Simon Lohse (Leibniz Universität Hannover), Dirk Alexander Frick (Leibniz Universität Hannover), Rebecca Knab (Leibniz Universität Hannover)
Background: A polarized debate on animal experimentation has persisted for decades in both academia and the general public. Correspondingly, animal experimentation has been on the agenda of many disciplines in the humanities and the social sciences, such as ethics (e.g., "What is the moral status of animals?"), law (e.g., "How should we regulate animal experimentation?"), sociology (e.g., "How do scientists justify animal experimentation in practice?"), and philosophy of science (e.g., "What is a model organism?"). However, there has been only little interaction between these disciplinary approaches, leaving a number of issues underanalyzed.
Aims & Methodology: In our poster presentation, we attempt to bridge this gap by integrating a philosophy of science approach and ELSI research (i.e. research on ethical, legal and social implications). We address common but problematic assumptions about the use of non-human animals in biomedical research that are held by proponents and opponents of this research practice, respectively. Our aim is to debunk these assumptions by showing that they are grounded in (a) an overly simplified picture of scientific practice and its regulation, (b) unjustified generalizations, (c) and/or the downplaying of uncertainties. We focus on the academic discourse in Europe and the US as well as resources and platforms related to science communication (such as "Cruelty Free International" and "Understanding Animal Research"). Since we are aiming for a balanced discussion, we will describe and analyze three misconceptions each held by proponents of animal experimentation (P1-P3) and opponents (O1-O3), respectively.
Misconceptions:
P1) “Progress in biomedical research and medicine is unfeasible without animal experimentation.”
P2) “The current regulatory regime ensures that only scientifically sound and scientifically indispensable animal experiments are performed.”
P3) “The implementation of the 3R principle (replacement, reduction, refinement) and harm-benefit-analyses ensure that animal experimentation is practiced in an ethical way.”
O1) “Animal experimentation in basic research does not translate into health benefits for humanity.“
O2) "Animal experimentation for translational reasons is misguided in principle as ‘humans are no 70-kg mice.’”
O3) “Almost all animal experiments used in translational research could be replaced by non-animal-methods.”
Conclusion: Our analysis of these assumptions will show that the integration of ELSI research and philosophy of science is useful for understanding the disparity of views within the debate on animal experimentation. Most importantly, debunking common misconceptions among prominent positions allows for a more nuanced discussion of the uncertainties and the balancing of goals and values in animal-based biomedical research.
