
that
the
Human
Neuron
Mouse
is
“too
humanized”
to
be
ethical?
What
kind
of
brain
functions
would
make
the
hybrid
too
humanized?
If
the
Human
Neuron
Mouse
was
developed
and
it
in
fact
had
developed
more
human‐like
cognitive
and
conscious
functions,
should
it
be
treated
differently?
3. If
the
same
research
was
proposed
for
developing
a
human‐mouse
hybrid
that
involved
a
different
biological
system,
for
example
a
digestive
system
modeled
on
human
cells,
would
this
raise
the
same
moral
questions
about
the
research?
4. The
goal
of
creating
humanized
animal
models
is
to
provide
usable
and
biologically
analogous
organisms
for
research
purposes,
there
is
always
the
risk
of
making
the
animal
model
too
much
like
humans
for
ethical
comfort.
Discuss
how
much
is
too
much
when
it
comes
to
humanizing
animals
for
research.
4.
The
Painless
Mouse
Lacy
Brand
worked
extensively
with
animals
in
his
research,
especially
mice.
But
he
was
tired
of
hearing
about
how
animals
shouldn’t
be
used
in
research
because
they
suffer
pain.
What
researchers
needed
was
an
animal
that
could
serve
as
a
proper
research
model
but
itself
not
feel
pain.
Mice
have
been
created
without
a
functioning
immune
system,
so
Lacy
thought
why
not
a
mouse
without
a
functioning
nociceptive
system?
In
his
spare
time
Lacy
worked
out
what
he
thought
was
a
viable
model
for
a
painless
mouse.
It
would
require
some
research
on
the
genetics
of
the
nociceptive
system,
and
many
generations
of
mice
to
produce
the
right
mouse,
but
he
was
confident
his
plan
would
work.
After
writing
up
the
proposed
experiments
Lacy
submitted
it
to
his
University’s
Institutional
Animal
Care
and
Use
Committee
which
reviews
and
approves
or
denies
research
proposal
involving
animal
subjects.
Discussion
Questions
1. Assume
that
Lacy’s
research
proposal
to
produce
a
“painless
mouse”
is
viable
even
if
it
would
take
many
generations
of
mice,
would
it
resolve
the
ethical
dilemmas
involved
in
animal
pain
and
research?
2. If
you
were
a
board
member
of
the
IACUC
reviewing
Lacy’s
proposal,
would
you
permit
the
research?
What
ethical
concerns
would
you
raise?
3. Does
this
research
proposal
exhibit
a
general
disregard
for
the
value
of
animal
life?
That
is,
does
it
merely
treat
animals
as
a
tool
to
be
manipulated
for
the
needs
of
humans?
Is
this
cause
for
concern?
5.
Animal
Activism
Animal
activism
against
the
use
of
animals
in
research
has
a
long
history,
as
far
back
as
the
antivivisectionist
movement
in
the
late
19th
century.
In
more
recent
times
activists
have
adopted
a
number
of
different
strategies,
with
varied
results.
For
example,
in
the
early
1980s,
Thomas
A.
Gennarelli,
a
professor
at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania,
was
studying
the
effect
of
head
injuries
in
baboons.
His
goal
was
to
identify
an
animal
model
in
which
to
study
physiological
and
anatomical
effects
of
head
trauma
in
humans.
Baboons
were
strapped
to
tables
and
fitted
with
monitors,
and
their
heads
were
cemented
inside
a
helmet.
A
hydraulic
piston
then
suddenly
twisted
or
jolted
their
heads
which
could
simulate
up
to
2,000
times
the
force
of
gravity.
The
monkeys
were
typically
comatose
and
paralyzed
after
the
intervention,
although
some
died.
The
surviving
animals
were
sustained
for
two
months,
at
which
point
they
were
sacrificed
and
the
effect
of
the
injuries
on
their
brains
was
studied.
However,
in
May
1984,
members
of
the
Animal
Liberation
Front
(ALF)
invaded
Gennarelli’s
laboratory,
stole
videotapes
of
the
experiments,
and
released
them
to
the
public.
People
for
the
Ethical
Treatment
of
Animals
(PETA)
released
an
edited
version
of
the
tapes,
showing
the
injured
and
distressed
monkeys.
The
ALF
made
two
other
raids,
this
time
stealing
thirteen
animals
from
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
veterinary
school.
In
the
public
outcry
that
followed,
the
adequacy
of
the
anesthesia
used
on
the
baboons
was
questioned,
as
was
the
general
treatment
of
the
baboons.
The
validity
of
the
scientific
hypothesis
underlying
the
research
was
also
criticized.
Animal
activists
conducted
sit‐ins
at
the
National
Institutes
of
Health,
which
was
funding
Gennarelli’s
research.
In
direct
response
to
this
case,
Congress
enacted
new
laws
mandating
more
rigorous
oversight
and
protections
for
the
welfare
of
laboratory
animals.
In
recent
years
some
activists
have
become
more
aggressive.
Activists
have
organized
rallies
or
vigils
outside
the
houses
of
animal
researchers.
In
addition,
two
reported
events
of
bombs
being
placed
at
the
homes
of
prominent
animal
researchers
received
national
news
coverage.
In
response
Congress
has
recently
enacted
a
law
that
punishes
threats
to
animal
researchers.
But
activists
have
also
adopted
other,
less
violent
tactics.
One
tactic
is
to
infiltrate
animal
laboratories
and
care
facilities
in
order
to
record
the
treatment
of
animals.
Individuals
would
apply
for
jobs
in
animal
care
facilities
and
covertly
videotape
the
cage
areas,
procedures
on
animals,
and
other
aspects
of
the
laboratory
use
of
animals.
Then
the
individuals
would
quit
the
job
and
hand
over
the
tapes
to
organizations
like
PETA,
who
then
distributes
them
over
the
internet
or
other
media
outlets.
In
some
cases,
they
exposed
questionable
practices
and
noncompliance
to
Federal
regulations
governing
animal
care.
They
also
caused
much
consternation
in
the
animal
research
communities.
Discussion
Questions
1. Regardless
of
your
views
on
the
ethics
of
animal
research,
what
do
you
think
about
the
efforts
of
animal
activists
to
expose
the
use
of
animals
in
laboratories?
Is
it
generally
good
that
there
are
people
like
this
pushing
for
reform?
2. If
the
efforts
of
groups
like
PETA
are
effective
in
exposing
mistreatment
of
animals
or
other
violations
of
existing
law,
does
this
justify
their
actions?
Would
the
legal
reforms
mentioned
have
been
enacted
by
Congress
if
ALF
or
PETA
did
not
instigate
the
raids?
Would
institutional
boards
have
been
concerned
enough
to
look
into
the
matter?
3. Clearly
bombing
the
house
of
an
animal
research
goes
to
far.
What
about
invading
laboratories
or
the
use
of
spies,
as
mentioned
in
the
case
study;
is
this
unethical?
Explain.
4. How
should
animal
researchers
respond
to
efforts
of
animal
activists?
Should
they
actively
engage
them
in
a
public
forum
or
simply
ignore
them?
6. Science Fair
You
are
asked
to
judge
a
science
fair
at
a
local
High
School.
One
project
catches
your
attention.
It
is
an
interesting
study
of
differential
feeding
habits
and
its
effects
on
growth
patterns
in
mice.
The
student
hypothesized
that
feeding
mice
limited
pet
chow
in
combination
with
limited
water
intake
would
change
growing
patterns
and
some
behavioral
patterns
in
mice.
The
students
bought
six
mice
from
a
local
pet
store
and
split
them
into
two
groups.
Both
groups
were
given
the
same
pet
chow
and
water,
but
one
group
had
unlimited
access
to
the
food
and
water,
whereas
the
other
was
limited
to
measured
quantities
of
chow
and
water
each
day.
Each
week
for
three
weeks
the
student
weighed
and
measured
each
mouse,
and
evaluated
their
activity
in
a
mouse
play
set
which
included
a
running
wheel
and
a
simple
tunnel
maze.
The
amount
of
time
spent
on
each
machine
was
timed
during
a
thirty‐minute
session
for
each
mouse.
At
the
completion
of
the
three
weeks
the
mice
were
to
be
killed
and
dissected
to
examine
organ
development.
The
student
found,
as
expected
that
the
group
with
unlimited
access
to
food
and
water
increased
in
size
by
20%
compared
to
the
limited
group,
but
they
were
also
less
active
during
the
sessions
in
the
play
set.
The
student
also
found
that
mice
in
the
unlimited
group
had
what
appeared
to
be
normal
organ
development,
whereas
the
mice
in
the
limited
group
had
some
abnormal
organ
development;
the
organs
were
proportionally
smaller,
and
several
had
unexpected
growths.
The
student
wasn’t
sure
if
the
growths
were
a
result
of
the
food
regime
or
just
coincidental
because
of
the
low
number
of
mice
used.
The
study
was
interesting,
not
just
because
it
was
well
designed
and
ambitious
but
because
it
was
the
only
project
to
use
live
animals.
After
checking
with
the
school
officials
you
find
out
that
the
High
School
policy
discourages
the
use
of
animals
in
science
projects,
but
they
can
be
done
on
the
approval
and
supervision
of
a
biology
teacher,
which
is
how
this
student
proceeded.
Discussion
Questions
1. As
far
as
you
can
tell
the
mice
were
treated
well
and
terminated
humanely,
without
undue
pain.
What
would
you
say
to
the
student
about
the
use
of
animals
in
this
science
fair
project?
Would
you
caution
the
student?
Would
you
recommend
different
techniques?
Would
you
discourage
the
use
of
animals
in
this
way?
2. Does
the
fact
that
this
experiment
was
for
a
science
fair
or
used
such
a
small
number
of
mice
and
thus
is
unlikely
to
be
published
or
advance
knowledge,
raise
any
ethical
concerns
about
this
use
of
animals
in
experiments?
3. Should
live
animals
be
used
as
teaching
tools
for
High
School
science
education?
Why
or
why
not?
When
is
it
appropriate
to
introduce
live
animals
as
experimental
subjects
in
science
education?