animal research studies with ethical issues

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C., United States of America, Department of Medicine, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C., United States of America

Affiliation Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C., United States of America

• Hope R. Ferdowsian, 

Published: September 7, 2011

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024059
• Reader Comments

Citation: Ferdowsian HR, Beck N (2011) Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24059. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024059

Editor: Catriona J. MacCallum, Public Library of Science, United Kingdom

Copyright: © 2011 Ferdowsian, Beck. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors are grateful to the National Science Foundation (grant SES-0957163) and the Arcus Foundation (grant 0902-34) for the financial support for the corresponding conference, Animals, Research, and Alternatives: Measuring Progress 50 Years Later. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: HRF and NB are employed by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is a non-governmental organization which promotes higher ethical standards in research and alternatives to the use of animals in research, education, and training. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit organization, and the authors adhered to PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

In 1959, William Russell and Rex Burch published the seminal book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which emphasized r eduction, r efinement, and r eplacement of animal use, principles which have since been referred to as the “3 Rs”. These principles encouraged researchers to work to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives when possible. Despite the attention brought to this issue by Russell and Burch and since, the number of animals used in research and testing has continued to increase, raising serious ethical and scientific issues. Further, while the “3 Rs” capture crucially important concepts, they do not adequately reflect the substantial developments in our new knowledge about the cognitive and emotional capabilities of animals, the individual interests of animals, or an updated understanding of potential harms associated with animal research. This Overview provides a brief summary of the ethical and scientific considerations regarding the use of animals in research and testing, and accompanies a Collection entitled Animals, Research, and Alternatives: Measuring Progress 50 Years Later , which aims to spur ethical and scientific advancement.

Introduction

One of the most influential attempts to examine and affect the use of animals in research can be traced back to1959, with the publication of The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique [1] . William Russell and Rex Burch published this seminal book in response to marked growth in medical and veterinary research and the concomitant increase in the numbers of animals used. Russell and Burch's text emphasized r eduction, r efinement, and r eplacement of animal use, principles which have since been referred to as the “3 Rs”. These principles encouraged researchers to work to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives when possible.

Despite the attention brought to this issue by Russell and Burch, the number of animals used in research and testing has continued to increase. Recent estimates suggest that at least 100 million animals are used each year worldwide [2] . However, this is likely an underestimate, and it is impossible to accurately quantify the number of animals used in or for experimentation. Full reporting of all animal use is not required or made public in most countries. Nevertheless, based on available information, it is clear that the number of animals used in research has not significantly declined over the past several decades.

The “3 Rs” serve as the cornerstone for current animal research guidelines, but questions remain about the adequacy of existing guidelines and whether researchers, review boards, and funders have fully and adequately implemented the “3 Rs”. Further, while the “3 Rs” capture crucially important concepts, they do not adequately reflect the substantial developments in our new knowledge about the cognitive and emotional capabilities of animals; an updated understanding of the harms inherent in animal research; and the changing cultural perspectives about the place of animals in society [3] , [4] . In addition, serious questions have been raised about the effectiveness of animal testing and research in predicting anticipated outcomes [5] – [13] .

In August 2010, the Georgetown University Kennedy Institute of Ethics, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, The George Washington University, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine jointly held a two day multi-disciplinary, international conference in Washington, DC, to address the scientific, legal, and political opportunities and challenges to implementing alternatives to animal research. This two-day symposium aimed to advance the study of the ethical and scientific issues surrounding the use of animals in testing and research, with particular emphasis on the adequacy of current protections and the promise and challenges of developing alternatives to the use of animals in basic research, pharmaceutical research and development, and regulatory toxicology. Speakers who contributed to the conference reviewed and contributed new knowledge regarding the cognitive and affective capabilities of animals, revealed through ethology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and related disciplines. Speakers also explored the dimensions of harm associated with animal research, touching on the ethical implications regarding the use of animals in research. Finally, several contributors presented the latest scientific advances in developing alternatives to the use of animals in pharmaceutical research and development and regulatory toxicity testing.

This Collection combines some papers that were written following this conference with an aim to highlight relevant progress and research. This Overview provides a brief summary of the ethical and scientific considerations regarding the use of animals in research and testing, some of which are highlighted in the accompanying Collection.

Analysis and Discussion

Ethical considerations and advances in the understanding of animal cognition.

Apprehension around burgeoning medical research in the late 1800s and the first half of the 20 th century sparked concerns over the use of humans and animals in research [14] , [15] . Suspicions around the use of humans were deepened with the revelation of several exploitive research projects, including a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners by the Nazi German regime during World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis study. These abuses served as the impetus for the establishment of the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, and the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1974) and the resulting Belmont Report [16] – [18] . Today, these guidelines provide a platform for the protection of human research subjects, including the principles of respect, beneficence, and justice, as well as special protections for vulnerable populations.

Laws to protect animals in research have also been established. The British Parliament passed the first set of protections for animals in 1876, with the Cruelty to Animals Act [19] . Approximately ninety years later, the U.S. adopted regulations for animals used in research, with the passage of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 [20] . Subsequent national and international laws and guidelines have provided basic protections, but there are some significant inconsistencies among current regulations [21] . For example, the U.S. Animal Welfare Act excludes purpose-bred birds, rats, or mice, which comprise more than 90% of animals used in research [20] . In contrast, certain dogs and cats have received special attention and protections. Whereas the U.S. Animal Welfare Act excludes birds, rats and mice, the U.S. guidelines overseeing research conducted with federal funding includes protections for all vertebrates [22] , [23] . The lack of consistency is further illustrated by the “U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training” which stress compliance with the U.S. Animal Welfare Act and “other applicable Federal laws, guidelines, and policies” [24] .

While strides have been made in the protection of both human and animal research subjects, the nature of these protections is markedly different. Human research protections emphasize specific principles aimed at protecting the interests of individuals and populations, sometimes to the detriment of the scientific question. This differs significantly from animal research guidelines, where the importance of the scientific question being researched commonly takes precedence over the interests of individual animals. Although scientists and ethicists have published numerous articles relevant to the ethics of animal research, current animal research guidelines do not articulate the rationale for the central differences between human and animal research guidelines. Currently, the majority of guidelines operate on the presumption that animal research should proceed based on broad, perceived benefits to humans. These guidelines are generally permissive of animal research independent of the costs to the individual animal as long as benefits seem achievable.

The concept of costs to individual animals can be further examined through the growing body of research on animal emotion and cognition. Studies published in the last few decades have dramatically increased our understanding of animal sentience, suggesting that animals' potential for experiencing harm is greater than has been appreciated and that current protections need to be reconsidered. It is now widely acknowledged by scientists and ethicists that animals can experience pain and distress [25] – [29] . Potential causes of harm include invasive procedures, disease, and deprivation of basic physiological needs. Other sources of harm for many animals include social deprivation and loss of the ability to fulfill natural behaviors, among other factors. Numerous studies have demonstrated that, even in response to gentle handling, animals can show marked changes in physiological and hormonal markers of stress [30] .

Although pain and suffering are subjective experiences, studies from multiple disciplines provide objective evidence of animals' abilities to experience pain. Animals demonstrate coordinated responses to pain and many emotional states that are similar to those exhibited by humans [25] , [26] . Animals share genetic, neuroanatomical, and physiological similarities with humans, and many animals express pain in ways similar to humans. Animals also share similarities with humans in genetic, developmental, and environmental risk factors for psychopathology [25] , [26] . For example, fear operates in a less organized subcortical neural circuit than pain, and it has been described in a wide variety of species [31] . More complex markers of psychological distress have also been described in animals. Varying forms of depression have been repeatedly reported in animals, including nonhuman primates, dogs, pigs, cats, birds and rodents, among others [32] – [34] . Anxiety disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, have been described in animals including chimpanzees and elephants [35] , [36] , [37] .

In addition to the capacity to experience physical and psychological pain or distress, animals also display many language-like abilities, complex problem-solving skills, tool related cognition and pleasure-seeking, with empathy and self-awareness also suggested by some research. [38] – [44] . Play behavior, an indicator of pleasure, is widespread in mammals, and has also been described in birds [45] , [46] . Behavior suggestive of play has been observed in other taxa, including reptiles, fishes and cephalopods [43] . Self-awareness, assessed through mirror self-recognition, has been reported for chimpanzees and other great apes, magpies, and some cetaceans. More recent studies have shown that crows are capable of creating and using tools that require access to episodic-like memory formation and retrieval [47] . These findings suggest that crows and related species display evidence of causal reasoning, flexible learning strategies, imagination and prospection, similar to findings in great apes. These findings also challenge our assumptions about species similarities and differences and their relevance in solving ethical dilemmas regarding the use of animals in research.

Predictive Value of Animal Data and the Impact of Technical Innovations on Animal Use

In the last decade, concerns have mounted about how relevant animal experiments are to human health outcomes. Several papers have examined the concordance between animal and human data, demonstrating that findings in animals were not reliably replicated in human clinical research [5] – [13] . Recent systematic reviews of treatments for various clinical conditions demonstrated that animal studies have been poorly predictive of human outcomes in the fields of neurology and vascular disease, among others [7] , [48] . These reviews have raised questions about whether human diseases inflicted upon animals sufficiently mimic the disease processes and treatment responses seen in humans.

The value of animal use for predicting human outcomes has also been questioned in the regulatory toxicology field, which relies on a codified set of highly standardized animal experiments for assessing various types of toxicity. Despite serious shortcomings for many of these assays, most of which are 50 to 60 years old, the field has been slow to adopt newer methods. The year 2007 marked a turning point in the toxicology field, with publication of a landmark report by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), highlighting the need to embrace in vitro and computational methods in order to obtain data that more accurately predicts toxic effects in humans. The report, “Toxicity Testing in the 21 st Century: A Vision and a Strategy,” was commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, partially due to the recognition of weaknesses in existing approaches to toxicity testing [49] . The NRC vision calls for a shift away from animal use in chemical testing toward computational models and high-throughput and high-content in vitro methods. The report emphasized that these methods can provide more predictive data, more quickly and affordably than traditional in vivo methods. Subsequently published articles address the implementation of this vision for improving the current system of chemical testing and assessment [50] , [51] .

While a sea change is underway in regulatory toxicology, there has been much less dialogue surrounding the replacement of animals in research, despite the fact that far more animals are used in basic and applied research than in regulatory toxicology. The use of animals in research is inherently more difficult to approach systematically because research questions are much more diverse and less proscribed than in regulatory toxicology [52] . Because researchers often use very specialized assays and systems to address their hypotheses, replacement of animals in this area is a more individualized endeavour. Researchers and oversight boards have to evaluate the relevance of the research question and whether the tools of modern molecular and cell biology, genetics, biochemistry, and computational biology can be used in lieu of animals. While none of these tools on their own are capable of replicating a whole organism, they do provide a mechanistic understanding of molecular events. It is important for researchers and reviewers to assess differences in the clinical presentation and manifestation of diseases among species, as well as anatomical, physiological, and genetic differences that could impact the transferability of findings. Another relevant consideration is how well animal data can mirror relevant epigenetic effects and human genetic variability.

Examples of existing and promising non-animal methods have been reviewed recently by Langley and colleagues, who highlighted advances in fields including orthodontics, neurology, immunology, infectious diseases, pulmonology, endocrine and metabolism, cardiology, and obstetrics [52] .

Many researchers have also begun to rely solely on human data and cell and tissue assays to address large areas of therapeutic research and development. In the area of vaccine testing and development, a surrogate in-vitro human immune system has been developed to help predict an individual's immune response to a particular drug or vaccine [53] , [54] . This system includes a blood-donor base of hundreds of individuals from diverse populations and offers many benefits, including predictive high-throughput in vitro immunology to assess novel drug and vaccine candidates, measurement of immune responses in diverse human populations, faster cycle time for discovery, better selection of drug candidates for clinical evaluation, and reductions in the time and costs to bring drugs and vaccines to the market. In the case of vaccines, this system can be used at every stage, including in vitro disease models, antigen selection and adjuvant effects, safety testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and potency assays. When compared with data from animal experiments, this system has produced more accurate pre-clinical data.

The examples above illustrate how innovative applications of technology can generate data more meaningful to humans, and reduce or replace animal use, but advances in medicine may also require novel approaches to setting research priorities. The Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, which focuses on eradicating breast cancer, has challenged research scientists to move from animal research to breast cancer prevention research involving women. If researchers could better understand the factors that increase the risk for breast cancer, as well as methods for effective prevention, fewer women would require treatment for breast cancer. Whereas animal research is largely investigator-initiated, this model tries to address the questions that are central to the care of women at risk for or affected by breast cancer. This approach has facilitated the recruitment of women for studies including a national project funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Environmental Health to examine how environment and genes affect breast cancer risk. This study, which began in 2002, could not have been accomplished with animal research [55] .

Similarly, any approach that emphasizes evidence-based prevention would provide benefits to both animals and humans. Resource limitations might require a strategic approach that emphasizes diseases with the greatest public health threats, which increasingly fall within the scope of preventable diseases.

It is clear that there have been many scientific and ethical advances since the first publication of Russell and Burch's book. However, some in the scientific community are beginning to question how well data from animals translates into germane knowledge and treatment of human conditions. Efforts to objectively evaluate the value of animal research for understanding and treating human disease are particularly relevant in the modern era, considering the availability of increasingly sophisticated technologies to address research questions [9] . Ethical objections to the use of animals have been publically voiced for more than a century, well before there was a firm scientific understanding of animal emotion and cognition [15] . Now, a better understanding of animals' capacity for pain and suffering is prompting many to take a closer look at the human use of animals [56] .

Articles in the accompanying Collection only briefly touch on the many scientific and ethical issues surrounding the use of animals in testing and research. While it is important to acknowledge limitations to non-animal methods remain, recent developments demonstrate that these limitations should be viewed as rousing challenges rather than insurmountable obstacles. Although discussion of these issues can be difficult, progress is most likely to occur through an ethically consistent, evidence-based approach. This collection aims to spur further steps forward toward a more coherent ethical framework for scientific advancement.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the conference speakers and participants for their participation.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: HRF NB. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: HRF NB. Wrote the paper: HRF NB.

• 1. Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen. 238 p.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. Ibrahim DM (2006) Reduce, refine, replace: the failure of the three R's and the future of animal experimentation. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2006; Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-17. Available: http://ssrn.com/abstract=888206 . Accessed 2011 Jan 7.
• 15. Lederer SE (1995) Subjected to science. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 192 p.
• 16. United States (1947) Nuremberg code. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html . Accessed 2011 Jan 7.
• 17. World Medical Association (1964) Declaration of Helsinki. 18 th WMA General Assembly. Helsinki, Finland: Available: http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/helsinki.pdf . Accessed 2011 Jan 7.
• 18. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979) The Belmont Report. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Available: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html . Accessed 2011 Jan 7.
• 19. Parliament of the United Kingdom (1876) Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1872363/ . Accessed 2011 Jan 7.
• 20. Animal Welfare Act. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–2159.
• 22. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (1996) Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 140 p.
• 23. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (2002) Public Health Service policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals. Available: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#PublicHealthServicePolicyonHumaneCareandUseofLaboratory . Accessed 2011 Jan 18.
• 24. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (2002) U.S. Government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing, research and training. Available: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm . Accessed 2011 Jan 7.
• 25. Gregory NG (2004) Physiology and behavior of animal suffering. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Science. 280 p.
• 26. McMillan FD, editor. (2005) Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishing Professional. 301 p.
• 27. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (2009) Recognition and alleviation of pain and distress in laboratory animals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 196 p.
• 31. Panksepp J (2004) Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 480 p.
• 32. Koob GF, Ehlers CL, Kupfers DJ, editors. (1989) Animal Models of Depression. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser. 295 p.
• 39. Shettleworth SJ (1998) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. 704 p.
• 40. deWaal F (2009) The age of empathy: nature's lessons for a kinder society. New York, NY: Random House, Inc. 304 p.
• 44. Burghardt GM (2005) The genesis of animal play: testing the limits. Cambridge, U.K.: MIT Press. 501 p.
• 49. Committee on Toxicity Testing and Assessment of Environmental Agents, National Research Council (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 216 p.
• 55. Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, National Cancer Institute Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (2009) Health of Women Study. Available: http://cabig.cancer.gov/action/collaborations/howstudy/ . Accessed 2011 Jan 10.
• 56. Beauchamp TL, Orlans FB, Dresser R, Morton DB, Gluck JP (2008) The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice, 2 nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 287 p.

Ethical Issues in Animal Research

• First Online: 16 November 2022

Cite this chapter

• Gerard Marshall Raj 4 &
• Rekha Priyadarshini 4  

1330 Accesses

2 Citations

Contribution of animals in biomedical research—though in varied proportions—is indispensable. Both the cases for and against the use of laboratory animals are equally debatable. Apart from fundamental biological research, animals were extensively utilized in drug toxicity testings including non-pharmaceutical chemical safety assessments and also in biomedical teaching and training. However, with the growing understanding of animal experimentations and animal ethics—particularly with greater application of the 3R principles—nowadays, the experimental procedures involving animals warrant even more judicious perusal. Whenever feasible, the principle of replacement (absolute or relative) is given prime importance and engagement of appropriate alternatives to animal experiments (non-animal testing methods) is highly recommended. Reduction and refinement (and rehabilitation , the 4th R) are secondary principles of humane animal experimentations. This Chapter includes discussion on the principles of animal ethics, the evolution of ethical issues in animal experiments, the 3R approach including the alternatives to animal experiments, the present status of animal experimentations, and the various guidelines related to animal research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Research: Animals

Good Research Practice: Lessons from Animal Care and Use

Bibliography.

Akbarsha MA, Pereira S. Mahatma gandhi-doerenkamp center for alternatives to use of animals in life science education. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):108–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.72353 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Akbarsha MA, Zeeshan M, Pereira S. Alternatives discussed at Indian science congress. ALTEX. 2012;29(2):216–8. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2012.2.216 .

Badyal DK, Desai C. Animal use in pharmacology education and research: the changing scenario. Indian J Pharmacol. 2014;46(3):257–65. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.132153 .

Caloni F, De Angelis I, Hartung T. Replacement of animal testing by integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA): a call for in vivitrosi. Arch Toxicol. 2022. Epub ahead of print. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-022-03299-x .

Cheluvappa R, Scowen P, Eri R. Ethics of animal research in human disease remediation, its institutional teaching; and alternatives to animal experimentation. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2017 Aug;5(4):e00332. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.332 .

CPCSE. Compendium of CPCSEA, 2018. Available from: http://cpcsea.nic.in

Google Scholar  

CPCSEA. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for IAEC, 2010 [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 May 6]. Available from: http://cpcsea.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/SOP_CPCSEA_inner_page.pdf.

Doke SK, Dhawale SC. Alternatives to animal testing: a review. Saudi Pharm J. 2015 Jul;23(3):223–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002 .

Festing S, Wilkinson R. The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep. 2007 Jun;8(6):526–30. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400993. PMID: 17545991; PMCID: PMC2002542.

Hubrecht RC, Carter E. The 3Rs and humane experimental technique: implementing change. Animals (Basel). 2019 Sep 30;9(10):754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100754 .

ICCVAM (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods). A Strategic Roadmap for Establishing New Approaches to Evaluate the Safety of Chemicals and Medical Products in the United States [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 April 17]. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.22427/NTP-ICCVAM-ROADMAP2018.

INSA. Man, Animal and Science, 2011. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 May 6]. Available from: https://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/FINAL_DOCUMENT_ON_MAN_ANIMAL_SCIENCE.pdf.

Knight A. 127 million non-human vertebrates used worldwide for scientific purposes in 2005. Altern Lab Anim. 2008;36(5):494–6.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Knight J, Rovida C, Kreiling R, Zhu C, Knudsen M, Hartung T. Continuing animal tests on cosmetic ingredients for REACH in the EU. ALTEX. 2021;38(4):653–68. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2104221 .

Kojima H, Seidle T, Spielmann H. Alternatives to animal testing. Proceedings of Asian Congress. 2016. Available from: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-2447-5.

Liebsch M, Grune B, Seiler A, Butzke D, Oelgeschläger M, Pirow R, Adler S, Riebeling C, Luch A. Alternatives to animal testing: current status and future perspectives. Arch Toxicol. 2011 Aug;85(8):841–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011-0718-x .

National Research Council. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals: Eighth Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 May 11]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17226/12910.

NMC. Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S. Admissions Regulations, 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 March 21]. Available from: https://www.nmc.org.in/ActivitiWebClient/open/getDocument?path=/Documents/Public/Portal/NmcGazette/Medical%20College%20MSR%20regulations%202020.pdf.

Pereira S, Tettamanti M. Ahimsa and alternatives: the concept of the 4th R. The CPCSEA in India. ALTEX. 2005;22(1):3–6.

Pereira S, Veeraraghavan P, Ghosh S, Gandhi M. Animal experimentation and ethics in India: the CPCSEA makes a difference. Altern Lab Anim. 2004 Jun;32(Suppl 1B):411–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290403201s67 .

Sakuratani Y, Horie M, Leinala E. Integrated approaches to testing and assessment: OECD activities on the development and use of adverse outcome pathways and case studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018 Sep;123(Suppl 5):20–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.12955 .

Smith AJ, Hawkins P. Good science, good sense and good sensibilities: the three Ss of Carol Newton. Animals (Basel). 2016;6(11):70. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6110070 .

Stephens ML. Personal reflections on Russell and Burch, FRAME, and the HSUS. Altern Lab Anim. 2009 Dec;37(Suppl 2):29–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290903702S21 .

Tannenbaum J, Bennett BT. Russell and Burch's 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2015 Mar;54(2):120–32.

The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research, 2018 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Feb 24]. Available from: https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/science-and-technology/ethical-guidelines-for-the-use-of-animals-in-research/.

UGC. Guidelines for discontinuation of dissection and animal· experimentation in Zoology/ Life Sciences in a phased manner [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 March 20]. Available from: https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/6686154_guideline.pdf.

UGC. Dissection and animal experimentation in zoology /life sciences and allied disciplines in undergraduate, postgraduate and research programmes [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 March 20]. Available from: https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/6819407_ugcletterzoology.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Bibinagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Gerard Marshall Raj & Rekha Priyadarshini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerard Marshall Raj .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Pharmacology, Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India

Mageshwaran Lakshmanan

Department of Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, Pondicherry, India

Deepak Gopal Shewade

Gerard Marshall Raj

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Raj, G.M., Priyadarshini, R. (2022). Ethical Issues in Animal Research. In: Lakshmanan, M., Shewade, D.G., Raj, G.M. (eds) Introduction to Basics of Pharmacology and Toxicology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5343-9_49

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5343-9_49

Published : 16 November 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5342-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5343-9

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Physiology News Magazine

• Autumn 2012 - Issue Number 88

Current ethical issues in animal research

The use of animals in research is a matter of substantial public interest and can generate impassioned debate which includes the ethics of using animals for experimentation. dominic wells reviews specific ethical issues in the scientific use of animals and puts the debate into context..

Dominic Wells Royal Veterinary College, UK

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.88.18

Ethics can be defined as a framework in which moral decisions (what is right or wrong) can be made. There are two main schools of thought: Consequential (utilitarian) or Deontological (intrinsic).

Within the animal rights movement two of the best-known philosophers are examples of these different schools of thought. Peter Singer is a utilitarian ethicist who argues that there is no valid reason for separating man from all the other animals, which he calls a speciesist view with close similarities to racism and sexism. Consequently animals have rights in a similar way to man. His seminal book, Animal Liberation , was published in 1975 (1) and he is regarded by many as the founding father of the animal rights movement. However, while animals have similar rights to man, the rights of the individual can in some cases be subsumed for the greater good, although this requires a very clear cost–benefit analysis. In contrast, Tom Reagan is a deontological ethicist who argues animals have intrinsic worth and rejects the concept that the ends can justify the means. Consequently animals have intrinsic value as do humans: for example, this argument is presented in (2). Thus, in this school of thought, the use of animals in research can never be justified.

Interestingly, the earliest clear statement on the ethics of animal experimentation occurred at the time of the debate about the rights of man. In his 1789 Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (3), the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham queried the use and abuse of animals. He wrote: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”. It should be noted that Bentham had no fundamental objection to animal experiments provided that the goal was of benefit to humanity and that there was a reasonable prospect of achieving that goal.

In Animal Liberation (1), Singer codified the concept of animal rights in the context of human rights as: “Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration – consideration of what is in their own best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally-challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use – for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation”.

How do we relate these ethical views to the use of animals in research? Our attitude to ethical questions in animal research stems from the relationship of human society with all animals. Animals are used for food, transport and entertainment as well as research. In many societies ill-treatment of animals is not accepted, although this is by no means universal. Thus, in general we take a modified utilitarian attitude – ‘the end can justify the means’ or ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’, but crucially with humans given a greater worth than any other species – the speciesist view disparaged by Singer.

We seek to minimise the cost of the means to justify the end by minimising pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm in experimental animals. Thus, we aim to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to a minimum. We strive to refine the way experiments are carried out, to make sure animals suffer as little as possible. And we replace animal experiments with non-animal techniques wherever possible. These key tenets of humane experimental use of animals, often referred to as the 3Rs, were developed by Russell and Burch in their highly influential 1959 publication The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique .

The current Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (4) relies on this modified utilitarian ethical judgement. The revised version that will come into force in January 2013, which incorporates changes associated with Directive 2010/63/EU, will continue the same approach. Each project must be assessed on a cost–benefit basis, by asking the question of whether the ends justify the means. Experimental design should aim to reduce the costs (by application of the 3Rs) and critically evaluate the likely benefits. A strong case needs to be made that the studies are necessary and that the experimental aims are well defined and are likely to yield clear answers. The benefits may be for humans and/or other animals but there is a clear hierarchy, with no protection for invertebrate animals other than octopus and with cats, dogs, horses and primates being given special status of greater protection compared with other non-human mammals.

Genetically modified (GM) mice raise additional ethical questions. GM animals are the most rapidly growing element of animal use with more than 1.6 million GM animals and harmful mutants bred in the UK without other manipulations in 2011 (5) and this trend appears likely to continue to increase. It has been argued that GM violates the integrity of the organism’s genome. This is of course unacceptable in the deontological and questionable from the strict utilitarian view. However, the modified utilitarian view would argue that, in the absence of a harmful phenotype, there is no difference from wild-type in terms of the welfare of the animals, i.e. the animal is unaware that its genome has been modified.

Other human uses of animal

It is reasonable to ask why there is so much focus on animal experiments. Much of this may be due to the lack of public understanding of other uses of animals. The use of shock tactics of antivivisectionists and the ‘Yuk factor’ of some of the images used are partly responsible for the exaggerated emphasis on animal experimentation. There are many non-experimental uses of animals, for example, as food, clothing, transport, pets, sport and exhibition. The numbers used in non-experimental activities are huge. The UK uses 3.6 million animals in research annually (78% rodents, 15% fish) but UK meat and fish eaters consume 2.5 billion animals every year (6). This is nearly 700 times the numbers used in research yet it could be argued that consumption of fish and meat is not essential for human wellbeing, whereas at least some of the animal research is essential. Both utilitarian and intrinsic ethical arguments would suggest this use of animals for meat is the more important problem that should be tackled ahead of the use of animals in research. This disparity between animals used for food and research is even greater when considered on a world-wide basis. It has been estimated that 140 billion animals are killed for food every year (3000 times the number estimated for use in research worldwide). While the slaughter of domestic mammals and birds may in many cases be reasonably humane, that cannot be said of most of the 90 billion fish killed worldwide each year, where suffocation is the most common cause of death.

Recreational uses of animals should also be considered in comparison with the use of animals in research. Fishing for game or coarse fish is a very popular pastime in the UK but, although it gives pleasure to many, it does not have major consequences in terms of human health. There is little doubt that fish feel pain and respond to it and so recreational fishing is less ethically justified than the use of fish in research. Sport involving animals often has a high attrition rate. As mentioned previously, horses receive special protection under ASPA legislation yet almost 50% of thoroughbred foals do not reach flat race training in the UK (7), as many suffer tendon injuries and fractures that impair their ability to perform. Again, the utilitarian argument would suggest that horse racing was ethically less acceptable than the use of horses in experimental research. Very large numbers of animals are kept as pets and this is not without ethical consequences. For example, based on a survey of over 600 cat owners (7) it can be estimated that cats kill over 220 million vertebrate wild animals per year in the UK, the majority of them being small mammals. This is 60 times the number used in research. So decreasing the cat population, or keeping them indoors on a permanent basis, would have a greater impact on the loss of life than reducing the numbers of animals used in research, but is keeping a cat indoors for life infringing its rights?

What is the ethical way forward? Both Singer and Regan argue that we should not eat meat or fish or use animals in any way that cause them harm. So we should all be vegetarian and limit our harmful interactions with animals. That is philosophically an entirely reasonable approach. However, given our current modified utilitarian (speciesist) use of animals in non-research areas, much of the ethical debate about the use of animals in research is redundant.

• Peter Singer (2001) . Animal Liberation , 1975. 3rd edition. Harper Collins.
• Tom Regan (2004) . The Case for Animal Rights , 1983. 3rd Edition. University of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles.
• Jeremy Bentham (1789) . Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , 1789. Reprinted by General Books LLC, 2010.
• Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 . Available online at: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-xa.htm
• Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2011 . Available online from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statisticsother-science-research/spanimals11/
• http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/the-animals/animals-and-society/
• Wilsher S, Allen WR & Wood JL (2006) . Factors associated with failure of thoroughbred horses to train and race. Equine Vet J 38 (2), 113–118.
• Woods M, McDonald RA & Harris S (2003) . Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Rev 33, 174–188.

Site search

Content type.

• Latest News
• Upcoming Events
• Team Members
• Honorary Fellows

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Social and Cultural History
• Urban History
• Language Teaching and Learning
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Browse content in Literature
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musicology and Music History
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Technology and Society
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Biochemistry
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Programming Languages
• Browse content in Computing
• Computer Games
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Maps and Map-making
• Environmental Science
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• Probability and Statistics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• History of Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Health Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Corporate Governance
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Browse content in Environment
• Climate Change
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Environmental Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• International Relations
• Latin American Politics
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Public Policy
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• US Politics
• Browse content in Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Sport and Leisure
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy

• Cite Icon Cite

An estimated 100 million nonhuman vertebrates worldwide—including primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, birds, rats, and mice—are bred, captured, or otherwise acquired every year for research purposes. Much of this research is seriously detrimental to the welfare of these animals, causing pain, distress, injury, or death. This book explores the ethical controversies that have arisen over animal research, examining closely the complex scientific, philosophical, moral, and legal issues involved. Defenders of animal research face a twofold challenge: they must make a compelling case for the unique benefits offered by animal research; and they must provide a rationale for why these benefits justify treating animal subjects in ways that would be unacceptable for human subjects. This challenge is at the heart of the book. Some chapters argue that it can be met fairly easily; others argue that it can never be met; still others argue that it can sometimes be met, although not necessarily easily. The book considers how moral theory can be brought to bear on the practical ethical questions raised by animal research, examines the new challenges raised by the emerging possibilities of biotechnology, and considers how to achieve a more productive dialogue on this polarizing subject.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE)

• Animal Research

Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Nonhuman Animals in Research

Download the guidelines (PDF, 86KB)

February 2022

A foundational aspect of the discipline of psychology is teaching about and research on the behavior of nonhuman animals. Studying other animals is critical to understanding basic principles underlying behavior and to advancing the welfare of both human and nonhuman animals. While psychologists must conduct their teaching and research in a manner consonant with relevant laws and regulations, ethical concerns further mandate that psychologists consider the costs and benefits of procedures involving nonhuman animals before proceeding with these activities.

The following guidelines were developed by the American Psychological Association (APA) for use by psychologists working with nonhuman animals. The guidelines are informed by relevant sections of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2017).The acquisition, care, housing, use, and disposition of nonhuman animals in research must comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, institutional policies, and with international conventions to which the United States is a party. APA members working outside the United States must also follow all applicable laws and regulations of the country in which they conduct research.

It is important to recognize that this document constitutes “guidelines,” which serve a different purpose than “standards.” Standards, unlike guidelines, require mandatory compliance, and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. This document is meant to be aspirational and thereby provides recommendations for the professional conduct of specified activities. These guidelines are not intended to be mandatory, exhaustive, or definitive and should not take precedence over the professional judgment of individuals who have competence in the subject addressed.

Questions about these guidelines should be referred to the APA Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE) via email at [email protected] , by phone at 202-336-6000, or in writing to the American Psychological Association, Science Directorate, Office of Research Ethics, 750 First St., NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242

These guidelines are scheduled to expire 10 years from (the date of adoption by the APA Council of Representatives). After this date users are encouraged to contact the APA Science Directorate to determine whether this document remains in effect.

• Research should be undertaken with a clear scientific purpose. There should be a reasonable expectation that the research will a) increase knowledge of the process underlying the evolution, development, maintenance, alteration, control, or biological significance of behavior; b) determine the replicability and generality of prior research; c) increase understanding of the species under study; or d) provide results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals.
• The scientific purpose of the research should be of sufficient potential significance to justify the use of nonhuman animals. In general, psychologists should act on the assumption that procedures that are likely to produce pain in humans may also do so in other animals, unless there is species-specific evidence of pain or stress to the contrary.
• In proposing a research project, the psychologist should be familiar with the appropriate literature, consider the possibility of nonanimal alternatives, and use procedures that minimize the number of nonhuman animals in research. If nonhuman animals are to be used, the species chosen for the study should be the best suited to answer the question(s) posed.
• Research on nonhuman animals may not be conducted until the protocol has been reviewed and approved by an appropriate animal care committee; typically, an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), to ensure that the procedures are appropriate and abide by the principles for humane experimental techniques embodied by the 3Rs – Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (Russell & Burch, 1959).
• The researcher(s) should monitor the research and the subjects’ welfare throughout the course of an investigation to ensure continued justification for the research.
• Psychologists should ensure that personnel involved in their research with nonhuman animals be familiar with these guidelines.
• Investigators and personnel should complete all required institutional research trainings for the ethical conduct of such research.
• Research procedures with nonhuman animals should conform to the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. §2131 et. seq.) and when applicable, the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS, 2015) and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Resource Council, 2011), as well as other applicable federal regulations, policies, and guidelines, regarding personnel, supervision, record keeping, and veterinary care.
• As behavior is not only the focus of study of many experiments but also a primary source of information about an animal’s health and well-being, investigators should watch for and recognize deviations from normal, species-typical behaviors as indicators of potential health problems.
• Psychologists should assume it is their responsibility that all individuals who work with nonhuman animals under their supervision receive explicit instruction in experimental methods and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species being studied. The activities that any individuals may engage in must not exceed their respective competencies, training, and experience in either the laboratory or the field setting

As a scientific and professional organization, APA recognizes the complexities of defining psychological well-being for both human and nonhuman animals. APA does not provide specific guidelines for the maintenance of psychological well-being of research animals, as procedures that are appropriate for a particular species may not be for others. Psychologists who are familiar with the species, relevant literature, federal guidelines, and their institution’s research facility should consider the appropriateness of measures such as social housing and enrichment to maintain or improve psychological well-being of those species.

• The facilities housing laboratory animals should meet or exceed current regulations and guidelines (USDA, 1990, 1991; NIH, 2015) and are required to be inspected twice a year (USDA, 1989; NIH, 2015).
• All procedures carried out on nonhuman animals are to be reviewed by an IACUC to ensure that the procedures are appropriate and humane. The committee must have representation from within the institution and from the local community. In the event that it is not possible to constitute an appropriate IACUC in the psychologist’s own institution, psychologists should seek advice and obtain review from a corresponding committee of a cooperative institution.
• Laboratory animals are to be provided with humane care and healthful conditions during their stay in any facilities of the institution. Responsibilities for the conditions under which animals are kept, both within and outside of the context of active experimentation or teaching, rests with the psychologist under the supervision of the IACUC (where required by federal regulations) and with individuals appointed by the institution to oversee laboratory animal care.
• Laboratory animals not bred in the psychologist’s facility are to be acquired lawfully. The USDA and local ordinances should be determined and followed prior to IACUC protocol submission.
• Psychologists should make every effort to ensure that those responsible for transporting the nonhuman animals to the facility provide adequate food, water, ventilation, and space, and impose no unnecessary stress on the animals (NRC, 2006).
• Nonhuman animals taken from the wild should be trapped in a humane manner and in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
• Use of endangered, threatened, or imported nonhuman animals must only be conducted with full attention to required permits and ethical concerns. Information and permit applications may be obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service website at www.fws.gov .

Consideration for the humane treatment and well-being of the laboratory animal should be incorporated into the design and conduct of all procedures involving such animals, while keeping in mind the primary goal of undertaking the specific procedures of the research project—the acquisition of sound, replicable data. The conduct of all procedures is governed by Guideline I (Justification of Research) above.

• Observational and other noninvasive forms of behavioral studies that involve no aversive stimulation to, or elicit no sign of distress from, the nonhuman animal are acceptable.
• Whenever possible behavioral procedures should be used that minimize discomfort to the nonhuman animal. Psychologists should adjust the parameters of aversive stimulation to the minimal levels compatible with the aims of the research. Consideration should be given to providing the research animals control over the potential aversive stimulation whenever it is consistent with the goals of the research. Whenever reasonable, psychologists are encouraged to first test on themselves the painful stimuli to be used on nonhuman animal subjects.
• Procedures in which the research animal is anesthetized and insensitive to pain throughout the procedure, and is euthanized (AVMA, 2020) before regaining consciousness are generally acceptable.
• Procedures involving more than momentary or slight aversive stimulation, which is not relieved by medication or other acceptable methods, should be undertaken only when the objectives of the research cannot be achieved by other methods.
• Experimental procedures that require prolonged aversive conditions or produce tissue damage or metabolic disturbances require greater justification and surveillance by the psychologist and IACUC. A research animal observed to be in a state of severe distress or chronic pain that cannot be alleviated and is not essential to the purposes of the research should be euthanized immediately (AVMA, 2020).
• Procedures that employ restraint must conform to federal regulations and guidelines.
• Procedures involving the use of paralytic agents without reduction in pain sensation require prudence and humane concern. Use of muscle relaxants or paralytics alone during surgery, without anesthesia, is unacceptable.
• All surgical procedures and anesthetization should be conducted under the direct supervision of a person who is trained and competent in the use of the procedures.
• Unless there is specific justification for acting otherwise, research animals should remain under anesthesia until all surgical procedures are ended.
• Postoperative monitoring and care, which may include the use of analgesics and antibiotics, should be provided to minimize discomfort, prevent infection, and promote recovery from the procedure.
• In general, laboratory animals should not be subjected to successive survival surgical procedures, except as required by the nature of the research, the nature of the specific surgery, or for the well-being of the animal. Multiple surgeries on the same animal must be justified and receive approval from the IACUC.
• To minimize the number of nonhuman animals used, investigators should maximize the amount of data collected from each subject in a manner that is compatible with the goals of the research, sound scientific practice, and the welfare of the animal.
• To ensure their humane treatment and well-being, nonhuman animals reared in the laboratory must not be released into the wild because, in most cases, they cannot survive, or they may survive by disrupting the natural ecology.
• Euthanasia must be accomplished in a humane manner, appropriate for the species and age, and in such a way as to ensure immediate death, and in accordance with procedures outlined in the latest version of the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) Guidelines on Euthanasia of Animals (2020).
• Disposal of euthanized laboratory animals must be conducted in accordance with all relevant laws, consistent with health, environmental, and aesthetic concerns, and as approved by the IACUC. No animal shall be discarded until its death is verified.

Field research that carries a risk of materially altering the behavior of nonhuman animals and/or producing damage to sensitive ecosystems is subject to IACUC approval. Field research, if strictly observational, may not require animal care committee approval (USDA, 2000).

• Psychologists conducting field research should disturb their populations as little as possible, while acting consistent with the goals of the research. Every effort should be made to minimize potential harmful effects of the study on the population and on other plant and animal species in the area.
• Research conducted in populated areas must be done with respect for the property and privacy of the area’s inhabitants.
• Such research on endangered species should not be conducted unless IACUC approval has been obtained and all requisite permits are obtained (see section IV.D of this document). Included in this review should be a risk assessment and guidelines for prevention of zoonotic disease transmission (i.e., disease transmission between species, including human to nonhuman and vice versa).

Research on captive wildlife or domesticated animals outside the laboratory setting that materially alters the environment or behavior of the nonhuman animals should be subject to IACUC approval (Ng et al., 2019). This includes settings where the principal subjects of the research are humans, but nonhuman animals are used as part of the study, such as research on the efficacy of animal-assisted interventions (AAI) and research conducted in zoos, animal shelters, and so on. If it is not possible to establish an IACUC at the psychologists’ own institution, investigators should seek advice and obtain review from an IACUC of a cooperative institution.

• Researchers should minimize and mitigate any distress on the nonhuman animal subject caused by its involvement in the study. Qualifications for appropriate handling of animal subjects in AAI settings have been well described by the AVMA (2008). Psychologists studying the use of AAIs should have the expertise to recognize behavioral and/or physiological signs of stress and distress in the species involved in the study. However, when psychologists lack such expertise, they should ensure that the research team includes individuals with the necessary expertise to recognize and intervene to reduce the nonhuman animal subject’s distress. Any study that carries risk of experiencing, or being exposed to the experience of, another organism’s pain, fear, or distress requires greater justification and should be addressed in the IACUC protocol.
• When research is conducted in applied settings, such as hospitals, health clinics, and offices of doctors and mental health professionals, the investigator should understand the risk of, and declare mitigating strategies for, disease transmission between human and nonhuman participants. For example, studies of AAIs in health-care facilities offering mental health services may introduce risks for bi-directional zoonotic transmission of infectious diseases such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (Lefebvre, et al., 2008). Investigators studying AAIs in health-care settings should therefore adhere to the guidelines for AAI management offered by the AVMA (2008).
• In all experimental circumstances, investigators should structure into the schedule the basic needs of the nonhuman animals such as food, water, and rest breaks.

Laboratory exercises as well as classroom demonstrations involving live animals are of great value as instructional aids. Psychologists are encouraged to include instruction and discussion of the ethics and values of nonhuman animal research in relevant courses.

• Nonhuman animals may be used for educational purposes only after review by an IACUC or other appropriate institutional committee.
• Consideration should be given to the possibility of using nonanimal alternatives. Procedures that may be justified for research purposes may not be so for educational purposes (e.g., animal models of pain that are used to develop safer analgesics would be in excess of what is needed to merely demonstrate the use of animal models in the study of behavior and cognition).
• All handlers of nonhuman animals in educational settings should adhere to the recommendations outlined above for personnel, housing, and acquisition of subjects. APA has adopted separate guidelines for the use of nonhuman animals in research and teaching at the pre-college level. A copy of the APA Guidelines for the Use of Nonhuman Animals in Behavioral Projects in Schools (K-12) can be obtained via email at [email protected] , by phone at 202-336-6000, or in writing to the American Psychological Association, Science Directorate, Office of Research Ethics, 750 First St., NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242 or downloaded at apa.org/science/leadership/care/animal-guide.pdf .

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

American Veterinary Medical Association. (2008). Guidelines for animal-assisted interventions in healthcare facilities. American Journal of Infection Control, 36(2), 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2007.09.005

American Veterinary Medical Association. (2020). AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/2020-Euthanasia-Final-1-17-20.pdf

Animal Welfare Act 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq. http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=3&tax_subject=182&topic_id=1118&level3_id=6735

Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. (2011). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (8th ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Lefebvre, S. L., Peregrine, A. S., Golab, G. C., Gumley, N. R., WaltnerToews, D., & Weese, J. S. (2008). A veterinary perspective on the recently published guidelines for animal-assisted interventions in health-care facilities. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association , 233(3), 394-402. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.233.3.394

National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. (2015). Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Bethesda, MD: NIH. https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/phs-policy.htm

National Research Council. (2006). Guidelines for the humane transportation of research animals . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ng, Z., Morse, L., Albright, J., Viera, A., & Souza, M. (2019). Describing the use of animals in animal-assisted intervention research. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science , 22(4), 364-376.

Russell W.M.S., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. Wheathampstead (UK): Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1989). Animal welfare; Final Rules. Federal Register , 54(168), (Aug 31, 1989), 36112-36163.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1990). Guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits; Final Rules. Federal Register , 55(136), (July 16, 1990), 28879- 28884.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1991). Animal welfare; Standards; Part 3, Final Rules. Federal Register , 55(32), (Feb 15, 1991), 6426-6505.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2000). Field study; Definition; Final Rules. Federal Register , 65(27), (Feb 9, 2000), 6312-6314.

U.S. Public Health Service. (2015). Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. https://olaw.nih.gov/sites/default/ files/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf

Additional Resources

Dess, N. K., & Foltin, R. W. (2004). The ethics cascade. In C. K. Akins, S. Panicker, & C. L. Cunningham (Eds.). Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care, and methods (pp. 31-39). APA.

National Institutes of Mental Health. (2002). Methods and welfare considerations in behavioral research with animals: Report of a National Institutes of Health Workshop. Morrison, A. R., Evans, H. L., Ator, N. A., & Nakamura, R. K. (Eds.). NIH Publications No. 02-5083. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

National Research Council. (2011). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. (8th ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2003). Guidelines for the care and use of mammals in neuroscience and behavioral research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2008). Recognition and alleviation of distress in laboratory animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Nonhuman Animals in Research was developed by the American Psychological Association Committee on Animal Research and Ethics in 2020 and 2021. Members on the committee were Rita Colwill, PhD, Juan Dominguez, PhD, Kevin Freeman, PhD, Pamela Hunt, PhD, Agnès Lacreuse, PhD, Peter Pierre, PhD, Tania Roth, PhD, Malini Suchak, PhD, and Sangeeta Panicker, PhD (Staff Liaison). Inquiries about these guidelines should be made to the American Psychological Association, Science Directorate, Office of Research Ethics, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002, or via e-mail at [email protected].

Copyright © 2022 by the American Psychological Association. Approved by the APA Council of Representatives, February 2022.

Related Resources

• Some Friendly Advice for Responding to Requests for Information About Animal Research
• Resolution on the Use of Animals in Research, Testing and Education (PDF, 95KB)

Contact Science Directorate

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

13.7 Cosmos & Culture

The 'necessity' of animal research does not mean it's ethical.

Samual Garner

Diane, a 4-year-old chimpanzee, relaxes in the trees at the Chimp Haven sanctuary in Keithville, La., on Aug. 25, 2014. She is one of many chimps who have been moved here from the New Iberia Research Center in Lafayette, La. Brandon Wade/AP hide caption

Diane, a 4-year-old chimpanzee, relaxes in the trees at the Chimp Haven sanctuary in Keithville, La., on Aug. 25, 2014. She is one of many chimps who have been moved here from the New Iberia Research Center in Lafayette, La.

A few weeks ago, two prominent scientists, Hollis Cline and Mar Sanchez, wrote a brief piece in The Hill newspaper arguing that animal research is "necessary." They were prompted by the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) decision to phase out the use of primates in controversial maternal deprivation studies.

Scientists have long been fond of claims of necessity — in fact, justifications for animal research have remained largely the same since the writings of 19th century French physiologist Claude Bernard. However, this claim is problematic for a number of reasons.

If animal research is necessary, then it is not necessary in the sense that we have to do it. Rather, it is a choice that we make, a choice that its proponents believe is a necessary means to the end of further medical advances. Such advances are undoubtedly of significant moral importance, but even if we grant the assumption that animals are necessary for medical progress, this does not equate to a moral justification.

Research with humans is necessary to medical progress, but we have set strict limits on the extent to which humans can be exposed to risk and harm in research, even though doing so has undoubtedly slowed the rate of medical progress that might otherwise be achievable. Cline and Sanchez claim that animals in research are treated "humanely and with dignity," but the reality is that the level of protection afforded to research animals is far, far less than that afforded to human participants in research. Most animals involved in research are killed at the termination of the experiment, are kept in conditions not conducive to their welfare, and are otherwise harmed in myriad and significant ways, for example through the infliction of physical injuries, infectious diseases, cancers, or psychological distress.

While nonhuman animals cannot provide consent to research participation, we have reasoned in the case of humans that an inability to consent entitles an individual to greater protection and not lesser protection. What justifies our differential treatment of humans and nonhuman animals in research? For present purposes, it isn't necessary to rehearse every possible argument for and against animal research. It is sufficient to note that very few contemporary ethicists defend the status quo of animal research and, furthermore, that the burden of proof has now shifted to those who would defend invasive animal research.

Given the state of philosophical scholarship, meeting this burden of proof will not be easy or straightforward. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the scientific community's frequent claims of the necessity of animal research is how thoroughly they miss the moral point. For the most part, ethical criticisms of animal research aren't even addressed — as they aren't in Cline and Sanchez's piece — and when they are, they're usually dismissed with bad arguments, like this one , that have been refuted for decades.

Further, the claim that "animal research is necessary to medical progress" assumes a strong causal connection between the two, but what data we have available cast doubt upon the robustness of this connection. Despite strong claims about the historical benefits of animal research from the scientific community, the accuracy of animal models in predicting human responses has not been evaluated sufficiently, and the lack of certain kinds of data make this evaluation especially challenging . Based on existing data, however, numerous reviews have suggested that the accuracy of animal research in predicting human health outcomes appears to be far less than what we once assumed.

Animal studies also frequently appear to be poorly designed . The predictive value of animal research might increase if study design improved, but this isn't certain. Even NIH Director Francis Collins recognized these concerns in a forward-thinking 2011 commentary , stating that, "The use of animal models for therapeutic development and target validation...may not accurately predict efficacy in humans." Given these issues, systematic reviews should become routine and strong statements about the utility of animal models should be tempered. This does not mean that animal research has never produced any or even many important medical benefits, but these claims require empirical validation, not simply repeated assertion.

It also means that scientists and science agencies should be much more aggressive about seeking and funding alternatives to animals in research. Support has certainly grown, but investment of money and human labor into non-animal alternatives has been paltry. Even with this limited investment, some impressive advances are being made — witness the ongoing development of " organs on a chip " — but much more needs to be done, with more money behind it, and with more of a sense of haste.

Beyond funding, the scientific community simply needs to adopt a better attitude toward innovation in alternatives, or else their limitations will continue to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is science — a discipline with a remarkable history of achievement and innovation despite significant technical challenges. Where are the editorials galvanizing the scientific community to continue to innovate without animals? Where is the Human Genome Project-type investment in alternatives? To say that animal models are "necessary" when alternatives are not aggressively pursued seems a bit dishonest. And given the amount of harm caused to animals in research—whether you think it's justified or not—we should all want the alternatives field to grow.

Literally thousands of books and peer-reviewed papers have been written on the extent of our moral obligations to animals. As a field that is dedicated to rigorous inquiry and rational thought, the scientific community should take seriously the vast philosophy literature on these topics — the same field that gave rise to the conceptual foundations of science — rather than assertions and rhetoric. When it comes to animals and ethics, there have been very few serious attempts to engage the intellectual issues. Scientists can and should do better.

Samual Garner is a bioethicist living in Washington, DC. He is an associate fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and writes on human research ethics and animal ethics.

• medical research
• animal research
• animal ethics

• Open access
• Published: 29 December 2023

Animal welfare research is fascinating, ethical, and useful—but how can it be more rigorous?

• Georgia J. Mason 1  

BMC Biology volume  21 , Article number:  302 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2940 Accesses

2 Citations

38 Altmetric

Metrics details

The scientific study of animal welfare supports evidence-based good animal care, its research contributing to guidelines and policies, helping to solve practical problems caused by animal stress, and raising fascinating questions about animal sentience and affective states. However, as for many branches of science (e.g. all those with replicability problems), the research rigour of welfare science could be improved. So, hoping to inspire methodologies with greater internal, external, and construct validity, here I outline 10 relevant papers and provide potential “journal club” discussion topics.

Welfare science now: a thriving field with ethical, practical, and fundamental relevance

As noted by Marian Dawkins, a long-standing leader in this field, animals with good welfare are healthy and have what they want (in terms of, for example, space, shelter, and opportunities to perform highly motivated natural behaviours). This results in them having more positive “affective states”, i.e. moods, emotions, and similar. Identifying such states, and understanding how they could be achieved, is the remit of animal welfare research. Studying animal welfare was somewhat fringe when the field emerged in the 1970s and 1980s: a European eccentricity. But today, animal welfare publications number in the thousands annually; animal welfare conferences involve hundreds of researchers; welfare presentations are not uncommon at agricultural, ecology, animal cognition, and even human emotion meetings; welfare research happens in BRICS and developing nations, not just the developed world; and in many countries, welfare research informs policies on how to treat animals. In parallel, welfare research techniques have become more sophisticated, often inspired by studies of human well-being (e.g. mood-sensitive cognitive changes like “judgment bias”).

The growth of welfare science partly reflects its ethical importance, along with increased acceptance by other branches of biology. It also reflects the rewarding nature of working in this field. Intellectually, welfare research touches on fascinating scientific questions such as the evolutionary functions of emotions and moods and the distribution of sentience. Furthermore, despite some tensions between human interests and animal needs (especially in agriculture), understanding and improving welfare can also help solve some practical problems: reducing behavioural problems in pets, tackling poor reproduction in zoos and conservation breeding centres, and increasing job satisfaction for laboratory animal technicians, to name a few. Welfare science is truly an absorbing, satisfying field to be in.

Welfare science in the future: towards greater rigour and validity

BMC Biology’s twentieth anniversary collection comprises comment articles that provide an overview of different fields and projection of future trends, limited to referencing 10 papers. What to cover in my piece? The promise of new technologies for automated welfare assessment? How human research could reveal the functions of conscious affect? The need for wild animal welfare studies in a time of climate change? So many topics, yet underpinning all is a bedrock need for welfare science to be valid: to say something true and relevant about the animals it aims to understand. Validity is therefore my focus, especially given today’s understanding of the unintended consequences of academia’s “publish or perish” culture. I collate 10 papers and provide discussion topics (Table 1 ) for an imaginary journal club on internal, external, and construct validity. A perfect introduction is a seminar by Hanno Würbel, on the principles of good welfare science ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXJ1TDEUf3U&t=1666s ). Overall, I hope to provoke enjoyable debate, (perhaps uneasy) self-reflection, and ultimately more transparent, valid research.

Internal validity: are our studies bias-free and replicable?

Preclinical animal research (aiming to understand human disease) has been subject to devastating scrutiny especially around “spectacular cases of irreproducibility” [ 1 ]. Only half — at best — of biomedical studies are replicable, impeding biomedical progress with vast numbers of false leads. Causes include research designs that bias data (e.g. absence of blinding or randomisation), statistical misbehaviours like “P-hacking”, and selective reporting of results [ 1 ]. A survey of 271 biomedical publications thus identified “a number of issues” [ 2 ], randomisation being reported in just 12% for example. Practices like blinding are crucial in welfare research too, as Tuyttens and colleagues [ 3 ] demonstrated. Students, trained to extract data from ethological videos, produced skewed data if given false information about the subjects being scored (cattle believed to be hot being scored as panting more, for instance), leading the authors to lament, “can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe?”.

Adding further concerns, Kilkenny and colleagues found that only 62% of biomedical experiments that were amenable to factorial designs actually used them. Reassuringly, 87% did seem to use appropriate statistical methods [ 2 ]. However, P-hacking is often impossible to detect post-publication. Furthermore, other work (e.g. excellent publications by Stanley Lazic, including [ 4 ]) identifies pseudoreplication as a common statistical error. The Kilkenny paper also reported some lack of clarity in writing, inconsistent with a priori hypothesis testing, with 5% of studies not explaining their aims. (This issue resonated with me; in my lab, we recently screened the introductions of 71 papers on judgement bias and found it impossible to ascertain the research aims of 8 of these [11%]).

External validity: are our studies relevant to real-world situations?

Even when results are internally valid and replicable, they might be irrelevant to other populations or contexts. Thus, biomedical research results often do not translate to humans; and for animal welfare, data collected in a welfare research lab may not translate to commercial situations. Solutions to this could include “introducing systematic variation (heterogenization) of relevant variables (for example species/strains of animals, housing conditions, tests)” [ 1 ]. Dawkins [ 5 ] takes this further, arguing that, at least for poultry, controlled laboratory situations have limited value. “Working directly with the poultry industry on commercial farms … shows what works in practice, out there in the real world”: it is critically important because “what is true of 50 birds in a small pen is not necessarily true of 50,000 birds in a large poultry house”.

Construct validity: do our measures mean what we think they mean?

Welfare researchers have another challenge: making defensible inferences about something that cannot be measured directly — affective states. Doing this well requires knowing our measures have construct validity, and understanding a priori their strengths and weaknesses. Welfare studies thus largely fall into two types: those seeking to validate new indicators of affect (via manipulations known a priori to influence affective state) and those using well-validated indicators to discover new things about animal well-being. Both must be logical and transparent. Thus, validation studies must use defensible validation methods; and if a potential indicator fails, that measure must not be treated as if still valid. Likewise, welfare studies must select well-validated, appropriate indicators, such that increased/decreased values have meanings that are known a priori , not invoked post hoc once results are known.

If we do not work in this logical way, we risk “HARK-ing” (‘Hypothesising After the Results are Known’): a form of circular reasoning where aims and predictions are covertly tweaked after seeing patterns in the data, which looks (indeed is ) biased. Perhaps worse, we may draw mistaken conclusions about animals: ones which fail to improve their well-being. As Rosso et al. [ 6 ] argue in a preprint, “HARKing can invalidate study outcomes and hamper evidence synthesis by inflating effect sizes... lead researchers into blind alleys … and waste animals, time, and resources”.

So, how to ensure an indicator has construct validity? Jake Veasey and I [ 7 ] outlined three methods: (1) assessing whether a potential indicator changes alongside self-reported affect in humans (assuming homology between species), (2) assessing whether it changes in animals deliberately exposed to aversive treatments, and (3) assessing whether such changes can be reversed pharmacologically, by giving, e.g. analgesics or anxiolytics. Another two — as beautifully laid out by philosopher Heather Browning [ 8 ] — are as follows: (4) recording effects of exposing animals to factors important for fitness and (5) identifying correlates of existing, well-validated indicators. And to give one illustration of construct validation done well, Agnethe-Irén Sandem and colleagues investigated eye-white exposure as a potential indicator of negative affect in cattle (e.g. [ 9 ]); see Table 1 for details.

Underneath all these issues lies the problematic incentive structure of academia. As Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet , wrote in 2015, “No-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive”. Obsessions with publication rates and P -values under 0.05 affect animal welfare science just as they do other disciplines. One partial solution could involve “open science” practices [ 10 ], such as pre-registering planned studies (so that hypotheses and statistical analyses are spelled out a priori , and, for registered reports, manuscripts are peer-reviewed and accepted before results are generated) and providing open access to data (so that anyone can re-analyse them). But perhaps more radically, perhaps a more fundamental overhaul is needed: a transition to a slower, better science that could improve researchers’ welfare as well as animals'?

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Würbel H. More than 3Rs: the importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research. Lab Anim. 2017;46:164–6.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MF, Cuthill IC, Fry D, Hutton J, Altman DG. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PloS One. 2009;4:e7824.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tuyttens FAM, de Graaf S, Heerkens JL, Jacobs L, Nalon E, Ott S, Stadig L, Van Laer E, Ampe B. Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? Anim Behav. 2014;90:273–80.

Lazic SE. The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: is it affecting your analysis? BMC Neurosci. 2010;11:1–17.

Dawkins MS. Commercial scale research and assessment of poultry welfare. Brit Poultry Sci. 2012;53:1–6.

Rosso M, Herrera A, Würbel H, Voelkl B. Evidence for HARKing in mouse behavioural tests of anxiety. bioRxiv. 2022: 2022-12. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.01.518668

Mason GJ, Veasey JS. How should the psychological well-being of zoo elephants be objectively investigated? Zoo Biol. 2010;29:237–55.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Browning, H. Validating indicators of subjective animal welfare. Philos Sci. 2023.1-10. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.10

Sandem AI, Braastad BO, Bøe KE. Eye white may indicate emotional state on a frustration–contentedness axis in dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2002;79:1–10.

Muñoz-Tamayo R, Nielsen BL, Gagaoua M, Gondret F, Krause ET, Morgavi DP, Olsson IA, Pastell M, Taghipoor M, Tedeschi L, Veissier I. Seven steps to enhance open science practices in animal science. PNAS Nexus. 2022;1:106.

Download references

Acknowledgements

With thanks to many colleagues for past discussions (especially Melissa Bateson, Marian Dawkins, Joe Garner, Birte Nielsen, Mike Mendl, Christian Nawroth, Anna Olsson, Liz Paul, Clive Phillips, Jake Veasey, Hanno Würbel, and the members of the Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare); to Olga Burenkova, Shay Forget, Lindsey Kitchenham, Aileen Maclellan and Alex Podturkin for comments on this paper; and to the many graduate students who took my “Assessing affective states” class (2010–2020). I apologise for relevant studies not mentioned here due to the tight word and reference count restrictions. This work was conducted on the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit.

The Mason Lab is funded by NSERC.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare/Integrative Biology Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada

Georgia J. Mason

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

GJM wrote the article and read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgia J. Mason .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mason, G.J. Animal welfare research is fascinating, ethical, and useful—but how can it be more rigorous?. BMC Biol 21 , 302 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-023-01793-x

Download citation

Received : 01 December 2023

Accepted : 01 December 2023

Published : 29 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-023-01793-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

BMC Biology

ISSN: 1741-7007

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

One health ethics and the ethics of zoonoses: a silent call for global action.

Simple Summary

1. introduction: incremental risks of zoonotic diseases, 2. zoonoethics, global bioethics, and one health: we need “one bioethics”, 3. the ethical dilemmas of one health: the case of animal slaughter, outline of one-zoonoethics.

4. Antimicrobial Resistance at the Human–Animal–Environment Interfaces: A Call for Global Action to Face the Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)

5. zoonoethics, intercultural dialogue, and entangled empathy: a silent call for interspecies solidarity, 6. a call for urgent action: policy recommendations for an inclusive, intercultural, and gender-sensitive one health approach.

• Advance international legislation to recognize the international crime of ecocide and crimes against biodiversity, not only as circumscribed and peripheral damages that affect human health but as damages that affect the health of humans, animals, and environments and constitute an attack against future generations.
• Stop the illegal wildlife trade, the slaughter of wild animals in wet markets, and the illegal timber trade in tropical forests, especially in areas of high biodiversity in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. This requires deepening the partnership against wildlife crime and developing new intercultural capacities to reconnect human and nonhuman animals, places, and the planet.
• We need closer transdisciplinary collaboration, including gender and intercultural perspectives, to study the socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental determinants and drivers of zoonotic diseases: “Developing a multi-sectoral preparedness and response plans for control of zoonotic diseases through a comprehensive risk assessment, improving laboratory diagnostic capacities, joint surveillance activities at the animal-human interface” [ 111 , 350 ].
• Strengthen political commitment, national planning, and regional coordination mechanisms; this requires working towards a One Health approach based on principles of intersectionality, interculturality and global solidarity. These plans and long-term strategies should be evaluated from a complexity approach at the local, regional, and global levels [ 66 , 288 , 290 ].
• Promote equitable and long-term synergies between Western health systems and local and indigenous community health knowledge systems and practices. Additionally, we need to create innovative strategies and establish regional and global information networks to facilitate knowledge sharing and enhance collaborative efforts to manage risks across the various interfaces of One Health. In particular, the wildlife–livestock–human interface is one of the areas of greatest risk and vulnerability.
• Promoting a One Digital Health approach: Europe, the United States, and other high-income countries have strong epidemiological surveillance systems that provide access to comprehensive data, tables, and maps on infectious diseases, but low- and middle-income countries in regions such as South and Central Asia, Africa, and Central and South America do not yet have robust surveillance systems to develop systemic preparedness, mitigation, and prevention plans and strategies for zoonotic diseases.
• Given the growing importance of AI and accelerating digitalization in health systems, countries and regions should develop synergies and share resources to overcome gaps in access to resources through a One Digital Health equity approach [ 277 , 351 , 352 ].
• One of the challenges highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic was the need to work together across sectors and regions to develop greater North–South synergies of cooperation, equity, and multispecies justice to lay the foundations for a sustainable One Health system based on a broad vision of health, common goods, and eco-solidarity.

7. Conclusions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Horefti, E. The Importance of the One Health Concept in Combating Zoonoses. Pathogens 2023 , 12 , 977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Konda, M.; Dodda, B.; Konala, V.M.; Naramala, S.; Adapa, S. Potential Zoonotic Origins of SARS-CoV-2 and Insights for Preventing Future Pandemics Through One Health Approach. Cureus 2020 , 12 , e8932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rüegg, S.R.; Häsler, B.; Zinsstag, J. Integrated Approaches to Health. A Handbook for the Evaluation of One Health ; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Löscher, T.; Prüfer-Krämer, L. Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases. In Modern Infectious Disease Epidemiology. Concepts, Methods, Mathematical Models, and Public Health ; Krämer, A., Kretzschmar, M., Krickeberg, K., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Chapter 3; pp. 39–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WHO. A Health Perspective on the Role of the Environment in One Health. Copenhagen. 2022. Available online: http://apps.who.int/iris (accessed on 25 July 2023).
• Jones, K.E.; Patel, N.G.; Levy, M.A.; Storeygard, A.; Balk, D.; Gittleman, J.L.; Daszak, P. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 2008 , 451 , 990–993. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bezerra-Santos, M.A.; Mendoza-Roldan, J.A.; Thompson, R.A.; Dantas-Torres, F.; Otranto, D. Illegal Wildlife Trade: A Gateway to Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. Trends Parasitol. 2021 , 23 , 181–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wyatt, T. Wildlife Trafficking. A Deconstruction of the Crime, Victims and Offenders ; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Plowright, R.K.; Reaser, J.K.; Locke, H.; Woodley, S.J.; Patz, J.A.; Becker, D.J.; Oppler, G.; Hudson, P.J.; Tabor, G.M. Land use-induced spillover: A call to action to safeguard environmental, animal, and human health. Lancet Planet. Health 2021 , 5 , e237–e245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reaser, J.K.; Tabor, G.M.; Becker, D.J.; Muruthi, P.; Witt, A.; Woodley, S.J.; Ruiz-Aravena, M.; Patz, J.A.; Hickey, V.; Hudson, P.J.; et al. Land use-induced Spillover: Priority Actions for Protected and Conserved Area managers. PARKS 2021 , 27 , 161–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maher, J.; Sollund, R. Wildlife Trafficking: Harms and Victimization. In Fighting Environmental Crime in Europe and Beyond ; Sollund, R., Stefes, C., Germani, A., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2016; pp. 99–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rush, E.R.; Dale, E.; Aguirre, A.A. Illegal wildlife trade and emerging infectious diseases: Pervasive impacts to species, ecosystems and human health. Animals 2021 , 11 , 1821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sollund, R. The Use and Abuse of Animals in Wildlife Trafficking in Colombia: Practices and Injustice. In Environmental Crime in Latin America. The Theft of Nature and the Poisoning of the Land ; Goyes, D.R., Mol, H., Brisman, A., South, N., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2017; Chapter 10; pp. 215–243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sollund, R. Green Criminology: Its Foundation in Critical Criminology and the Way Forward. In Howard Journal of Crime and Justice ; John Wiley and Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 304–322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gibbs, C.; Boratto, R. Environmental Crime. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice ; Pontell, H., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, R.W.Y. The Harms and Crimes Against Terrestrial Wildlife (Nonhuman Animals). In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice ; Pontell, H., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gladkova, E. The Harms and Crimes of Farming/Food. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice ; Pontell, H., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adisasmito, W.B.; Almuhairi, S.; Behravesh, C.B.; Bilivogui, P.; Bukachi, S.A.; Casas, N.; Becerra, N.C.; Charron, D.F.; Chaudhary, A.; Zanella, J.R.C.; et al. One Health: A new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. PLoS Pathog. 2022 , 18 , e1010537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Union Agencies. Cross-Agency Knowledge for One Health Action Joint Statement by European Union Agencies. 2023. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/one-health-2023-joint-statement.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2024).
• UNEP. Preventing the Next Pandemic. Zoonotic Diseases and How to Break the Chain of Transmission. 2020. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/preventing-future-zoonotic-disease-outbreaks-protecting-environment-animals-and (accessed on 4 August 2024).
• van Langevelde, F.; Mondoza, H.R.R.; Matson, K.D.; Esser, H.J.; de Boer, W.F.; Schindler, S. The Link between Biodiversity Loss and the Increasing Spread of Zoonotic Diseases ; European Parliament: Strasbourg, France, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• de Castañeda, R.R.; Villers, J.; Guzmán, C.A.F.; Eslanloo, T.; de Paula, N.; Machalaba, C.; Zinsstag, J.; Utzinger, J.; Flahault, A.; Bolon, I. One Health and planetary health research: Leveraging differences to grow together. Lancet Planet. Health 2023 , 7 , e109–e111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zinsstag, J.; Kaiser-Grolimund, A.; Heitz-Tokpa, K.; Sreedharan, R.; Lubroth, J.; Caya, F.; Stone, M.; Brown, H.; Bonfoh, B.; Dobell, E.; et al. Advancing One human–animal–environment Health for global health security: What does the evidence say? Lancet 2023 , 401 , 591–604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lerner, H.; Berg, C. A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health: One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017 , 4 , 163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jer, S.B. Conceptual Precedents for an Ecosuicidology. Topicos 2023 , 67 , 453–477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• White, R. Loving the Planet to Death: Tourism and Ecocide. In Deviant Leisure. Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture ; Raymen, T., Smith, O., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Available online: https://doi-org.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/10.1007/978-3-030-17736-2_13 (accessed on 11 August 2024).
• Crook, M.; Short, D.; South, N. Ecocide, genocide, capitalism and colonialism: Consequences for indigenous peoples and glocal ecosystems environments. Theor. Criminol. 2018 , 22 , 298–317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwegler, V. The Disposable Nature: The Case of Ecocide and Corporate Accountability. Amst. Law Forum 2017 , 9 , 71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Capps, B. One Health Environmentalism ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Capps, B. One health ethics. Bioethics 2021 , 36 , 348–355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pollowitz, M.; Allick, C.; Campbell, K.B.; Ellison, N.L.K.; Perez-Aguilar, G.; Vera, M.; Ramirez, V.; Nadal, D.; Meisner, J. One Health, many perspectives: Exploring Indigenous and Western epistemologies. CABI One Health 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Redvers, N.; Celidwen, Y.; Schultz, C.; Horn, O.; Githaiga, C.; Vera, M.; Perdrisat, M.; Plume, L.M.; Kobei, D.; Kain, M.C.; et al. The determinants of planetary health: An Indigenous consensus perspective. Lancet Planet. Health 2022 , 6 , e156–e163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riley, T.; Anderson, N.E.; Lovett, R.; Meredith, A.; Cumming, B.; Thandrayen, J. One Health in Indigenous Communities: A Critical Review of the Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 11303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• CBD. Biodiversity and Health. Nairobi, May 2024. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/cop (accessed on 11 June 2024).
• Whitmee, S.; Haines, A.; Beyrer, C.; Boltz, F.; Capon, A.G.; de Souza Dias, B.F.; Ezeh, A.; Frumkin, H.; Gong, P.; Head, P.; et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation—Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 2015 , 386 , 1973–2028. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romanello, M.; di Napoli, C.; Green, C.; Kennard, H.; Lampard, P.; Scamman, D.; Walawender, M.; Ali, Z.; Ameli, N.; Ayeb-Karlsson, S.; et al. The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: The imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms. Lancet 2023 , 402 , 2346–2394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• The Lancet Planetary Health. Can the Paris Agreement save us from a climate catastrophe? Lancet Planet. Health 2018 , 2 , e140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• IPCC. Climate Change 2022-Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability-Summary for Policymakers. Switzerland. 2022. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
• IPCC. Climate Change 2023. Synthesis Report. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ; Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Correia, T.; Daniel-Ribeiro, C.T.; Ferrinho, P. Calling for a planetary and one health vision for global health. One Health 2021 , 13 , 100342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fernando, J. The Virocene Epoch: The Vulnerability Nexus of Viruses, Capitalism and Racism. J. Polit. Ecol. 2020 , 27 , 635–684. Available online: https://commons.clarku.edu/faculty_idce/145 (accessed on 5 August 2024).
• Correia, T. The precariousness of political management of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the search for scientific answers: Calling for prudence in public health emergencies. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2021 , 36 , 1387–1391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Correia, T.; Ricciardi, W.; McKee, M. Preparing for the ‘next pandemic’: Why we need to escape from our silos. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2024 , 39 , 973–979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Correia, T. SARS-CoV-2 pandemics: The lack of critical reflection addressing short- and long-term challenges. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2020 , 35 , 669–672. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaplan, S.; Lefler, J.; Zilberman, D. The political economy of COVID-19. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2021 , 44 , 477–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rozzi, R. Earth Stewardship and the Biocultural Ethic: Latin American Perspectives. In Earth Stewardship: Ecology and Ethics ; Rozzi, R., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 2, pp. 87–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonne, C.; Langebæk, R.; Dietz, R.; Andersen-Ranberg, E.; Houser, G.; Hansen, A.J.; Sinding, M.-H.S.; Olsen, M.T.; Egevang, C.; Gilbert, M.T.P.; et al. Greenland sled dogs at risk of extinction. Science 2018 , 360 , 1080. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dirzo, R.; Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.R. Circling the drain: The extinction crisis and the future of humanity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2022 , 377 , 20210378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sell, S.K.; Williams, O.D. Health under capitalism: A global political economy of structural pathogenesis. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2019 , 27 , 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gill, S.R.; Benatar, S.R. Reflections on the political economy of planetary health. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 2019 , 27 , 167–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baer, H.A.; Singer, M. Planetary Health: Capitalism, Ecology and Eco-Socialism. Capital. Nat. Social. 2023 , 34 , 20–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sathyamala, C. COVID-19: The Political Economy of a Global Pandemic ; John Wiley and Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Antoine-Moussiaux, N.; de Bisthoven, L.J.; Leyens, S.; Assmuth, T.; Keune, H.; Jakob, Z.; Hugé, J.; Vanhove, M.P.M. The good, the bad and the ugly: Framing debates on nature in a One Health community. Sustain. Sci. 2019 , 14 , 1729–1738. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Layton, D.S.; Choudhary, A.; Bean, A.G. Breaking the chain of zoonoses through biosecurity in livestock. Vaccine 2017 , 35 , 5967–5973. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahman, T.; Sobur, A.; Islam, S.; Ievy, S.; Hossain, J.; El Zowalaty, M.E.; Rahman, A.T.; Ashour, H.M. Zoonotic Diseases: Etiology, Impact, and Control. Microorganisms 2020 , 8 , 1405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zinsstag, J.; Hediger, K.; Osman, Y.M.; Abukhattab, S.; Crump, L.; Kaiser-Grolimund, A.; Mauti, S.; Ahmed, A.; Hattendorf, J.; Bonfoh, B.; et al. The Promotion and Development of One Health at Swiss TPH and Its Greater Potential. Diseases 2022 , 10 , 65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ghai, R.; Behravesh, C. Zoonoses—The One Health Approach. In CDC Yellow Book 2024: Health Information for International Travel ; Nemhauser, J., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 222–224. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nemhauser, J. CDC Yellow Book 2024: Health Information for International Travel ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker, A.; LaRocque, R. Introduction. Disease Patterns in Travels. In CDC Yellow Book 2024: Health Information for International Travel ; Nemhauser, J., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Allouche, J. Ebola and Extractive Industry. 2015. Available online: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/5854 (accessed on 28 July 2023).
• Andrade, D. Neoliberal extractivism: Brazil in the twenty-first century. J. Peasant. Stud. 2022 , 49 , 793–816. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bruna, N. A climate-smart world and the rise of Green Extractivism. J. Peasant. Stud. 2022 , 49 , 839–864. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ormsby, M.J.; Woodford, L.; Quilliam, R.S. Can plastic pollution drive the emergence and dissemination of novel zoonotic diseases? Environ. Res. 2024 , 246 , 118172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maquart, P.-O.; Froehlich, Y.; Boyer, S. Plastic pollution and infectious diseases. Lancet Planet. Health 2022 , 6 , e842–e845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• FAO; UNEP; WHO; WOAH. One Health Joint Plan of Action, 2022–2026. Working together for The Planet of Humans, Animals, Plants and The Environment ; FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH: Rome, Italy, 2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Littmann, J. Antimicrobial resistance and Distributive Justice. Doctoral Dissertation, UCL (University College London), London, UK, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rollin, B. Ethics, Science, and Antimicrobial Resistance. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic 2001 , 14 , 29–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WHO. Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. Geneva. 2015. Available online: https://www.amcra.be/swfiles/files/WHOactieplan_90.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2024).
• Littmann, J.; Viens, A.M. The Ethical Significance of Antimicrobial Resistance. Public Health Ethics 2015 , 8 , 209–224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prestinaci, F.; Pezzotti, P.; Pantosti, A. Antimicrobial resistance: A global multifaceted phenomenon. Pathog. Glob. Health 2015 , 109 , 309–318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McEwen, S.A.; Collignon, P.J. Antimicrobial Resistance: A One Health Perspective. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018 , 6 , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahn, L.H. Antimicrobial resistance: A One Health perspective. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017 , 111 , 255–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Parsonage, B.; Hagglund, P.K.; Keogh, L.; Wheelhouse, N.; Brown, R.E.; Dancer, S.J. Control of Antimicrobial Resistance Requires an Ethical Approach. Front. Microbiol. 2017 , 8 , 2124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahn, L. One Health and the Politics of Antimicrobial Resistance ; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission. A European One Health Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). 2017. Available online: https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/353f40d1-f114-4c41-9755-c7e3f1da5378_en?filename=amr_2017_action-plan.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2024).
• Shallcross, L.J.; Howard, S.J.; Fowler, T.; Davies, S.C. Tackling the threat of antimicrobial resistance: From policy to sustainable action. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015 , 370 , 20140082. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anthony, R.; Vieira, A.D.P. One Health Animal Disaster Management: An Ethics of Care Approach. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2022 , 25 , 180–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Collignon, P.J.; McEwen, S.A. One Health—Its Importance in Helping to Better Control Antimicrobial Resistance. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2019 , 4 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lammie, S.L.; Hughes, J.M. Antimicrobial Resistance, Food Safety, and One Health: The Need for Convergence. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2016 , 7 , 287–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Belay, E.D.; Kile, J.C.; Hall, A.J.; Barton-Behravesh, C.; Parsons, M.B.; Salyer, S.; Walke, H. Zoonotic Disease Programs for Enhancing Global Health Security. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017 , 23 , S65–S70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Marchese, A.; Hovorka, A. Zoonoses Transfer, Factory Farms and Unsustainable Human–Animal Relations. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12806. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sánchez, C.A.; Venkatachalam-Vaz, J.; Drake, J.M. Spillover of zoonotic pathogens: A review of reviews. Zoonoses Public Health 2021 , 68 , 563–577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Broom, D.M. Animal welfare complementing or conflicting with other sustainability issues. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019 , 219 , 104829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steenson, S.; Buttriss, J.L. The challenges of defining a healthy and ‘sustainable’ diet. Nutr. Bull. 2020 , 45 , 206–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rohr, J.R.; Barrett, C.B.; Civitello, D.J.; Craft, M.E.; Delius, B.; DeLeo, G.A.; Hudson, P.J.; Jouanard, N.; Nguyen, K.H.; Ostfeld, R.S.; et al. Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food production. Nat. Sustain. 2019 , 2 , 445–456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ahmed, S.A.; Flórez, M.G.; Karanis, P. The impact of water crises and climate changes on the transmission of protozoan parasites in Africa. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 2018 , 112 , 281–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ristaino, J.B.; Anderson, P.K.; Bebber, D.P.; Brauman, K.A.; Cunniffe, N.J.; Fedoroff, N.V.; Finegold, C.; Garrett, K.A.; Gilligan, C.A.; Jones, C.M.; et al. The persistent threat of emerging plant disease pandemics to global food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021 , 118 , e2022239118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mardones, F.O.; Rich, K.M.; Boden, L.A.; Moreno-Switt, A.I.; Caipo, M.L.; Zimin-Veselkoff, N.; Alateeqi, A.M.; Baltenweck, I. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Global Food Security. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020 , 7 , 578508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brooks, D.R.; Hoberg, E.P.; Boeger, W.A.; Trivellone, V. Emerging infectious disease: An underappreciated area of strategic concern for food security. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2021 , 69 , 254–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vercauteren, K.C.; Gortázar, C.; Beltrán-Alcrudo, D.; Vicente, J. Host Community Interfaces: The Wildlife-Livestock. In Diseases at the Wildlife-Livestock Interface. Wildlife Research Monographs ; Vicente, J., Vercauteren, K.C., Gortázar, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 3, pp. 3–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schlundt, J.; Toyofuku, H.; Fisher, J.; Artois, M.; Morner, T.; Tate, C. The role of wildlife in emerging and re-emerging zoonoses. Rev. Sci. Et Tech. De L’oie 2004 , 23 , 485–496. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moreno, R.D.; Valera, V.; Borgoño, C.; Castilla, J.C.; and Riveros, J.L. Gene Drives, Mosquitoes, and Ecosystems: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Emerging Ethical Concerns. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023 , 11 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Escudero-Pérez, B.; Lalande, A.; Mathieu, C.; Lawrence, P. Host–Pathogen Interactions Influencing Zoonotic Spillover Potential and Transmission in Humans. Viruses 2023 , 15 , 599. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marie, V.; Gordon, M.L. The (Re-)Emergence and Spread of Viral Zoonotic Disease: A Perfect Storm of Human Ingenuity and Stupidity. Viruses 2023 , 15 , 1638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tomori, O.; Oluwayelu, D.O. Domestic Animals as Potential Reservoirs of Zoonotic Viral Diseases. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2023 , 11 , 33–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WHO. A Tripartite Guide to Addressing Zoonotic Diseases in Countries Taking a Multisectoral, One Health Approach. 2019. Available online: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Media_Center/docs/EN_TripartiteZoonosesGuide_webversion.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2024).
• WHO. WHO Director-General Declares Mpox Outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. World Health Organization, August 14. 2024. Available online: https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/monkeypox (accessed on 14 August 2024).
• Gaard, G. Ecofeminism. In The Routledge Companion to Gender and Animals ; Taylor, C., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 49–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laird, T. Zoonoses. In The Routledge Companion to Gender and Animals ; Taylor, C., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 680–696. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruen, L. Critical Terms for Animal Studies ; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA; London, UK, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruen, L. Entangled Empathy: Politics and Practice. In Animal Encounters Kontakt, Interaktion und Relationalität ; Böhm, A., Ullrich, J., Eds.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA; London, UK, 2018; pp. 77–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruen, L. Entangled Empathy: An Alternative Ethic for our Relationships with Animals ; Lantern Press: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoo, H.S.; Yoo, D. COVID-19 and veterinarians for one health, zoonotic- and reverse-zoonotic transmissions. J. Veter. Sci. 2020 , 21 , e51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Messenger, A.M.; Barnes, A.N.; Gray, G.C. Reverse Zoonotic Disease Transmission (Zooanthroponosis): A Systematic Review of Seldom-Documented Human Biological Threats to Animals. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e89055. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glud, H.A.; George, S.; Skovgaard, K.; Larsen, L.E. Zoonotic and reverse zoonotic transmission of viruses between humans and pigs. APMIS 2021 , 129 , 675–693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• CDC. Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention. Zoonotic Diseases. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/one-health/about/about-zoonotic-diseases.html (accessed on 22 April 2022).
• Eskew, E.A.; Olival, K.J. De-urbanization and Zoonotic Disease Risk. Ecohealth 2018 , 15 , 707–712. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olival, K.J.; Cryan, P.M.; Amman, B.R.; Baric, R.S.; Blehert, D.S.; Brook, C.E.; Calisher, C.H.; Castle, K.T.; Coleman, J.T.H.; Daszak, P.; et al. Possibility for reverse zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to free-ranging wildlife: A case study of bats. PLoS Pathog. 2020 , 16 , e1008758. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sing, A. Zoonoses: Infections Affecting Humans and Animals ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilcox, B.A.; Steele, J.A. One Health and Emerging Zoonotic Diseases. In Handbook of Global Health ; Kickbusch, I., Ganten, D., Moeti, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 2099–2147. [ Google Scholar ]
• WHO. (2024, June 9). Neglected Tropical Diseases. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/neglected-tropical-diseases (accessed on 2 August 2024).
• ECDC. Worsening Spread of Mosquito-Borne Disease Outbreaks in EU/EEA, According to Latest ECDC Figures ; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Solna, Sweden, 2024; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/worsening-spread-mosquito-borne-disease-outbreaks-eueea-according-latest-ecdc-figures (accessed on 11 August 2024).
• WHO. World Health Statistics 2023. Monitoring Health for the SDGs Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva . 2023. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/world-health-statistics-2023-monitoring-health-sdgs-sustainable-development-goals (accessed on 17 July 2024).
• Augusto, L.G.d.S.; Gurgel, A.M.; Costa, A.M.; Diderichsen, F.; Lacaz, F.A.; Parra-Henao, G.; Rigotto, R.M.; Nodari, R.; Santos, S.L. Aedes aegypti control in Brazil. Lancet 2016 , 387 , 1052–1053. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Franco-Paredes, C.; Villamil-Gómez, W.E.; Schultz, J.; Henao-Martínez, A.F.; Parra-Henao, G.; Rassi, A.; Rodríguez-Morales, A.J.; Suarez, J.A. A deadly feast: Elucidating the burden of orally acquired acute Chagas disease in Latin America–Public health and travel medicine importance. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2020 , 36 , 101565. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chapungu, L.; Nhamo, G. Interfacing vector-borne disease dynamics with climate change: Implications for the attainment of SDGs in Masvingo city, Zimbabwe. Jamba J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2021 , 13 , 12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ainsworth, C. Tropical Diseases Move North. Nat. Outlook Neglected Trop. Dis. 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gibb, R.; Redding, D.W.; Chin, K.Q.; Donnelly, C.A.; Blackburn, T.M.; Newbold, T.; Jones, K.E. Zoonotic host diversity increases in human-dominated ecosystems. Nature 2020 , 584 , 398–402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mahon, M.B.; Sack, A.; Aleuy, O.A.; Barbera, C.; Brown, E.; Buelow, H.; Civitello, D.J.; Cohen, J.M.; de Wit, L.A.; Forstchen, M.; et al. A meta-analysis on global change drivers and the risk of infectious disease. Nature 2024 , 629 , 830–836. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alexander, K.A.; Carlson, C.J.; Lewis, B.L.; Getz, W.M.; Marathe, M.V.; Eubank, S.G.; Sanderson, C.E.; Blackburn, J.K. The Ecology of Pathogen Spillover and Disease Emergence at the Human-Wildlife-Environment Interface. In The Connections between Ecology and Infectious Disease ; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 267–298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benbow, M.E.; Pechal, J.L.; Tomberlin, J.K.; Jordan, H.R. Interkingdom Community Interactions in Disease Ecology. In The Connections Between Ecology and Infectious Disease, Advances in Environmental Microbiology ; Hurst, C.J., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 5, Chapter 1; pp. 3–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grubaugh, N.D.; Ladner, J.T.; Lemey, P.; Pybus, O.G.; Rambaut, A.; Holmes, E.C.; Andersen, K.G. Tracking virus outbreaks in the twenty-first century. Nat. Microbiol. 2018 , 4 , 10–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Plowright, R.K.; Parrish, C.R.; McCallum, H.; Hudson, P.J.; Ko, A.I.; Graham, A.L.; Lloyd-Smith, J.O. Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017 , 15 , 502–510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Valera, L. New Technologies. Rethinking Ethics and the Environment ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baker, R.E.; Mahmud, A.S.; Miller, I.F.; Rajeev, M.; Rasambainarivo, F.; Rice, B.L.; Takahashi, S.; Tatem, A.J.; Wagner, C.E.; Wang, L.-F.; et al. Infectious disease in an era of global change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022 , 20 , 193–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cohen, M.L. Changing patterns of infectious disease. Nature 2000 , 406 , 762–767. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Price-Smith, A. Contagion and Chaos: Disease, Ecology, and National Security in the Era of Globalization ; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Price-Smith, A. The Plagues of Affluence: Human Ecology and the Case of the SARS Epidemic. Environ. Hist. 2015 , 20 , 765–778. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24690826 (accessed on 16 July 2024).
• Ren, H.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, A.; Song, L.; Liao, Y.; Lu, W.; Cui, C. Early forecasting of the potential risk zones of COVID-19 in China’s megacities. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020 , 729 , 138995. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sridhar, K.S. Urbanization and COVID-19 Prevalence in India. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2021 , 15 , 493–506. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, S.H.; Connolly, C.; Keil, R. Pandemic Urbanism: Infectious Diseases on a Planet of Cities ; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jonas, H. The Imperative of Responsability. In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age ; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA; London, UK, 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummings, L. Emerging infectious diseases: Coping with uncertainty. Argumentation 2009 , 23 , 171–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baekkeskov, E. Explaining science-led policy-making: Pandemic deaths, epistemic deliberation and ideational trajectories. Policy Sci. 2016 , 49 , 395–419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tulodziecki, D. How (not) to think about theory-change in epidemiology. Synthese 2021 , 198 , 2569–2588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alter, H.J. Pathogen Reduction: A Precautionary Principle Paradigm. Transfus. Med. Rev. 2008 , 22 , 97–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Herten, J.; Bovenkerk, B. The Precautionary Principle in Zoonotic Disease Control. Public Health Ethics 2021 , 14 , 180–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nichol, A.; Magnus, D. The One Health Approach to Zoonotic Emerging Infectious Diseases. Am. J. Bioeth. 2018 , 18 , 1–2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coghlan, S.; Coghlan, B. One Health, Bioethics, and Nonhuman Ethics. Am. J. Bioeth. 2018 , 18 , 3–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lindenmayer, J.M.; Kaufman, G.E.; Baker, L.; Coghlan, S.; Koontz, F.W.; Nieuwland, J.; Stewart, K.L.; Lynn, W.S. One health ethics: “What then must we do?”. CABI One Health 2022 , 4 , 1–4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Capps, B.; Lederman, Z. One Health, Vaccines and Ebola: The Opportunities for Shared Benefits. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015 , 28 , 1011–1032. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wispelwey, B.; Osuagwu, C.; Mills, D.; Goronga, T.; Morse, M. Towards a bidirectional decoloniality in academic global health: Insights from settler colonialism and racial capitalism. Lancet Glob. Health 2023 , 11 , e1469–e1474. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodriguez, J. A Bridge towards the One Health Approach: Rediscovering Environmental Bioethics. Rev. Iberoam. Bioet. 2021 , 17 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manguvo, A.; Mafuvadze, B. The impact of traditional and religious practices on the spread of Ebola in West Africa: Time for a strategic shift. Pan. Afr. Med. J. 2015 , 22 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Oliveira, D.V.B.; da Silva, J.F.; de Sousa Araújo, T.A.; Albuquerque, U.P. Influence of Religiosity and Spirituality on the Adoption of Behaviors of Epidemiological Relevance in Emerging and Re-Emerging Diseases: The Case of Dengue Fever. J. Relig. Health 2022 , 61 , 564–585. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Griffith, D.M.; Efird, C.R.; Baskin, M.L.; Hooper, M.W.; Davis, R.E.; Resnicow, K. Cultural Sensitivity and Cultural Tailoring: Lessons Learned and Refinements After Two Decades of Incorporating Culture in Health Communication Research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2024 , 48 , 195–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ten Have, H. Globalizing Bioethics Through, Beyond and Despite Governments. In Global Bioethics: The Impact of the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee ; Bagheri, A., Moreno, J.D., Semplici, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 5, Chapter 1; pp. 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, L.M. A Bridge Back to the Future: Public Health Ethics, Bioethics, and Environmental Ethics. Am. J. Bioeth. 2017 , 17 , 5–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rüegg, S.R.; Nielsen, L.R.; Buttigieg, S.C.; Santa, M.; Aragrande, M.; Canali, M.; Ehlinger, T.; Chantziaras, I.; Boriani, E.; Radeski, M.; et al. A Systems Approach to Evaluate One Health Initiatives. Front. Veter. Sci. 2018 , 5 , 23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zinsstag, J.; Schelling, E.; Crump, L.; Whittaker, M.; Tanner, M.; Stephen, C. One Health: The Theory and Practice of Integrated Health Approaches ; CAB International: London, UK, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinclair, J.R. Importance of a One Health approach in advancing global health security and the Sustainable Development Goals. Rev. Sci. Et Tech. Int. Off. Epizoot. 2019 , 38 , 145–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pettan-Brewer, C.; Penn, G.; Biondo, A.W.; Jaenisch, T.; Grützmacher, K.; Kahn, L.H. Who coined the term “One Health”? Cooperation amid the siloization. One Health 2024 , 18 , 100678. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Have, H.T. The challenges of global bioethics. Glob. Bioeth. 2022 , 33 , 41–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ten Have, H.; Gordijn, B. Handbook of Global Bioethics ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 1–1685. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valera, J.; Rodriguez, L. Technology, Ecology and Survival Science: A Look at Barry Commoner’s Thought for the Future. In Techonological Society and Human Future ; Velázquez, H., Ed.; Tirant Lo Blanch: Santiago, Chile, 2021; pp. 165–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Potter, V.R. Bioethics, the Science of Survival. Perspect. Biol. Med. 1970 , 14 , 127–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Potter, V.R. Bioethics: Bridge to the Future ; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1971. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beever, J.; Morar, N. The epistemic and ethical onus of ‘One Health’. Bioethics 2018 , 33 , 185–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beever, J.; Morar, N. Interconnectedness and Interdependence: Challenges for Public Health Ethics. Am. J. Bioeth. 2017 , 17 , 19–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Capps, B.; Bailey, M.M.; Bickford, D.; Coker, R.; Lederman, Z.; Lover, A.; Lysaght, T.; Tambyah, P. Introducing One Health to the Ethical Debate About Zoonotic Diseases in Southeast Asia. Bioethics 2015 , 29 , 588–596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Meagher, K.M. Can One Health Policy Help Us Expand an Ethics of Interconnection and Interdependence? AMA J. Ethics 2024 , 26 , E162–E170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Plowright, R.K.; Ahmed, A.N.; Coulson, T.; Crowther, T.W.; Ejotre, I.; Faust, C.L.; Frick, W.F.; Hudson, P.J.; Kingston, T.; Nameer, P.O.; et al. Ecological countermeasures to prevent pathogen spillover and subsequent pandemics. Nat. Commun. 2024 , 15 , 2577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vora, N.M.; Hannah, L.; Lieberman, S.; Vale, M.M.; Plowright, R.K.; Bernstein, A.S. Want to prevent pandemics? Stop spillovers. Nature 2022 , 605 , 419–422. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• OHHLEP. Prevention of Zoonotic Spilover. From Relying to Reducing the Risks at Source. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/prevention-of-zoonotic-spillover (accessed on 6 August 2024).
• Vora, N.M.; Hannah, L.; Walzer, C.; Vale, M.M.; Lieberman, S.; Emerson, A.; Jennings, J.; Alders, R.; Bonds, M.H.; Evans, J.; et al. Interventions to Reduce Risk for Pathogen Spillover and Early Disease Spread to Prevent Outbreaks, Epidemics, and Pandemics. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2023 , 29 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aguirre, A.A.; Catherina, R.; Frye, H.; Shelley, L. Illicit Wildlife Trade, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: Preventing Future Pandemics. World Med. Health Policy 2020 , 12 , 256–265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aguirre, A. Developing Global Capacity in Conservation Medicine: Predicting and Preventing the Next Epidemic from Wildlife. Glob. Bioeth. 2011 , 24 , 51–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Doron, S.; Davidson, L.E. Antimicrobial Stewardship. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2011 , 86 , 1113–1123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aryee, A.; Price, N. Antimicrobial stewardship—Can we afford to do without it? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015 , 79 , 173–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Johnson, T. Developing an Ethical Evaluation Framework for Coercive Antimicrobial Stewardship Policies. Public Health Ethics 2024 , 17 , 11–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dyar, O.J.; Huttner, B.; Schouten, J.; Pulcini, C.; ESGAP (ESCMID Study Group for Antimicrobial Stewardship). What is antimicrobial stewardship? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017 , 23 , 793–798. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baquero, F.; Coque, T.M.; Martínez, J.-L.; Aracil-Gisbert, S.; Lanza, V.F. Gene Transmission in the One Health Microbiosphere and the Channels of Antimicrobial Resistance. Front. Microbiol. 2019 , 10 , 2892. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Malfrán, Y.I.M.; Baquero, O.S. Problematizing alterities for a feminist and decolonial understanding of One Health of Peripheries. Saude E Soc. 2023 , 32 , e220301pt. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baquero, O.S.; Fernández, M.N.B.; Aguilar, M.A. From Modern Planetary Health to Decolonial Promotion of One Health of Peripheries. Front. Public Health 2021 , 9 , 637897. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DeGrazia, D. Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowlands, M. Making light of the ethical? The ethics and politics of animal rights. In Ethical and Political Approaches to Nonhuman Animal Issues ; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 21–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rowlands, M. Can Animals Be Moral? Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Francione, G. Animals—Property or Persons? In Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions ; Sunstein, C.R., Nussbaum, M.C., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 108–142. [ Google Scholar ]
• Regan, T. The Case for Animal Rights ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA; Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, P. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals , 40th ed.; Open Road Media: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kasperbauer, T.J.; Sandøe, P. Killing as a Welfare Issue. In The Ethics of Killing Animals ; Višak, T., Garner, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 17–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Persson, K.; Selter, F.; Neitzke, G.; Kunzmann, P. Philosophy of a “Good Death” in Small Animals and Consequences for Euthanasia in Animal Law and Veterinary Practice. Animals 2020 , 10 , 124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• UlAin, Q.; Whiting, T.L. Is a “Good Death” at the Time of Animal Slaughter an Essentially Contested Concept? Animals 2017 , 7 , 99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Browning, H.; Veit, W. Is Humane Slaughter Possible? Animals 2020 , 10 , 799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yeates, J.W. Death is a Welfare Issue. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2009 , 23 , 229–241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Higgin, M.; Evans, A.; Miele, M. A Good Kill: Socio-Technical Organizations of Farm Animal Slaughter. In Human and Other Animals ; Carter, B.C.N., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2011; Chapter 9; pp. 173–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Browning, H. No Room at the Zoo: Management Euthanasia and Animal Welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2018 , 31 , 483–498. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lecaros, J.A. Ecological Ethics: The road of Responsability towards Global Bioethics. Ramon Llull J. Appl. Ethics 2013 , 4 , 201–215. Available online: https://raco.pre.csuc.cat/index.php/rljae/article/view/281043 (accessed on 22 November 2022).
• Valdés, E.; Lecaros, J.A. Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume II Scientific Integrity and Institutional Ethics ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valdés, E.; Lecaros, J.A. Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume I Decisions at the Bench ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muzur, A.; Rinčić, I. Two kinds of globality: A comparison of Fritz Jahr and Van Rensselaer Potter’s bioethics. Glob. Bioeth. 2015 , 26 , 23–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ortiz-Millán, G. Bioethics, globalization and pandemics. Glob. Bioeth. 2022 , 33 , 32–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fiore, R. Bioethics: Environmental. In Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics ; ten Have, H., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 313–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Whitehouse, P.J. The Rebirth of Bioethics: Extending the Original Formulations of Van Rensselaer Potter. Am. J. Bioeth. 2003 , 3 , 26–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Potter, V.-R. Global Bioethics-Building on the Leopold Legacy ; Michigan State University Press: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1988; Volume 11, Available online: www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7ztc2s (accessed on 7 July 2024).
• Gardiner, S.M. Environmentalizing Bioethics: Planetary Health in a Perfect Moral Storm. Perspect. Biol. Med. 2022 , 65 , 569–585. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Macklin, R. A new definition for global bioethics: COVID-19, a case study. Glob. Bioeth. 2022 , 33 , 4–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diller, E.R.; Williamson, L. Supporting One Health for Pandemic Prevention: The Need for Ethical Innovation. J. Bioethical. Inq. 2023 , 20 , 345–352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Macpherson, C. Global bioethics: It’s past and future. Glob. Bioeth. 2022 , 33 , 45–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tong, R. Towards a feminist global ethics. Glob. Bioeth. 2022 , 33 , 14–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Missoni, E. Global health, planetary health, One Health: Conceptual and ethical challenges and concerns. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 2024 , 45 , 241–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bonilla-Aldana, D.K.; Holguin-Rivera, Y.; Perez-Vargas, S.; Trejos-Mendoza, A.E.; Balbin-Ramon, G.J.; Dhama, K.; Barato, P.; Lujan-Vega, C.; Rodriguez-Morales, A.J. Importance of the One Health approach to study the SARS-CoV-2 in Latin America. One Health 2020 , 10 , 100147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Becerra, N.M.C.; Medellin, A.M.O.; Tomassone, L.; Chiesa, F.; De Meneghi, D. A Survey on One Health Approach in Colombia and Some Latin American Countries: From a Fragmented Health Organization to an Integrated Health Response to Global Challenges. Front. Public Health 2021 , 9 , 649240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cediel-Becerra, N.M.; Prieto-Quintero, S.; Garzon, A.D.M.; Villafañe-Izquierdo, M.; Rúa-Bustamante, C.V.; Jimenez, N.; Hernández-Niño, J.; Garnier, J. Woman-Sensitive One Health Perspective in Four Tribes of Indigenous People from Latin America: Arhuaco, Wayuú, Nahua, and Kamëntsá. Front. Public Health 2022 , 10 , 774713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hemida, M.G.; Abduallah, M.M.B. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak from a one health perspective. One Health 2020 , 10 , 100127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hayman, D.T.; Adisasmito, W.B.; Almuhairi, S.; Behravesh, C.B.; Bilivogui, P.; Bukachi, S.A.; Casas, N.; Becerra, N.C.; Charron, D.F.; Chaudhary, A.; et al. Developing One Health surveillance systems. One Health 2023 , 17 , 100617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pepin, K.M.; Carlisle, K.; Anderson, D.; Baker, M.G.; Chipman, R.B.; Benschop, J.; French, N.P.; Greenhalgh, S.; McDougall, S.; Muellner, P.; et al. Steps towards operationalizing One Health approaches. One Health 2024 , 18 , 100740. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Arredondo-Rivera, M.; Barois, Z.; Monti, G.E.; Steketee, J.; Daburon, A. Bridging Food Systems and One Health: A key to preventing future pandemics? One Health 2024 , 18 , 100727. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hattingh, J. Protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity. In Handbook of Global Bioethics ; ten Have, H.A.M.J., Gordijn, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; Chapter 15; pp. 225–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rawlinson, M.C. The concept of a feminist bioethics. Int. J. Fem. Approaches Bioeth. 2017 , 10 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhakuni, H. Glocalization of bioethics. Glob. Bioeth. 2022 , 33 , 65–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LeBlanc, A.B.; Williams-Jones, B. Applying the ecosystem approach to global bioethics: Building on the Leopold legacy. Glob. Bioeth. 2023 , 34 , 2280289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parker, M. A Deliberative Approach to Clinical Bioethics. In Clinical Bioethics. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine ; Drane, J.F., Thomasma, D.C., Nairn, W.D., Kipnis, K.T., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; Volume 26, pp. 61–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Finkler, K. Can bioethics be global and local, or must it be both? J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 2008 , 37 , 155–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gielen, J. Dealing with Bioethical Issues in a Globalized World. Normativity in Bioethics ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boudreau LeBlanc, A. At the confluence of ethics, laws and society: Global working theory merging bio-ethics. SN Soc. Sci. 2023 , 4 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LeBlanc, A.B.; Williams-Jones, B.; Aenishaenslin, C. Bio-Ethics and One Health: A Case Study Approach to Building Reflexive Governance. Front. Public Health 2022 , 10 , 648593. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Whitehouse, P.J. The Ecosystem of Bioethics: Building Bridges to Public Health. 2017. Available online: https://commons.case.edu/facultyworks/47 (accessed on 11 June 2024).
• Brescia, T. The rediscovery of Potterian bioethics. Glob. Bioeth. 2015 , 26 , 190–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stepke, F.L. The Hermeutical Dimension of The Bioethics Enterprise. Notes on the Dialogical/Narrative Foundations of Bioethics. Acta Bioeth. 2018 , 24 , 153–159. Available online: https://actabioethica.uchile.cl/index.php/AB/article/view/51618 (accessed on 11 March 2024).
• Árnason, V. Toward Critical Bioethics. Camb. Q. Health Ethics 2015 , 24 , 154–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrarello, S. Phenomenology of Bioethics: Technoethics and Lived-Experience ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: http://www.springer.com/series/16538 (accessed on 11 July 2024).
• Ten Have, H. Global health and global bioethics. Cad. Ibero-Am. De Direito Sanitário 2021 , 10 , 50–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marshall, P.; Thomasma, D.C.; Bergsma, J. Intercultural Reasoning: The Challenge for International Bioethics. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 1994 , 5 , 321–328. [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffiths, J.O. Bioethics, the Ontology of Life, and the Hermeneutics of Biology. In Phenomenology of Bioethics: Technoethics and Lived-Experience ; Farrarello, S., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Chapter 1; pp. 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, P.B. From Synthetic Bioethics to One Bioethics: A Reply to Critics. Ethics Policy Environ. 2015 , 18 , 215–224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, P.B.; List, M. Ebola Needs One Bioethics. Ethics Policy Environ. 2015 , 18 , 96–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lederman, Z.; Capps, B. One Health Ethics: A Response to Pragmatism. J. Med. Ethics 2020 , 46 , 632–633. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Celermajer, D.; Schlosberg, D.; Wadiwel, D.; Winter, C. A Political Theory for a Multispecies, Climate-Challenged World: 2050. Political Theory 2023 , 51 , 39–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chao, S.; Bolender, K.; Kirksey, E. The Promise of Multispecies Justice ; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA; London, UK, 2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heise, U.K. Stories for a multispecies future. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2018 , 8 , 96–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Emel, J.; Nirmal, P. A feminist research agenda for multispecies justice. In A Research Agenda for Animal Geographies ; Hovorka, A., McCubbin, S., Van Patter, L., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021; Chapter 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tschakert, P.; Schlosberg, D.; Celermajer, D.; Rickards, L.; Winter, C.; Thaler, M.; Stewart-Harawira, M.; Verlie, B. Multispecies justice: Climate-just futures with, for and beyond humans. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2020 , 12 , e699. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schlosberg, D. ‘Ecological Justice for the Anthropocene’. In Political Animals and Animal Politics ; Wissenburg, M., Schlosberg, D., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Houndmills, UK, 2023; pp. 75–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkey, B. Prospects for an Inclusive Theory of Justice: The Case of Non-Human Animals. J. Appl. Philos. 2015 , 34 , 679–695. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nussbaum, M. Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility ; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Attfield, R. The Ethics of the Global Environment , 2nd ed.; Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, Scotland, 2015; Available online: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acu/detail.action?docID=4306096 (accessed on 14 May 2024).
• Anthony, R.; Miller, D.S.; Hoenig, D.E.; Millar, K.M.; Goodwin, J.; Dean, W.R.; Grimm, H.; Meijboom, F.L.; Murphy, J.; Persico Murphy, E.; et al. Incorporate ethics into US public health plans. Science 2024 , 383 , 1066–1067. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tauro, A.; Ojeda, J.; Caviness, T.; Moses, K.P.; Moreno-Terrazas, R.; Wright, T.; Zhu, D.; Poole, A.K.; Massardo, F.; Rozzi, R. Field Environmental Philosophy: A Biocultural Ethic Approach to Education and Ecotourism for Sustainability. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 4526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valera, L. Intrinsic Values, Pantheism, and Ecology: Where Does Value Come From? In Pantheism and Ecology. Cosmological, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives ; Valera, L., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 301–311. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palmer, C. Does nature matter? The place of the nonhuman in the ethics of climate change. In The Ethics of Global Climate Change ; Arnold, D., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; Chapter 13; pp. 272–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palmer, C. Living Individuals: Biocentrism in Environmental Ethics. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics ; Gardiner, S.M., Thompson, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palmer, C.; Fischer, B.; Gamborg, C.; Hampton, J.; Sandoe, P. Wildlife Ethics: The Ethics of Wildlife Management and Conservation ; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruen, L. Expressing Entangled Empathy: A Reply. Hypatia 2017 , 32 , 452–462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cochrane, A.; Garner, R.; O’sullivan, S. Animal ethics and the political. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Political Philos. 2016 , 21 , 261–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cochrane, A. Sentientist Politics ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; Volume 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Herten, J.; Bovenkerk, B.; Verweij, M. One Health as a moral dilemma: Towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control. Zoonoses Public Health 2018 , 66 , 26–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Su, Z.; McDonnell, D.; Cheshmehzangi, A.; Bentley, B.L.; Šegalo, S.; da Veiga, C.P.; Xiang, Y.T. Where should “Humans” be in “One Health”? Lessons from COVID-19 for One Health. Glob. Health 2024 , 20 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brown, H.L.; Pursley, I.G.; Horton, D.L.; La Ragione, R. One health: A structured review and commentary on trends and themes. One Health Outlook 2024 , 6 , 17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AVMA. One Health Initiative Task Force: A New Professional Imperative. July 2008. Available online: https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/onehealth_final.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
• Johnson, L.S.M.; Ferdowsian, H.; Pierce, J. How One Health Instrumentalizes Nonhuman Animals. AMA J. Ethics 2024 , 26 , E184–E190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Meisner, J.; McLeland-Wieser, H.; Traylor, E.E.; Hermesh, B.; Berg, T.; Roess, A.; Van Patter, L.; Rosenthal, A.; Davidovitch, N.; Rabinowitz, P.M. Relational One Health: A more-than-biomedical framework for more-than-human health, and lessons learned from Brazil, Ethiopia, and Israel. One Health 2024 , 18 , 100676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Waltner-Toews, D. Zoonoses, One Health and complexity: Wicked problems and constructive conflict. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017 , 372 , 20160171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zinsstag, J.; Meyer, J.M.; Bonfoh, B.; Fink, G.; Dimov, A. One Health in human-environment systems: Linking health and the sustainable use of natural resources. CABI One Health 2024 , 3 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pelluchon, C. Manifiesto animalista. Politizar la Causa Animal ; Reservoir Books: Barcelona, Spain, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelluchon, C. Reparemos el Mundo: Humanos, Animales, Naturaleza ; Ned Ediciones: Barcelona, Spain, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner, P.N. “Harm” and Mill’s Harm Principle. Ethics 2014 , 124 , 299–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arato, J.; Claussen, K.; Heath, J.B. The Perils of Pandemic Exceptionalism. Am. J. Int. Law 2020 , 114 , 627–636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kirk, J.; McDonald, M. The Politics of Exceptionalism: Securitization and COVID-19. Glob. Stud. Q. 2021 , 1 , ksab024. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roth, E. “Bats Who Harm” and “Bats Who May Be Harmed”: The Interspecies Politics of Virus Sampling. Soc. Anim. 2024 , 1 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mysterud, A.; Rauset, G.R.; Van Moorter, B.; Andersen, R.; Strand, O.; Rivrud, I.M. The last moves: The effect of hunting and culling on the risk of disease spread from a population of reindeer. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020 , 57 , 2509–2518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lederman, Z.; Magalhães-Sant’ana, M.; Voo, T.C. Stamping Out Animal Culling: From Anthropocentrism to One Health Ethics. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2021 , 34 , 27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frutos, R.; Devaux, C. Mass culling of minks to protect the COVID-19 vaccines: Is it rational? New Microbes New Infect. 2020 , 38 , 100816. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lesté-Lasserre, C. Pandemic dooms Danish mink—And mink research. Science 2020 , 370 , 754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cripps, E. Harming and Protecting Non-Humans. In Climate Change and the Moral Agent: Individual Duties in an Interdependent World ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Degeling, C.; Lederman, Z.; Rock, M. Culling and the Common Good: Re-evaluating Harms and Benefits under the One Health Paradigm. Public Health Ethics 2016 , 9 , 244–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halteman, M.C. Varieties of Harm to Animals in Industrial Farming. J. Anim. Ethics 2011 , 1 , 122–131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halabowski, D.; Rzymski, P. Taking a lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic: Preventing the future outbreaks of viral zoonoses through a multi-faceted approach. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020 , 757 , 143723. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sebo, J.; White, A.; Sims, T. One Health and Multispecies Urban Infrastructure (peer reviewed). In One Health and the Law: Existing Frameworks, Intersections and Future Pathways ; Kotzmann, J., Woolaston, K., Eds.; 2024; pp. 1–17. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4883654 (accessed on 11 August 2024).
• Origgi, G. Fear of principles? A cautious defense of the Precautionary Principle. Mind Soc. 2014 , 13 , 215–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• von Essen, E.; Redmalm, D. License to Cull: A Research Agenda for Investigating the Necropolitics of Countryside Culling and Urban Pest Control. Soc. Anim. 2023 , 1 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Resnik, D.B. Human Health and the Environment: In Harmony or in Conflict? Health Care Anal. 2009 , 17 , 261–276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• McCulloch, S.P.; Reiss, M.J. Bovine Tuberculosis and Badger Control in Britain: Science, Policy and Politics. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2017 , 30 , 469–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lynch, K.E.; Blumstein, D.T. Hidden ethical costsof conservation. Science 2020 , 370 , 179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, J.M.; Koh, J.H.; Kim, J.M. Consumer awareness of culling and animal welfare. Food Control 2022 , 133 , 108495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Herten, J. Considerations for an Ethic of One Health Towards a Socially Responsible Zoonotic Disease Control ; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benis, A.; Haghi, M.; Deserno, T.M.; Tamburis, O. One Digital Health Intervention for Monitoring Human and Animal Welfare in Smart Cities: Viewpoint and Use Case. MIR Med. Inform. 2023 , 11 , e43871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farlow, A.; Torreele, E.; Gray, G.; Ruxrungtham, K.; Rees, H.; Prasad, S.; Gomez, C.; Sall, A.; Magalhães, J.; Olliaro, P.; et al. The Future of Epidemic and Pandemic Vaccines to Serve Global Public Health Needs. Vaccines 2023 , 11 , 690. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Destoumieux-Garzón, D.; Matthies-Wiesler, F.; Bierne, N.; Binot, A.; Boissier, J.; Devouge, A.; Garric, J.; Gruetzmacher, K.; Grunau, C.; Guégan, J.-F.; et al. Getting out of crises: Environmental, social-ecological and evolutionary research is needed to avoid future risks of pandemics. Environ. Int. 2021 , 158 , 106915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilkes, M.S.; Conrad, P.A.; Winer, J.N. One Health–One Education: Medical and Veterinary Inter-Professional Training. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2019 , 46 , 14–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lerner, H.; Berg, C. The concept of health in One Health and some practical implications for research and education: What is One Health? Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 2015 , 5 , 25300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nieuwland, J.; Meijboom, F.L.B. One Health: How Interdependence Enriches Veterinary Ethics Education. Animals 2019 , 10 , 13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Togami, E.; Gardy, J.L.; Hansen, G.R.; Poste, G.H.; Rizzo, D.M.; Wilson, M.E.; Mazet, J.A.K.; University of British Columbia; Consulting, L.H.; Arizona State University. Core Competencies in One Health Education: What Are We Missing? NAM Perspect. 2018 , 8 , 14–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spanjol, K.; Zucca, P. Biophilia, One Health, and Humane Education: Mitigating global risk through embracing humanity’s interconnection with the natural world. In Socio-Political Risk Management. Assessing and Managing Global Insecurity ; Engemann, K.J., Lavery, C.F., Sheehan, J.M., Eds.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; London, UK, 2023; Chapter 7; pp. 109–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The European Union One Health 2022 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2023 , 21 , 1–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lehtimaki, S.; Hannon, E.; Hanbali, L.; Soltan, D.-F.; Peek, K.; Nassiri-Ansari, T.; Schwalbe, N. Where there is a will, there is a way: Independent assessment of member state compliance with the pandemic agreement. Lancet Glob. Health 2024 , 12 , e18–e19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Semenza, J.C.; Rocklöv, J.; Ebi, K.L. Climate Change and Cascading Risks from Infectious Disease. Infect. Dis. Ther. 2022 , 11 , 1371–1390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agyarko, R.; Al Slail, F.; Garrett, D.O.; Gentry, B.; Gresham, L.; Underwood, M.L.K.; Macfarlane, S.B.; Moussif, M. The imperative for global cooperation to prevent and control pandemics. In Modernizing Global Health Security to Prevent, Detect, and Respond ; McNabb, S.J.N., Shaikh, A.T., Haley, C.J., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2024; Chapter 4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scully, J.L. COVID, Vulnerability, and the Death of Solidarity: “Who Do We Not Save?”. J. Bioethical Inq. 2023 , 20 , 601–606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tomasini, F. Solidarity in the Time of COVID-19? Camb. Q. Health Ethics 2020 , 30 , 234–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Branda, F. Social impact: Trusting open science for future pandemic resilience. Soc. Impacts 2024 , 3 , 100058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Besançon, L.; Peiffer-Smadja, N.; Segalas, C.; Jiang, H.; Masuzzo, P.; Smout, C.; Billy, E.; Deforet, M.; Leyrat, C. Open science saves lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2021 , 21 , 117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pettan-Brewer, C.; Martins, A.F.; de Abreu, D.P.B.; Brandão, A.P.D.; Barbosa, D.S.; Figueroa, D.P.; Cediel, N.; Kahn, L.H.; Brandespim, D.F.; Velásquez, J.C.C.; et al. From the Approach to the Concept: One Health in Latin America-Experiences and Perspectives in Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Front. Public Health 2021 , 9 , 687110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WHO. Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to Draft and Negotiate a WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response. Geneva, May 2024. Available online: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/ (accessed on 10 June 2024).
• Rink, E.; Stotz, S.A.; Johnson-Jennings, M.; Huyser, K.; Collins, K.; Manson, S.M.; Berkowitz, S.A.; Hebert, L.; Shanks, C.B.; Begay, K.; et al. “We don’t separate out these things. Everything is related”: Partnerships with Indigenous Communities to Design, Implement, and Evaluate Multilevel Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities. Prev. Sci. 2024 , 25 , 474–485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• A Barrett, M.; A Bouley, T.; Stoertz, A.H.; Stoertz, R.W. Integrating a One Health approach in education to address global health and sustainability challenges. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010 , 9 , 239–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reaser, J.K.; Witt, A.; Tabor, G.M.; Hudson, P.J.; Plowright, R.K. Ecological countermeasures for preventing zoonotic disease outbreaks: When ecological restoration is a human health imperative. Restor. Ecol. 2021 , 29 , e13357. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• FAO. The Emergency Prevention System for Animal Health Enhancing the Prevention and Control of High-Impact Animal and Zoonotic Diseases through Biosecurity and One Health Strategic Plan (2023–2026). 2023. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/cbea52a7-8b1f-46ff-a3d1-3d6acc72decd/content (accessed on 10 June 2024).
• Ritter, C.; King, M. One Health Une santé One Welfare: The role of veterinary professionals. Can. Vet. J. 2023 , 64 , 784–786. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10352033/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
• Marchant-Forde, J.N.; Boyle, L.A. COVID-19 Effects on Livestock Production: A One Welfare Issue. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020 , 7 , 585787. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moreno-Madriñan, M.J.; Kontowicz, E. Stocking Density and Homogeneity, Considerations on Pandemic Potential. Zoonotic Dis. 2023 , 3 , 85–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Y.; Ryan, U.; Feng, Y.; Xiao, L. Association of Common Zoonotic Pathogens with Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Front. Microbiol. 2022 , 12 , 810142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stel, M.; Eggers, J.; Alonso, W.J. Mitigating Zoonotic Risks in Intensive Farming: Solutions for a Sustainable Change. Ecohealth 2022 , 19 , 324–328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Butler, C.D. Bioethics, climate change, and civilization. J. Clim. Chang. Health 2024 , 18 , 100329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okeke, I.N.; de Kraker, M.E.; Van Boeckel, T.P.; Kumar, C.K.; Schmitt, H.; Gales, A.C.; Bertagnolio, S.; Sharland, M.; Laxminarayan, R. The scope of the antimicrobial resistance challenge. Lancet 2024 , 403 , 2426–2438. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Djordjevic, S.P.; Jarocki, V.M.; Seemann, T.; Cummins, M.L.; Watt, A.E.; Drigo, B.; Wyrsch, E.R.; Reid, C.J.; Donner, E.; Howden, B.P. Genomic surveillance for antimicrobial resistance—A One Health perspective. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2023 , 25 , 142–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hernández, A.C. Poultry and Avian Diseases. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems , 2nd ed.; Van Alfen, N., Ed.; Elsevier: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alam, M.-U.; Rahman, M.; Masud, A.A.; Islam, M.A.; Asaduzzaman, M.; Sarker, S.; Rousham, E.; Unicomb, L. Human exposure to antimicrobial resistance from poultry production: Assessing hygiene and waste-disposal practices in Bangladesh. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2019 , 222 , 1068–1076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ahmed, S.K.; Hussein, S.; Qurbani, K.; Ibrahim, R.H.; Fareeq, A.; Mahmood, K.A.; Mohamed, M.G. Antimicrobial resistance: Impacts, challenges, and future prospects. J. Med. Surg. Public Health 2024 , 2 , 100081. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alonso, A.I.; South, N. Incorporating a One Health Approach into the Study of Environmental Crimes and Harms: Towards a ‘One Health Green Criminology. Br. J. Criminol. 2024 , azae047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barrett, M.A.; Osofsky, S.A. One Health: Interdependence of People, other Species and the Planet ; Saunders Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leboeuf, A. Making Sense of One Health: Cooperating at the Human-Animal-Ecosystem Health Interface, IFRI. Heath and Environment Reports, No. 7, April 2011. Available online: https://www.ifri.org/en/publications/etudes-de-lifri/making-sense-one-health-cooperating-human-animal-ecosystem-health (accessed on 20 July 2024).
• The Pandemic Treaty: Shameful and unjust. Lancet 2024 , 403 , 781. [ CrossRef ]
• van Vliet, N.; Muhindo, J.; Nyumu, J.; Enns, C.; Massé, F.; Bersaglio, B.; Cerutti, P.; Nasi, R. Understanding Factors that Shape Exposure to Zoonotic and Food-Borne Diseases Across Wild Meat Trade Chains. Hum. Ecol. 2022 , 50 , 983–995. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Commission. EU One Health Action Plan against AMR. 2017, p. 24. Available online: http://www.who.int/entity/drugresistance/documents/surveillancereport/en/index.html%0A (accessed on 11 June 2024).
• Hibbard, R.; Mendelson, M.; Page, S.W.; Ferreira, J.P.; Pulcini, C.; Paul, M.C.; Faverjon, C. Antimicrobial stewardship: A definition with a One Health perspective. npj Antimicrob. Resist. 2024 , 2 , 15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Osińska, A.; Korzeniewska, E.; Harnisz, M.; Felis, E.; Bajkacz, S.; Jachimowicz, P.; Niestępski, S.; Konopka, I. Small-scale wastewater treatment plants as a source of the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes in the aquatic environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020 , 381 , 121221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ten Have, H. Equity, Justice and Responsibility in the Perspective of Global Health. In Healing Mission: The Catholic Church in the Era of Global Public Health ; Gabric, B., Hofmann, S., Eds.; Verlag Friedrich Pustet: Regensburg, Germany, 2023; pp. 173–198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, A.C.; Shaw, H.; Rhodes, V.; Hart, A. Review of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Environment and Its Relevance to Environmental Regulators. Front. Microbiol. 2016 , 7 , 1728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garcia, S.N.; Osburn, B.I.; Jay-Russell, M.T. One Health for Food Safety, Food Security, and Sustainable Food Production. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020 , 4 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koutsoumanis, K.P.; Lianou, A.; Sofos, J.N. Food Safety: Emerging Pathogens. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems ; Elsevier: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; Available online: https://search.credoreference.com/articles/Qm9va0FydGljbGU6MzE4MTc0NQ==?aid=257358</div> (accessed on 9 June 2024).
• Nieuwland, J.; Meijboom, F.L.B. One-Health as a normative concept: Implications for food safety at the wildlife interface. In Know Your Food: Food Ethics and Innovation ; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 132–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry, S.L.; Chipman, S.; Gregg, M.E.; Haffey, H.; Devenot, N.; McMullin, J. Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging: A Health Humanities Consortium Initiative. J. Med. Humanit. 2024 , 45 , 283–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sharan, M.; Vijay, D.; Yadav, J.P.; Bedi, J.S.; Dhaka, P. Surveillance and response strategies for zoonotic diseases: A comprehensive review. Sci. One Health 2023 , 2 , 100050. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ballash, G.A.; Parker, E.M.; Mollenkopf, D.F.; Wittum, T.E. The One Health dissemination of antimicrobial resistance occurs in both natural and clinical environments. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2024 , 262 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vezeau, N.; Kahn, L. Spread and mitigation of antimicrobial resistance at the wildlife-urban and wildlife-livestock interfaces. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2024 , 262 , 1–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mitchell, J.; Cooke, P.; Ahorlu, C.; Arjyal, A.; Baral, S.; Carter, L.; Dasgupta, R.; Fieroze, F.; Fonseca-Braga, M.; Huque, R.; et al. Community engagement: The key to tackling Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) across a One Health context? Glob. Public Health 2021 , 17 , 2647–2664. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marvasi, M.; Casillas, L.; Vassallo, A.; Purchase, D. Educational Activities for Students and Citizens Supporting the One-Health Approach on Antimicrobial Resistance. Antibiotics 2021 , 10 , 1519. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khazatzadeh-Mahani, A.; Ruckert, A.; Labonté, R. Global Health Diplomacy. In The Oxford Handbook of Global Health Politics ; McInnes, C., Lee, K., Youde, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020; Chapter 6; pp. 102–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rushton, S. Security and Health. In The Oxford Handbook of Global Health Politics ; McInnes, C., Lee, K., Youde, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020; Chapter 7; pp. 122–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oyekan, A.O.; Balogun, W.A. Borders, Boundaries, and Identities: Navigating the Barriers to Solidarity and Cohesion in a Pandemic. In Global Health, Humanity and the COVID-19 Pandemic ; Egbokhare, F., Afolayan, A., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 197–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WHO. Ethical Issues Associated with Vector-Borne Diseases. Report of a WHO Scoping Meeting. Geneva . 2017. Available online: http://apps.who.int/bookorders (accessed on 16 March 2019).
• Waltner-Toews, D. One ecosystem, one food system: The social and ecological context of food safety strategies. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 1991 , 4 , 49–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LeBlanc, A.B.; Motulsky, A.; Moreault, M.-P.; Liang, M.Q.; Feze, I.N.; Côteaux, L.D. Building a Logic Model to Foster Engagement and Learning Using the Case of a Province-Wide Multispecies Antimicrobial Use Monitoring System. Eval. Rev. 2023 , 48 , 736–765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Dam, A.; van Engelen, W.; Müller-Mahn, D.; Agha, S.; Junglen, S.; Borgemeister, C.; Bollig, M. Complexities of multispecies coexistence: Animal diseases and diverging modes of ordering at the wildlife–livestock interface in Southern Africa. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2023 , 7 , 353–374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mota-Rojas, D.; Monsalve, S.; Lezama-García, K.; Mora-Medina, P.; Domínguez-Oliva, A.; Ramírez-Necoechea, R.; Garcia, R.d.C.M. Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach. Animals 2022 , 12 , 977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Quadripartite. Quadripartite Key Recommendations and Priorities for the 2024 UNGA High-Level Meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). 2024. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/policy-and-strategy/quadripartite-key-recommendations-and-priorities-2024-unga-high-level (accessed on 8 August 2024).
• IACG-UN. No Time to Wait: Securing the Future from Drug-Resistant Infections Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/no-time-to-wait-securing-the-future-from-drug-resistant-infections (accessed on 8 August 2024).
• Rozzi, R. Inter-species and Inter-cultural Encounters: The Biocultural Education Program of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park. In Field Environmental Philosophy: Education for Biocultural Conservation ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 153–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hourdequin, M. Environmental Ethics, From Theory and Practice ; Bloomsbury: London, UK, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rozzi, R.; Tauro, A.; Avriel-Avni, N.; Wright, T.; May, R.H., Jr. Field Environmental Philosophy. Education for Biocultural Conservation ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyd, K. Global health justice: Epistemic theory and pandemic practice. J. Med. Ethics 2023 , 49 , 303–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Vries, J.; Pratt, B. Epistemic justice in bioethics: Interculturality and the possibility of reparations. J. Med. Ethics 2023 , 49 , 347. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Broadbent, A.; Ncube, L. Intercultural Medical Disagreements: Ebola vs. COVID-19. In The Politics of Knowledge in the Biomedical Sciences ; Jansen, J., Auerbach, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chao, S.; Celermajer, D. Introduction: Multispecies Justice. Cult. Politics 2023 , 19 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sandler, R. De-extinction: Costs, benefits and ethics. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017 , 1 , 105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sandler, R. De-extinction and Conservation Genetics in the Anthropocene. Häst. Cent. Rep. 2017 , 47 , S43–S47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sandler, R. On the Massness of Mass Extinction. Philosophia 2022 , 50 , 2205–2220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gardiner, S.M. On the Scope of Institutions for Future Generations: Defending an Expansive Global Constitutional Convention That Protects against Squandering Generations. In Ethics and International Affairs ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 157–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WHO. Compendium of WHO and Other UN Guidance on Health and Environment 2024 Update. 2023. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/compendium-who-and-other-un-guidance-health-and-environment-2024-update (accessed on 14 July 2024).
• Benis, A.; Tamburis, O. The Need for Green and Responsible Medical Informatics and Digital Health: Looking Forward with One Digital Health. Yearb. Med. Inform. 2023 , 32 , 007–009. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tamburis, O.; Benis, A. One Digital Health for more FAIRness. Methods Inf. Med. 2022 , 61 , E116–E124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bankoff, G. The Historical Geography of Disaster: ‘Vulnerability’ and ‘Local Knowledge’ in Western Discourse. In Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People ; Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Hilhorst, D., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2004; Chapter 2; pp. 25–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bankoff, G. Rendering the World Unsafe: ‘Vulnerability’ as Western Discourse. Disasters 2001 , 25 , 19–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lederberg, J. Infectious History. Science 2000 , 288 , 287–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cassidy, A. Humans, Other Animals and ‘One Health’ in the Early Twenty-First Century. In Animals and the Shaping of Modern Medicine. One Health and its Histories ; Woods, A., Bresalier, M., Cassidy, A., Dentiger, R.M., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Chapter 6; pp. 193–224. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woods, A.; Bresalier, M.; Cassidy, A.; Mason Dentinger, R. Animals and the Shaping of Modern Medicine. One Health and Its Histories ; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Available online: http://www.springer.com/series/15183 (accessed on 18 October 2018).
• Schwalbe, N.; Hannon, E.; Lehtimaki, S. The new pandemic treaty: Are we in safer hands? Probably not. BMJ 2024 , 384 , q477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bortolotti, L.; Murphy-Hollies, K. Exceptionalism at the Time of covid-19: Where Nationalism Meets Irrationality. Dan. Yearb. Philos. 2022 , 55 , 90–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ricard, J.; Medeiros, J. Using misinformation as a political weapon: COVID-19 and Bolsonaro in Brazil. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. 2020 , 1 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodriguez, J. God, Home, and Thinking in the Place: What Kind of Pantheism Did Thoreau Endorse? In Pantheism and Ecology. Cosmological, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives ; Valera, L., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 183–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Rodriguez, J. One Health Ethics and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A Silent Call for Global Action. Vet. Sci. 2024 , 11 , 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11090394

Rodriguez J. One Health Ethics and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A Silent Call for Global Action. Veterinary Sciences . 2024; 11(9):394. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11090394

Rodriguez, Jeyver. 2024. "One Health Ethics and the Ethics of Zoonoses: A Silent Call for Global Action" Veterinary Sciences 11, no. 9: 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11090394

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Watch CBS News

Harvard study on monkeys reignites ethical debate over animal testing

Updated on: November 21, 2022 / 12:54 PM EST / CBS/AFP

Mother monkeys permanently separated from their newborns sometimes find comfort in plush toys; this recent finding from Harvard experiments has set off intense controversy among scientists and reignited the ethical debate over animal testing.

The paper, "Triggers for mother love," was authored by neuroscientist Margaret Livingstone and appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in September to little fanfare or media coverage.

But once news of the study began spreading on social media, it provoked a firestorm of criticism and eventually a letter to PNAS signed by over 250 scientists calling for a retraction.

Animal rights groups meanwhile recalled Livingstone's past work, which included temporarily suturing shut the eyelids of infant monkeys in order to study the impact on their cognition.

"We cannot ask monkeys for consent, but we can stop using, publishing, and in this case actively promoting cruel methods that knowingly cause extreme distress," wrote Catherine Hobaiter, a primatologist at the University of St. Andrews, who co-authored the retraction letter.

Hobaiter told AFP she was awaiting a response from the journal before further comment, but expected news soon.

Harvard and Livingstone, for their part, have strongly defended the research.

Livingstone's observations "can help scientists understand maternal bonding in humans and can inform comforting interventions to help women cope with loss in the immediate aftermath of suffering a miscarriage or experiencing a still birth," said Harvard Medical School in a statement .

The school added it was "deeply concerned about the personal attacks directed at scientists who conduct critically important research for the benefit of humanity."

Livingstone, in a separate statement , said: "I have joined the ranks of scientists targeted and demonized by opponents of animal research, who seek to abolish lifesaving research in all animals."

Such work routinely attracts the ire of groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which opposes all forms of animal testing.

In its statement, Harvard Medical School said PETA had published content regarding the study on its website that was "misleading and contains factual inaccuracies."

This controversy has notably provoked strong responses in the scientific community, particularly from animal behavior researchers and primatologists, said Alan McElligot of the City University of Hong Kong's Centre for Animal Health and a co-signer of the PNAS letter.

He told AFP that Livingstone appears to have replicated research performed by Harry Harlow, a notorious American psychologist, from the mid-20th century.

Harlow's experiments on maternal deprivation in rhesus macaques were considered groundbreaking, but may have also helped catalyze the early animal liberation movement.

"It just ignored all of the literature that we already have on attachment theory," added Holly Root-Gutteridge, an animal behavior scientist at the University of Lincoln in Britain.

McElligot and Root-Gutteridge argue the case was emblematic of a wider problem in animal research, in which questionable studies and papers continue to pass institutional reviews and are published in high impact journals.

McElligot pointed to a much-critiqued 2020 paper extolling the efficiency of foot snares to capture jaguars and cougars for scientific study in Brazil.

More recently, experiments on marmosets that included invasive surgeries have attracted controversy.

The University of Massachusetts Amherst team behind the work says studying the tiny monkeys, which have 10-year lifespans and experience cognitive decline in their old age, are essential to better understand Alzheimer's in people.

Opponents argue results rarely translate across species.

When it comes to testing drugs, there is evidence the tide is turning against animal trials.

In September, the Senate passed the bipartisan FDA Modernization Act, which would end a requirement that experimental medicines first be tested on animals before any human trials.

The vast majority of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials, while new technologies such as tissue cultures, mini organs and AI models are also reducing the need for live animals.

Opponents also say the vast sums of money that flow from government grants to universities and other institutes — $15 billion annually, according to watchdog group White Coat Waste — perpetuate a system in which animals are viewed as lab resources.

"The animal experimenters are the rainmaker within the institutions, because they're bringing in more money," said primatologist Lisa Engel-Jones, who worked as a lab researcher for three decades but now opposes the practice and is a science adviser for PETA.

"There's financial incentive to keep doing what you've been doing and just look for any way you can to get more papers published, because that means more funding and more job security," added Emily Trunnel, a neuroscientist who experimented on rodents and also now works for PETA.

Most scientists do not share PETA's absolutist stance, but instead say they adhere to the "three Rs" framework — refine, replace and reduce animal use.

On Livingstone's experiment, Root-Gutteridge said the underlying questions might have been studied on wild macaques who naturally lost their young, and urged neuroscientists to team up with animal behaviorists to find ways to minimize harm.

"Do I wish we lived in a world where generating this important knowledge were possible without the use of lab animals? Of course!" Livingstone said in her statement . "Alas, we are not there yet."

• Harvard Medical School

More from CBS News

Dems sue over Georgia rules they say could block election certifications

Water buffalo that was on the loose in Iowa captured

Ford is latest to curtail DEI policies amid conservative criticism

Russia hits Ukraine energy plants with huge wave of drones and missiles

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Trop Parasitol
• v.3(1); Jan-Jun 2013

Ethics of involving animals in research

Jharna mandal.

Department of Microbiology, JIPMER, Puducherry, India

Subhash Chandra Parija

Use of animals in research is a highly debatable topic. Though their use has led to several discoveries and understanding of many aspects of science but their use in certain sectors needs to be justified. There are national and international laws which govern the use of animals in research, all of which are based on the principles of the 4Rs – replacement, reduction and refinement and the rehabilitation of the use of animals in research. It is mandatory that all institutions involved in animal research develop and abide by the ethical review processes which promote good animal welfare practices by ensuring that the use of animals at the designated establishment is justified. With the availability of many alternatives, the lives of many animals can now be secure.

INTRODUCTION

“The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk, but can they suffer.”

This profound thought provoking statement was made by Jeremy Bentham to oppose the ideology of many scientists in the nineteenth century that animals are incapable of suffering from pain. Animals are used primarily in fundamental biological and medical research, developing new treatments for diseases and new diagnostic tests, safety testing of chemicals and drugs and in biology, and medical education.[ 1 ]

The understanding of present day medicine as well as unraveling of many mysteries of science has been possible owing to the numerous experiments performed on animals. Engaging in research is an integral part of human mind and is immensely related to animal experimentation. However, there has been a lot of debate over the use of animals in research. Though there are national and international laws, which govern the use of animals in research, all of these echo the same universal doctrine of Russell and Burch (1959) to develop initiatives for the widest possible application of the 3 R's-replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research. It is therefore mandatory that all institutions involved in animal research develop and abide by the ethical review processes, which promote good animal welfare practices by ensuring that the use of animals at the designated establishment is justified.[ 2 , 3 ]

There are many national and international bodies, which guide the animal experiments as animal welfare is considered as “experimentation with responsibilities.” The International Committee for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) (currently the office of the President of ICLAS, based in USA, has a membership of about 100 countries and has set up international guidelines for experimental procedures and training of researchers. In India such guidelines have been published by Indian National Science Academy in 1992, which were recently revised in 2000. There are many laws, which have been implemented in the developed countries especially in the UK, Netherlands and USA. Unfortunately, most of these laws do not reflect or mention about rehabilitation. In India, the National centre for laboratory animal science (NCLAS) in Hyderabad and the Central Drug Research Institute in Lucknow and some public and private sectors have good animal laboratory services. Though many facilities exist, but most of them lack adequate maintenance.[ 3 ]

In India, the initial foundation of humane and ethical use of animals in research was made by the prevention of cruelty to animals Act of 1960. This act decries any form of injustice to animals and mandates to take all such measures as may be necessary to ensure that animals are not subject to unnecessary pain or suffering before, during or after the performance of experiments on them. This very act paved the way for a Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA). However, it was not until 1999 when CPCSEA became functional. The CPCSEA not only allows the discussion of animal's related issues, but also has the power to lay down laws to protect animal rights such as “Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules 1998.” For many years the CPCSEA has been very actively rescuing animals from laboratories. It has also enforced good laboratory practice related to animals, designed guidelines for the use of animals in the laboratories abiding by the principles of 3 R's and most importantly brought forward the concept of the fourth R, “rehabilitation” of used laboratory animals. The CPCSEA has also made it a mandatory national policy that personnel using experimental animals have a moral responsibility toward these animals after their use so much so that costs of after-care/rehabilitation of animals post experimentation are to be a part of research costs. This committee comprises of nominated members and representatives from national regulatory agencies namely, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Environment and Forests, national academic and research councils, research institutes, eminent scientists, and animal welfare organizations. There are many non-government organizations like the People for ethical treatment of animals (PETA), Society for prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCA), Blue cross, which carry out a lot of activities to ensure animal welfare.[ 4 ]

The 4 R's refer to replacement, reduction, refinement and rehabilitation.[ 3 ]

Replacement: Refer to methods which avoid or replace the use of animals and these can be absolute by using in silico (computer based programs) and in vitro methods (human volunteers) or relative replacement (e.g., invertebrates, such as fruit flies and nematode worms).

Reduction: Refers to methods, which allow researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, thereby minimizing animal use (e.g. improved experimental design, modern imaging techniques, sharing data, and resources).

Refinement: Refers to improvements in procedures, which minimize pain, suffering and distress and allow general improvement of animal welfare (e.g., improvement in the living conditions of research animals, anesthesia and analgesia for pain relief).

Rehabilitation: Refers to after-care and/or rehabilitation of animals post-experimentation. All researchers using experimental animals have a moral responsibility to the animals after use. Rehabilitation of experimental animals is a legal requirement in India.

Each institute involved in animal research should have an ethics committee for monitoring research activities on the animals. This can be further strengthened by providing accreditation services to laboratories by constituting, National Accreditation Board of Testing and Calibration Laboratories having membership of the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation. All scientists involved in animal research should be conscientious and concerned about the animal welfare throughout the research.

Laboratory Animal Sciences is an emerging new field, which is specialized and is not covered in the curriculum of the courses where research on animals is performed. There is a definite demand of trained manpower in this sector both at the senior and junior levels. Training and certification in laboratory animal care and procedures of all personnel working with the animals either at the management level or for experimentation or involved in the maintenance of the animal housing facilities should be made mandatory. The training course can be of short duration for research workers who need to orient specifically for the experimental procedures but those who are involved in managing the facilities must have a longer training (6 months to 1 year).

HUMANE SCIENCE-THE SCIENCE OF ALTERNATIVES

It is well-known and projected that animals are rarely good models for the human body due to their different anatomical and physiological properties. Hence, it is not always worthwhile by trying to infect animals with diseases, which they would not normally contract. In many cases, the outcome can be disastrous it can harm and kill humans as well as not prove worthy enough by hurting the animals and waste resources. For example, thalidomide was tested on animals and judged safe, but had devastating consequences for the people who used them.

Animal testing wastes time and resources by misleading researchers. In a testimony Dr. Albert Sabin, who developed the oral polio vaccine, cited that his work had been “delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.” Such erroneous leads generate more studies, which will only multiply the sufferings of animals.

Just as many important discoveries were based on the outcome of animal experiments, almost all important developments in health-care are attributable to human studies e.g. anesthesia; the stethoscope; radium; penicillin; artificial respiration; antiseptics; the computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging and the isolation of the virus, which causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Animal testing played no role in these and many other developments.

Many companies and scientists have developed alternatives to the use and abuse of animals. A comprehensive review of the websites, organizations and journals is available.[ 5 ] Though searching for alternatives and applying them for research is indeed a challenge. Many laboratories and pharmaceutical companies have developed computer based software programs, which have replaced the use of laboratory animals. Many software packages are available, which allows researchers to predict chemicals’ oral toxicity as well as their degree of skin and eye irritation. Many progressive universities have changed their syllabi and opted for humane, scientific teaching methods, which have omitted the use of animals for dissection. One such software based alternative is the Compu Series, developed, and marketed by the Chennai-based Blue Cross, which allows students to digitally dissect all laboratory animals. Furthermore, it is well-understood that clinical trials, the use of human volunteers, case studies, autopsy reports and statistical analyses as well as the use of actual environmental factors related to human disease permit far more accurate observation than is possible with animals who are confined to laboratories.

“The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn't work in humans, we need to acknowledge the fact that use of animals will not make us better scientists, but bitter scientists”.

- Dr. Richard Klausner

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Ethical issues associated with the use of animal experimentation in behavioral neuroscience research

Affiliation.

• 1 Department Animals in Science & Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Utrecht, Yalelaan 2, PO Box 80.166, 3508 TD, Utrecht, The Netherlands, [email protected].
• PMID: 25023419
• DOI: 10.1007/7854_2014_328

This chapter briefly explores whether there are distinct characteristics in the field of Behavioral Neuroscience that demand specific ethical reflection. We argue that although the ethical issues in animal-based Behavioral Neuroscience are not necessarily distinct from those in other research disciplines using animal experimentation, this field of endeavor makes a number of specific, ethically relevant, questions more explicit and, as a result, may expose to discussion a series of ethical issues that have relevance beyond this field of science. We suggest that innovative research, by its very definition, demands out-of-the-box thinking. At the same time, standardization of animal models and test procedures for the sake of comparability across experiments inhibits the potential and willingness to leave well-established tracks of thinking, and leaves us wondering how open minded research is and whether it is the researcher's established perspective that drives the research rather than the research that drives the researcher's perspective. The chapter finishes by introducing subsequent chapters of this book volume on Ethical Issues in Behavioral Neuroscience.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Does the goal justify the methods? Harm and benefit in neuroscience research using animals. Vieira de Castro AC, Olsson IA. Vieira de Castro AC, et al. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2015;19:47-78. doi: 10.1007/7854_2014_319. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2015. PMID: 24844681 Review.
• The use of animal models in behavioural neuroscience research. Bovenkerk B, Kaldewaij F. Bovenkerk B, et al. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2015;19:17-46. doi: 10.1007/7854_2014_329. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2015. PMID: 25031123 Review.
• Ethical Issues in Behavioral Neuroscience : Ethics of Human Research in Behavioral Neuroscience: Overview of Section II. Lee G. Lee G. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2015;19:135-6. doi: 10.1007/7854_2014_343. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2015. PMID: 25178912 No abstract available.
• Animal Research in Neuroscience: A Duty to Engage. Bennett AJ, Ringach DL. Bennett AJ, et al. Neuron. 2016 Nov 2;92(3):653-657. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.034. Neuron. 2016. PMID: 27810011
• Ethics in Animal-Based Research. Gross D, Tolba RH. Gross D, et al. Eur Surg Res. 2015;55(1-2):43-57. doi: 10.1159/000377721. Epub 2015 Apr 10. Eur Surg Res. 2015. PMID: 25871531 Review.
• Improving Translation by Identifying Evidence for More Human-Relevant Preclinical Strategies. Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Leenaars C, Beumer W, Coenen-de Roo T, Stafleu F, Meijboom FLB. Ritskes-Hoitinga M, et al. Animals (Basel). 2020 Jul 10;10(7):1170. doi: 10.3390/ani10071170. Animals (Basel). 2020. PMID: 32664195 Free PMC article.
• Advances in ex vivo models and lab-on-a-chip devices for neural tissue engineering. Mobini S, Song YH, McCrary MW, Schmidt CE. Mobini S, et al. Biomaterials. 2019 Apr;198:146-166. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.05.012. Epub 2018 May 11. Biomaterials. 2019. PMID: 29880219 Free PMC article. Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources, other literature sources.

• scite Smart Citations
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.