Carbone Larry
Institutional Animal Care and Use Program, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California;, Email:
Comp Med. 2019 Dec 1;69(6):443-450. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-CM-18-000149. Epub 2019 Aug 27.
Scientists have ethical and regulatory commitments to minimize pain and distress during their use of sentient laboratory animals. Here I discuss pain as a special form of distress and the long history of ethical and regulatory standards calling on scientists to prevent, minimize, treat or terminate animal pain. Scientists, veterinarians, and IACUC face 2 challenges: knowledge of effective analgesic doses and regimens for all sexes, ages and genotypes of rodent is incomplete, and concerns regarding the effects of analgesic drugs on research outcomes push scientists to request approval to withhold analgesics and leave animal pain unalleviated. IACUC thus conduct what I call an 'ethics of uncertainty,' in which they factor in the limits of available ethically relevant information on the amount of expected animal suffering, the usefulness of analgesics to mitigate this suffering, and the eventual benefits that come from the research. IACUC must factor in current limitations in severity assessments of various experimental manipulations in various strains, inaccurate pain diagnosis, in known effective analgesic and other refinements, and on effects of pain medications and untreated pain on data outcomes, when deciding to allow potentially painful experiments and animal care practices. This article focuses on 3 areas of concern: the limits of veterinary "professional judgment" when the animal model's degree of pain and the efficacy of pain medications are not yet known; the review of proposals with known, unalleviated significant pain and distress (that is, Category E experiments); and the attempt to review the balance between animal welfare harms and scientific objectives. I propose no new regulations, standards, or ethical norms herein but rather explore some of the implications when existing ethical principles are applied to evolving scientific knowledge (and vice versa). I conclude that applying current animal pain management knowledge to prevailing ethical principles will shift IACUC toward greater caution in allowing potentially painful animal experiments, with heightened caution regarding the ability of analgesics to mitigate the animals' pain.
科学家在使用有感知能力的实验动物时有道德和监管方面的责任,要尽量减少其痛苦和不适。在此,我将疼痛视为一种特殊形式的不适,并探讨了道德和监管标准的悠久历史,这些标准要求科学家预防、减少、治疗或终止动物的疼痛。科学家、兽医和机构动物护理与使用委员会(IACUC)面临两个挑战:对于啮齿动物所有性别、年龄和基因型的有效镇痛剂量和方案的了解并不完整,而且对镇痛药对研究结果影响的担忧促使科学家请求批准不使用镇痛药,从而使动物的疼痛得不到缓解。因此,IACUC进行了我所谓的“不确定性伦理”,即在其中考虑到关于预期动物痛苦程度、镇痛药减轻这种痛苦的效用以及研究最终带来的益处等现有道德相关信息的局限性。在决定是否允许进行可能造成疼痛的实验和动物护理实践时,IACUC必须考虑到当前在各种品系的各种实验操作的严重程度评估方面的局限性、不准确的疼痛诊断、已知有效的镇痛方法及其他改进措施,以及疼痛药物和未治疗的疼痛对数据结果的影响。本文重点关注三个令人关切的领域:当动物模型的疼痛程度和疼痛药物的疗效尚不清楚时,兽医“专业判断”的局限性;对已知存在未缓解的重大疼痛和不适的提案(即E类实验)的审查;以及尝试审查动物福利损害与科学目标之间的平衡。在此我没有提出新的法规、标准或道德规范,而是探讨当现有道德原则应用于不断发展的科学知识(反之亦然)时的一些影响。我的结论是,将当前的动物疼痛管理知识应用于现行道德原则,将使IACUC在允许可能造成疼痛的动物实验时更加谨慎,对镇痛药减轻动物疼痛的能力也会更加谨慎。