© 2000 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
BOOK REVIEWS
1 University of Washington Seattle, Washington
Responsible Conduct with Animals in Research. LYNETTE A. HART, ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. xiii + 193 pgs. 60.00 (cloth), 27.00 (paper).
The use of animals in scientific research has recently attracted a growing critical audience within both the lay and the scientific communities. Thus, Responsible Conduct with Animals in Research should find a ready and receptive audience. Although the eleven chapters are all written by academic researchers or academicians associated with animal research (primarily in behavioral studies), the editor, Lynette Hart, sought a balanced perspective for the volume, especially in terms of addressing concerns expressed by advocates of animal rights. Nevertheless, some readers might be concerned by the absence of contributors from the animal rights community, as well as contributions from those using animals for more invasive research (e.g., biomedical research).
Despite these omissions, the chapters in the book cover valuable ground. Two contributors document their own struggles with using animals, struggles that ultimately led them to modify their research practices greatly. In his submission, John Gluck criticizes the "metaphor of research as war" (p. 46) for enabling researchers not to feel the moral distress that should accompany the harming of another sentient being. But while his personal reflections are of interest, they are not reflective enough to allow one to generalize from his experiences. Indeed, in light of these, should we use primates to attempt to learn more about parent-infant attachment? Similarly, Marc Bekoff’s moving personal reflections on his changing attitudes toward the use of animals fails to guide us in another direction or to give us new critical tools to use in the debate. His concluding suggestion of "bonding with animals and calling animals by name are steps in the right direction" is much too simplistic and does not address the salient issues. At the same time, some readers may find both essays comforting; after all, both authors have elected to adopt new methods in their research programs.
Several other articles are intended to provide more direct advice to researchers. Donald Dewsbury constructs an historical overview of the involvement of the American Psychological Association in animal care issues, starting with its first recommendations in 1925. He also raises the important issue of motive, since these same guidelines have been useful to the field of psychology, facilitating the use of animals by its members. Hart offers a contribution of her own, surveying present national regulations on the use of animals, concluding with brief comparative surveys of regulations in the U.K. and Europe. Three other submissions extend the regulatory recommendations to actual research practices. Melinda Novak and her colleagues provide guidelines concerning research techniques and methods, a contribution that is essentially a practical guide to the uninitiated. John Vandenbergh raises general animal welfare issues associated with behavioral research, along with helpful and insightful suggestions for future changes to address problem areas. And in one of the more provocative articles, Gordon Burghardt argues for the use of animals, but suggests that researchers need to add or, better put, to reinsert the subjective aspect to research. Simply put, objective distance has hindered the advance of behavioral studies, he claims.
In a related fashion, Andrew Rowan and Marion Dawkins maintain the issue of subjectivity by arguing that researchers need to have a heightened sensitivity concerning the animal experiences as they become subject of experimental procedures. Rowan points to the traditional focus on animal pain, but argues for the extension of these concerns to include animal anxiety, especially since behavioral research frequently is not painful but does elicit anxious states within the animals. Similarly, Dawkins demonstrates how studies of animal behavior utilize behaviors that have motivational aspects to them, frequently taking advantage of this fact even when the motivated behavior is not rewarded. Clearly, he states, this may be deleterious to the animal’s well-being.
Finally, there are two articles which attempt to open discussion to the general issue of the need to use animals in research. First, Arnold Arluke and Julian Groves defend their use in research, not in a polemical fashion but in a self-consciously constructed moderate tone, especially with a critical ear to the positions of animal rights advocates. Similarly, Harold Herzog argues that the range of animal rights positions is varied and, therefore, a simplistic dismissal of animals rights advocates, usually by casting all advocates as irrational, is unwarranted. Both articles seem to argue for reaching-out on the part of the research community to build a consensus position vis-à-vis the use of animals.
The book may not satisfy all those concerned about the continued use of animals in research, be that research of behavior or the more invasive biomedical research, especially since the latter is not discussed extensively in this volume. Nevertheless, those interested in the wide scope of issues may find much to ponder in this volume. It will be especially useful for graduate-level courses that address ethical issues in academic science.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||