The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

Ari R Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton, Nathan Nobis

IntroductionPediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing.DesignAfter development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR.Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P¿<¿.05 considered significant.ResultsResponse rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered `benefits arguments¿ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same `benefits arguments¿ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened `benefits arguments¿. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by `characteristics of non-human-animals arguments¿, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by `human exceptionalism¿ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special `kind¿, can enter into social contracts, or face a `lifeboat situation¿. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of `kind¿ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind `sentient animal¿ or `subject-of-a-life¿]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar.ConclusionsMost respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate.