2. Human Health and the Neoliberal Agenda
3. Research Ethics and Biomedical Experiments
4. Nonhuman Animals, Ethics and Biomedical Experiments
5. Research Funding
6. The Business “Animal Model”
Conflicts of Interest
References and Notes
- Verhaeghe, P. What about Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based Society; Hedley-Prôle, Jane, Translator; Scribe: Victoria, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Harvey, D. A Brief History of Neoliberalism; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Berer, M. Editorial: Who has responsibility for health in a privatised health system? Reprod. Health Matters 2010, 18, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Smart, B. Postmodernity; SAGE: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Peggs, K. Experiments, Animal Bodies and Human Values; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, Forthcoming 2016.
- Biomedical research is defined as “the broad area of science that involves the investigation of the biological process and the causes of disease through careful experimentation, observation, laboratory work, analysis, and testing”. In California Biomedical Research Association. Fact Sheet: What is Biomedical Research? California Biomedical Research Association: Sacrmamento, CA, USA.
- Greek, J.S; Greek, R. What Will We Do if We Don’t Experiment on Animals? In Medical Research for the Twenty-First Century; Trafford: Victoria, Canada, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- For example, in the UK the pharmaceutical industry reports that it conducts or supports approximately one third of the research that involves nonhuman animals. Most of this research is devoted to “the development of new medicines or vaccines, improved diagnosis or better methods of toxicity testing”  (p. 3). On average, this process takes between 10 and 15 years (p. 7). During this time nonhuman animals are used in the “discovery and selection of potential new medicines” (5%–15%),the “characterisation of promising candidate medicines” (60%–80%) and to “ensure the safety of selected candidate” medicines (10%–20%) (Table 8.1 p. 135) in Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Research Involving Animals; Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- The Baltimore Sun. Alternatives to Animal Testing Gaining Ground. The Baltimore Sun, 26 August 2010.
- World Health Organization. Trade, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy and Health: Pharmaceutical Industry. World Health Organization. Available online: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/ (accessed on 20 January 2015).
- Garner, R. Animal Ethics; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetic Products L 342. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, 2009, 59–208.
- European Commission Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of The Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes L 276. Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, 2010, 33–79.
- Peggs, K. Transgenic animals, biomedical experiments and “progress”. J. Anim. Ethics 2013, 3, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauman, Z. Liquid Fear; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Peggs, K. Risk, human health and the oppression of nonhuman animals: The development of transgenic nonhuman animals for human use. Humanimalia J. Hum. Anim. Interface Stud. 2011, 2, 49–69. [Google Scholar]
- Busfield, J. Pills, power, people: Sociological understandings of the pharmaceutical industry. Sociology 2006, 2, 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, B. Social Fluids: Metaphors and meanings of society. Body Soc. 2003, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Breton, D. Genetic fundamentalism or the cult of the gene. Body Soc. 2004, 4, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blow, N. Genomics: The personal side of genomics. Nature 2007, 449, 627–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ransohoff, D.F.; Khoury, M.J. Personal genomics: Information can be harmful. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2010, 1, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Midgley, M. The Myths We Live By; Routledge: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Giddens, A. Modernity and Self Identity; Polity: Cambridge, London, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Gawandi, A. Being Mortal: Illness, Medicine and What Matters in the End; Profile Books: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hardwig, J. Medicalization and death. ewsl. Phil. Med. 2006, 1, 2–9. [Google Scholar]
- The Guardian, Healthcare Spending around the World, Country by Country. The Guardian: Data Blog. Available online: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country (accessed on 30 June 2012).
- Dobbins, C. Human Health Activities Industry Review: Full Report; Office for National Statistics: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, J.A. Medical Research For Higher: The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials; New Jersey and London Rutgers University Press: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- McGregor, S.L.T. Neoliberalism and Health Care. Int. J. Consum. Stud. Spec. Ed. Consum. Health 2001, 2, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lister, J. Health Policy Reform—Global Health versus Private Profit; Libri Publishing: Farningdon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Goldacre, B. Bad Pharma: How Medicine Is Broken, and How We Can Fix It; Fourth Estate: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, G.F.; Hussey, P.S.; Frogner, B.K.; Waters, H.R. Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world. Health Aff. 2005, 24, 903–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartzband, P.; Groopman, J. Money and the changing culture of medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 101–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned that the 21st century could herald a “post-antibiotic era” in which “common infections and minor injuries can kill” (In Givel, M. Modern Neoliberal Philanthropy: Motivations and Impact of Pfizer Pharmaceutical’s Corporate Social Responsibility Campaign. Third World Q. 2013, 34, 171–182, p.ix. [Google Scholar]), Despite these warnings the pharmaceutical companies are reported to be doing little to address the lack of research into new antibiotics. A major reason for the lack of resolve is that neoliberal governments pull pharmaceutical companies towards profit maximization and antibiotics do not make super-profits. (See Boseley, S. Pay Big Pharma to Solve Antibiotics Crisis Says UK Government Review. The Guardian. 14 May 2015. Available online: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/14/pay-big-pharma-solve-antibiotics-crisis-uk-government-review-jim-oneill (accessed on 14 May 2015).) A recent UK Government review advocates giving cash incentives of up to $3 billion to pharmaceutical companies to develop new antibiotics. (See World Health Organisation. Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]).
- World Health Organisation. Ebola Situation Report—22 April 2015 (Corrected on 23 April 2015). Available online: http://apps.who.int/ebola/current-situation/ebola-situation-report-22-april-2015-0 (accessed on 24 April 2015).
- Though the World Health Organisation reports that there is hope for a vaccine by the end of 2015 and trials are already underway. See World Health Organisation. Essential Medicines and Health Products: Ebola Vaccines, Therapies, and Diagnostics. 17 March 2015. Available online: http://www.who.int/medicines/emp_ebola_q_as/en/ (accessed on 27 April 2015).
- Etelson, E. Why There’s no Ebola Vaccine. Truthout. Available online: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/28091-why-there-s-no-ebola-vaccine (accessed on 20 December 2014).
- Turner, B.S. Culture, technologies and bodies: The technological utopia of living forever. Sociol. Rev. 2007, 55, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conn, P.M.; Parker, J.V. The Animals Research War; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- UAR is an alliance of interested individuals, institutions and corporate bodies that promotes the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research. See .
- Understanding Animal Research. Human Health. Understanding Animal Research. Available online: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/why/human-health (accessed on 19 November 2014).
- Dr Hadwen Trust. What’s the problem? Dr Hadwen Trust. Available online: http://www.drhadwentrust.org/about-us/whats-the-problem (accessed on 18 January 2015).
- Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. In Animals and Medicines Research: Animal Research for the Discovery and Development of New Medicines; ABPI: London, UK, 2011.
- Ghooi, R.B. The Nuremberg Code: A Critique. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2011, 2, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The Nuremberg Code. In U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Archived Materials. Available online: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html (accessed on 7 November 2005).
- The Helsinki Declaration states that “Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and adequate laboratory and, as appropriate, animal experimentation. The welfare of animals used for research must be respected.” See World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Medical Association Policies. Available online: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html (accessed on 12 August 2014).
- Imran, M.; Samad, S.; Mohammad Maaz, M.; Qadeer, A.; Kalam Najmi, A.; Aqil, M. Hippocratic oath and conversion of ethico-regulatory aspects onto doctors as a physician, private individual and a clinical investigator. J. Midlife Health 2013, 4, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cressey, D. Animal research: Battle scars. Nature 2011, 470, 452–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greek, C.R.; Greek, J.S. Specious Science: How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans; Continuum: New York, NY, USA and London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bailey, J.; Knight, A.; Balcombe, J. The future of teratology research is in vitro. Biog. Amines 2005, 19, 97–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pound, P.; Ebrahim, S.; Sandercock, P.; Bracken, M.B.; Roberts, I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Br. Med. J. 2004, 328, 514–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greek, R.; Pippus, A.; Hansen, L.A. The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling. BMC Med. Ethics 2012, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Doctors Against Animal Experiments: Germany. Doctors against Animal Experiments Germany. Available online: http://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/ (accessed on 17 January 2015).
- Masterton, M.; Renberg, T.; Kälvemark Sporrong, S. Patients’ Attitudes Towards Animal Testing: “To Conduct Research On Animals Is, I Suppose, A Necessary Evil”. BioSocieties 2014, 9, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derrida, J. The Animal That Therefore I Am; Fordham University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Even reporters in news media express some concern about this suffering, though admittedly they do not usually question the anthropocentric ethical justification for that suffering. For example, an article in The Times newspaper stated that “In a perfect world no product—neither cosmetic not curative—would be tested in such a way as to cause distress to any creature. No one welcomes the prospect of animal suffering. If, however, safety testing a new drug with the potential to save or improve countless human lives necessitates some animal suffering, then it is clearly in the public interest” (quoted in Peggs, K.; Smart, B. Suffering existence: Nonhuman animals and the question of ethics. In Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics; Linzey, A., Linzey, C., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Houndmills, UK, 2015; in press. [Google Scholar]).
- Taylor, K.; Gordon, N.; Langley, G.; Higgins, W. Estimates of worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2008, 36, 327–342. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- The exclusion of most invertebrates rests in the notion that they do not feel pain (Garner, R. Animal Ethics; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]). In the EU invertebrate species cyclostomes and cephalopods are now defined as being “animals” .
- Peggs, K. Nonhuman animal experiments in the European Community: Human values and rational choice. Soc. Anim. 2010, 18, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- United States Department of Agriculture. Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year. United States Department of Agriculture. Available online: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/2010_Animals_Used_In_Research.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2011).
- Goldberg, A.M. Use of Animals in Research: A Science-Society Controversy? The American Perspective: Animal Welfare Issues. Altex: Alternat. Anim. Exp. 2002, 19, 137–139. [Google Scholar]
- Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. In Seventh Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals Used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
- Working Group of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. In Normalising the Unthinkable: The Ethics of Using Animals in Research Oxford; Linzey, A.; Linzey, C. (Eds.) Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics: Oxford, UK, 2015.
- Home Office. Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. Great Britain 2013; Home Office: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Understanding Animal Research. Policy Overview. Understanding Animal Research. Available online: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/policy/policy-overview/ (accessed on 19 November 2012).
- In the case of humans with chronic diseases, quantification often screens the individual stories behind the statistics. See Casebeer, A.L.; Verhoef, M.J. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods: Considering the Possibilities for Enhancing the Study of Chronic Diseases. Chronic Dis. Can. 1997, 18, 130–135. Available online: http://web.pdx.edu/~stipakb/download/PA555/Qual-Quan3.htm (accessed on 28 April 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Peggs, K.; Smart, B. Nonhuman Animal Suffering: Critical Pedagogy and Practical Animal. Soc. Anim. 2015, in press. [Google Scholar]
- 68 Ipsos/MORI. In Views on the Use of Animals in Scientific Research; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: London, UK, 2012.
- Sytsma, J.; Machery, E. The Two Sources of Moral Standing. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 2012, 3, 303–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arneson, R.J. What, if Anything, Renders All Humans Morally Equal? Jamieson, D., Ed.; Peter Singer and His Critics: Oxford, UK, 1999; pp. 103–128. [Google Scholar]
- Welchman, J. Xenografting, species loyalty, and human solidarity. J. Soc. Philos. 2003, 4, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strategy for UK Life Sciences: One Year on; Her Majesty’s Government UK: London, UK, 2012.
- Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Animals and medicines research: Animal research for the discovery and development of new medicines. Available online: http://www.abpi.org.uk/our-work/library/medical-disease/Documents/ (accessed on 5 May 2014).
- Wright, O. Animal Rights Group Declares War on Leading Health Charities. The Independent. Available online: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/animal-rights-group-declares-war-on-leading-health-charities-2300281.html (accessed on 21 June 2011).
- Mandel, G.H.; Vesell, E.S. From progress to regression: Biomedical research funding. J. Clin. Investig. 2004, 114, 872–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Batterbury, S.P.J. Tenure or permanent contracts in north american higher education? A critical assessment. Policy Futur. Educ. 2008, 6, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figures are difficult to come by but, based on a Freedom of Information request, the British Union against Vivisection maintains that 25 percent of nonhuman animal subjects who were used in scientific research in the UK in 2013 were subjected to experiments in six universities. See Ross, S. Edinburgh Tops UK University Animal Testing Table. The Scotsman, 9 March 2015. Available online: http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/edinburgh-tops-uk-university-animal-testing-table-1-3712990(accessed on 28 April 2015). [Google Scholar]
- People for the Ethical Treatement of Animals. More Than $16 Billion in Taxpayer Money Wasted Annually on Animal Testing. People for the Ethical Treatement of Animals. Available online: http://www.peta.org/features/16-billion-taxpayer-money-wasted-annually-animal-testing/ (accessed on 26 August 2014).
- Schuster, J.H.; Finkelstein, M.J. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Singer, P. Animal Libration, 2nd ed.; New York Review of Books: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In Strategy for UK Life Sciences; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: London, UK, 2011.
- Humane Society International. As Home Office Statistics Show UK Animal Experiments at Shocking 4.11 million, HSI Calls on Government to Increase Spend on Non-Animal Replacement Techniques. Humane Society International. Available online: http://www.hsi.org/world/united_kingdom/news/news/2013/07/home_office_stats_071613.html (accessed on 16 July 2013).
- BBC News. GlaxoSmithKline shares up as profits beat forecasts. BBC News: Business. Available online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29726033 (accessed on 22 October 2014).
- GlaxoSmithKline. Frequently asked questions. GlaxoSmithKline plc: Our Use of Animals. Available online: http://www.gsk.com/en-gb/research/our-use-of-animals/frequently-asked-questions/ (accessed on 5 May 2015).
- This “welfarist” or humane-treatment stance (Donaldson, S.; Kymlicka, W. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]) leaves unquestioned fundamental issues that should be at the heart of human actions in respect of nonhuman animal suffering in laboratories .
- Birke, L. Feminism, Animals and Science: The Naming of the Shrew; Open University Press: Buckingham, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Engber, D. The Mouse Trap: The Dangers of Using One Lab Animal to Study Every Disease. Slate. Available online: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_mouse_trap/2011/11/lab_mice_are_they_limiting_our_understanding_of_human_disease_.html (accessed on 16 November 2011).
- Charles River. Find a Model. Charles River. Available online: http://www.criver.com/find-a-model (accessed on 27 August 2014).
- Charles River. Who We Are. Charles River. Available online: http://www.criver.com/about-us/who-we-are (accessed on 27 August 2014).
- Birke, L.; Arluke, A.; Michael, M. The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People; Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Associated Press. Fortune Names Its 88 Products of The Year. Associated Press News Archive. Available online: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1988/Fortune-Names-Its-88-Products-of-the-Year/id-222b847b58f9552763a1c252b260f50e (accessed on 16 November 1988).
- Hanahan, D.; Wagner, E.F.; Palmiter, R.D. The origins of oncomice: a history of the first transgenic mice genetically engineered to develop cancer. Genes Dev. 2007, 21, 2258–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lomir Biomedical Inc. U.S. Price List Effective 1 January 2014 (Revised 4 November 2013). 2014. s.l. Available online: http://lomir.com/ (accessed on 27 August 2014).
- Manta. Lomir Biomedical Inc. Manta. Available online: http://www.manta.com/ic/mt6frnl/ca/lomir-biomedical-inc (accessed on 27 August 2014).
- Best, S. Review of cha rles patterson, the eternal treblinka: Our treatment of animals and the holocaust New York: Lantern books, 2002. J. Critic. Anim. Studies 2007, 5, 103–119. [Google Scholar]
- Mickie, R. MEPs Debate on Animal Research Ban Worries Scientists. The Guardian 9 May 2015. Available online: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/09/animal-research-vivisection-ban-eu-parliament-debate (accessed on 17 May 2015).
- Stop Vivisection. To all Members of the European Parliament. Stop Vivisection. Available online: http://www.stopvivisection.eu/ (accessed on 13 May 2015).
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).