Exploring the Gaps in Practical Ethical Guidance for Animal Welfare Considerations of Field Interventions and Innovations Targeting Dogs and Cats
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Applications and Considerations from Existing Ethical Guidance for Dogs and Cats in Field Contexts
3.1.1. Application of 2 Rs, Reduction and Refinement
3.1.2. Balancing Risk/Benefit and Informed Consent
3.1.3. Community and Stakeholders
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ferreira, J.P.; Leitão, I.; Santos-Reis, M.; Revilla, E. Human-related factors regulate the spatial ecology of domestic cats in sensitive areas for conservation. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e25970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hughes, J.; Macdonald, D.W. A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 157, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Companion Animal Management Coalition. Humane Cat Population Management Guidance. International Companion Animal Management Coalition: Yarmouth Port, MA, USA, 2011. Available online: http://icam-coalition.org/downloads/ICAM-Humane%20cat%20population.PDF (accessed on 20 September 2017).
- Boitani, L.; Francisci, F.; Ciucci, P.; Andreoli, G. The ecology and behavior of feral dogs: A case study from central Italy. In The Domestic Dog Its Evolution, Behavior and Interaction with People, 2nd ed.; Serpell, J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 342–368. [Google Scholar]
- Macpherson, C.N.L.; Meslin, F.-X.; Wandeler, A.I. Preface to the 2nd edition. In Dogs, Zoonoses and Public Health, 2nd ed.; Macpherson, C.N.L., Meslin, F.-X., Wandeler, A.I., Eds.; CABI: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. ix–x. [Google Scholar]
- Gunther, I.; Raz, T.; Berke, O.; Klement, E. Nuisances and welfare of free-roaming cats in urban settings and their association with cat reproduction. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 119, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kay, A.; Coe, J.B.; Pearl, D.; Young, I. A scoping review of published research on the population dynamics and control practices of companion animals. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 144, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs. Contraception and Fertility Control in Dogs and Cats; A Report of the Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs (ACC&D): Portland, OR, USA, 2013; Available online: http://www.acc-d.org/docs/default-source/Resource-Library-Docs/accd-e-book.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (accessed on 26 October 2017).
- Gibbs, E.P.J. The evolution of One Health: A decade of progress and challenges for the future. Vet. Rec. 2014, 174, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Hoosier, G.L. Principles and paradigms used in human medical ethics can be used as models for the assessment of animal research. Comp. Med. 2000, 50, 103–106. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Smith, J.A.; van den Broek, F.A.R.; Martorell, J.C.; Hackbarth, H.; Ruksenas, O.; Zeller, W. Principles and practice in ethical review of animal experiments across Europe: Summary of the report of a FELASA working group on ethical evaluation of animal experiments. Lab. Anim. 2007, 41, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jennings, M.; Smith, J.A. A Resource Book for Lay Members of Ethical Review and Similar Bodies Worldwide, 3rd ed.; RSPCA: Horsham, West Sussex, UK, 2015; p. 63. Available online: http://view.pagetiger.com/EthicalReviewJanuary2015 (accessed on 05 November 2017).
- Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs. Literature Review: What Guidance Exists for Conducting Research/Studies on or with Animals? Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs: Portland, OR, USA, 2017; p. 9. Available online: http://acc-d.org/docs/default-source/think-tanks/literature-review-final-for-web.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (accessed on 20 September 2017).
- Prescott, M.J.; Lidster, K. Improving quality of science through better animal welfare: The NC3Rs strategy. Lab. Anim. (NY). 2017, 46, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- International Companion Animal Management Coalition. Humane Dog Population Management Guidance. International Companion Animal Management Coalition: Yarmouth Port, MA, USA, 2007. Available online: http://www.icam-coalition.org/downloads/Humane_Dog_Population_Management_Guidance_English.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2017).
- International Companion Animal Management Coalition. Are We Making a Difference? A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Dog Population Management; International Companion Animal Management Coalition: Yarmouth Port, MA, USA, 2015; Available online: http://www.icam-coalition.org/IndicatorsProject.html (accessed on 20 September 2017).
- Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs. Think Tank on Ethical Decision-Making in Innovation for Animal Welfare: Think Tank Attendees; Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs: Portland, OR, USA, 2017; Available online: http://acc-d.org/docs/default-source/think-tanks/participant-bios-final-for-web-compressed.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed on 27 December 2017).
- Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs. Ethical Decision-Making in Innovation for Animal Welfare; Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs: Portland, OR, USA, 2017; Available online: http://acc-d.org/research-innovation/acc-d-think-tanks/ethics (accessed on 28 November 2017).
- Whitney, D.; Trosten-Bloom, A. The Power of Appreciative Inquiry A Practical Guide to Positive Change; Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Brønstad, A.; Newcomer, C.E.; Decelle, T.; Everitt, J.I.; Guillen, J.; Laber, K. Current concepts of harm—benefit analysis of animal experiments—Report from the AALAS–FELASA working group on harm–benefit analysis—Part 1. Lab. Anim. 2016, 50, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Würbel, H. More than 3Rs: The importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research. Lab. Anim. (NY). 2017, 46, 164–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Russell, W.M.S.; Burch, R.L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 1st ed.; Methuen & Co LTD.: London, UK, 1959; Reprinted Special Edition, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Herts, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 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. Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, 28, L276/33. [Google Scholar]
- Garber, J.C.; Barbee, R.W.; Bielitzki, J.T.; Clayton, L.A.; Donovan, J.C.; Hendriksen, C.F.M.; Kohn, D.F.; Lipman, N.S.; Locke, P.A.; Melcher, J.; et al. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th ed.; Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, Ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; p. 220. Available online: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2017).
- Home Office. Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. 1986; HMSO: London, UK, 2014.
- European Commission. Working document on Project Evaluation and Retrospective Assessment; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 18–19 September 2013. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/Endorsed_PE-RA.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2017).
- RSPCA; LASA. Guiding Principles on Good Practice for Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies; A Report by the RSPCA Research Animals Department and LASA Education, Training and Ethics Section; RSPCA: Horsham, West Sussex, UK, 2015; Available online: https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/reportsandresources/ethicalreview (accessed on 4 October 2017).
- Hampshire, V.A. Regulatory issues surrounding use of companion animals in clinical investigations, trials, and studies. ILAR. J. 2003, 44, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baneux, P.J.R.; Martin, M.E.; Allen, M.J.; Hallman, T.M. Issues related to Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees and clinical trials using privately owned animals. ILAR. J. 2014, 55, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Page, R.; Baneux, P.; Vail, D.; Duda, L.; Olson, P.; Anestidou, L.; Dybdal, N.; Shelton, W.; Salgaller, M.; Hardy, C. Conduct, oversight, and ethical considerations of clinical trials in companion animals with cancer: Report of a workshop on best practice recommendations. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2016, 30, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yeates, J.W. Ethical principles for novel therapies in veterinary practice. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2015, 57, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yeates, J.; Everitt, S.; Innes, J.F.; Day, M.J. Ethical and evidential considerations on the use of novel therapies in veterinary practice. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2013, 54, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burton, J.; Khanna, C. The role of clinical trials in veterinary oncology. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2014, 44, 977–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Russow, L.-M.; Theran, P. Ethical issues concerning animal research outside the laboratory. ILAR. J. 2003, 44, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- RCVS; BVA Working Party. Ethical Review for Practice-based Research. A Report of A Joint RCVS/BVA Working Party. RVCS/BVA: London, UK, 2013. Available online: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/publications/ethical-review-for-practice-based-research/ (accessed on 4 October 2017).
- Wilson, R.P.; McMahon, C.R. Measuring devices on wild animals: What constitutes acceptable practice? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 4, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Anim. Behav. 2012, 83, 301–309. [Google Scholar]
- Sikes, R.S.; Gannon, W.L. Animal Care and Use Committee ASM. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J. Mammal. 2011, 92, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NC3Rs Wildlife Research. Available online: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/wildlife-research (accessed on 14 October 2017).
- Barry, M.; Molyneux, M. Ethical dilemmas in malaria drug and vaccine trials: A bioethical perspective. J. Med. Ethics 1992, 18, 189–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Emanuel, E.J.; Wendler, D.; Killen, J.; Grady, C. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J. Infect. Dis. 2004, 189, 930–937. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Fischer, B.A., IV. A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics. Schizophr. Bull. 2006, 32, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Handbook for Good Clinical Research Practice (GCP) Guidance for Implementation. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. Available online: http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/gcp1.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2017).
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Ethical review of research. In The Ethics of Research Related to Healthcare in Developing Countries; Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London, UK, 2002; pp. 100–109. Available online: http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/HRRDC-I-Chapter-8-Ethical-review-of-research.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2017).
- Singer, P.A.; Benatar, S.R. Beyond Helsinki: A vision for global health ethics. BMJ 2001, 322, 747–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hyder, A.A.; Wali, S.A.; Khan, A.N.; Teoh, N.B.; Kass, N.E.; Dawson, L. Ethical review of health research: A perspective from developing country researchers. J. Med. Ethics 2004, 30, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benatar, S.R. Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 54, 1131–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benatar, S.R.; Singer, P.A. A new look at international research ethics. BMJ 2000, 321, 824–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christakis, N.A. Ethics are local: Engaging cross-cultural variation in the ethics for clinical research. Soc. Sci. Med. 1992, 35, 1079–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tindana, P.O.; Singh, J.A.; Tracy, C.S.; Upshur, R.E.G.; Daar, A.S.; Singer, P.A.; Frohlich, J.; Lavery, J.V. Grand challenges in global health: Community engagement in research in developing countries. PLoS Med. 2007, 4, e273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Graham, M.L.; Prescott, M.J. The multifactorial role of the 3Rs in shifting the harm-benefit analysis in animal models of disease. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2015, 759, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Medicines Agency Veterinary Medicines and Inspections. VICH Topic GL43 Guideline on Target Animal Safety for Veterinary Pharmaceutical Products. EMEA/CVMP/VICH/393388/2006. European Medicines Agency: London, UK, 2008. Available online: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/10/WC500004361.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2018).
- Buchanan-Smith, H.M.; Rennie, A.E.; Vitale, A.; Pollo, S.; Prescott, M.J.; Morton, D.B. Harmonising the definition of refinement. Anim. Welf. 2005, 14, 379–384. [Google Scholar]
- Hawkins, P. Refining housing, husbandry and care for animals used in studies involving Biotelemetry. Animals 2014, 4, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bacon, H.; Walters, H.; Vancia, V.; Waran, N. Development of a robust canine welfare assessment for dogs in trap-neuter-return programmes. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dog Population Management, Istanbul, Turkey, 2–5 March 2015; Available online: http://www.icam-coalition.org/downloads/ICAM_Abstract_book.pdf (accessed on 02 October 2017).
- Lilley, E.; Hawkins, P.; Jennings, M. A ‘road map’ toward ending severe suffering of animals used in research and testing. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2014, 42, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- RSPCA; LASA; LAVA; IAT. Road Map Resource Pack Focus on Severe Suffering Part. 1: Introduction and Prospective Review, 2nd ed.; RSPCA: Horsham, West Sussex, UK, 2016; Available online: https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/severesuffering/resources/roadmap (accessed on 27 December 2017).
- RSPCA; LASA; LAVA; IAT. Road Map Resource Pack Focus on Severe Suffering Part. 2: Prospective Review, 2nd ed.; RSPCA: Horsham, West Sussex, UK, 2016; Available online: https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/severesuffering/resources/roadmap (accessed on 27 December 2017).
- RSPCA; LASA; LAVA; IAT. Road Map Resource Pack Focus on Severe Suffering Part. 3: Ongoing Review, 1st ed.; RSPCA: Horsham, West Sussex, UK, 2016; Available online: https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/severesuffering/resources/roadmap (accessed on 27 December 2017).
- RSPCA; LASA; LAVA; IAT. Road Map Resource Pack Focus on Severe Suffering Part. 4: Retrospective Review, 1st ed.; RSPCA: Horsham, West Sussex, UK, 2016; Available online: https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/severesuffering/resources/roadmap (accessed on 27 December 2017).
- Upjohn, M.; Wells, K. Challenges associated with informed consent in low- and low-middle-income countries. Front. Vet. Sci. 2016, 3, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Henderson, G.E.; Churchill, L.R.; Davis, A.M.; Easter, M.M.; Grady, C.; Joffe, S.; Kass, N.; King, N.M.P.; Lidz, C.W.; Miller, F.G.; et al. Clinical trials and medical care: Defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Med. 2007, 4, e324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toukhsati, S.R.; Phillips, C.J.; Podberscek, A.L.; Coleman, G.J. Semi-ownership and sterilisation of cats and dogs in Thailand. Animals 2012, 2, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Constable, S.E.; Brown, G.; Dixon, R.M.; Dixon, R. Healing the hand that feeds you: Exploring solutions for dog and community health and welfare in Australian Indigenous Cultures. Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci. 2008, 3, 219–229. Available online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1269&context=edupapers (accessed on 20 November 2017).
- Hanlon, A.J.; Algers, A.; Dich, T.; Hansen, T.; Loor, H.; Sandøe, P. ‘Animal Ethics Dilemma’: An interactive learning tool for university and professional training. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 155–158. [Google Scholar]
Population | Ethical Framework, Ethical Review and Additional Considerations |
---|---|
Animals housed in laboratories: Includes research and development of veterinary pharmaceuticals or technologies. | Scientific necessity/Justification of use:
|
Harm-benefit analysis (HBA): Weighting of consequences (direct and contingent) for the animals vs. weight of benefit (scientific necessity) [20], which requires demonstration of the scientific rationale [21]. | |
Application of the 3Rs principles: Replacement, Reduction, Refinement [22], impacts the weighting of harms to animals. | |
Ethical review: Often formal and legally required in some countries [23,24]. Animals may be afforded legal protection [23,24,25]. Review is prospective, conducted before the start of research; predict harms likely to be experienced by the animal. In addition, in Europe, retrospective review is conducted at the end of research, which aims to quantify actual harms experienced by the animal [26,27]. | |
Veterinary field-based research:
| Scientific necessity/Justification of use:
|
HBA: Weighting of consequences (direct and contingent) for the animals (includes lack of therapeutic effect) vs. weight of benefit (scientific or therapeutic necessity) to target population and/or the individual [28,29,30,31]. Requires demonstration of scientific rationale [28,29,30,31,32]. Note, the lack of safety or efficacy data in target species makes it difficult to weigh benefits and consequences to the individual [29,31,32,33]. | |
Application of 2Rs principles [30,31,32]: Replacement does not apply. Reduction may apply in some instances where there is uncertainty over the benefits to the animal. Refinement should include humane endpoints, given the difficulties with predicting adverse events [31,32]. | |
Ethical review: Variation in review processes depending on necessity; they may be recommended or legally required; prospective and increasingly retrospective [28,29,30,31,32,33]. | |
Additional considerations apply:
| |
Wild animals in field contexts: Research conducted on free-living wildlife—includes unobtrusive, observational, interventional or invasive studies. | Scientific necessity/Justification of use:
|
HBA: Weight of consequences (direct and contingent) for the animals vs. weight of benefit (scientific necessity) [34,36,37]. | |
Application of 2Rs principles [37,38,39]: Replacement does not apply. | |
Additional considerations apply:
| |
Ethical review: Recommendations for prospective ethical review [34,37,38]. Legal obligations to animals may apply under certain circumstances [38,39]. |
Population | Ethical Framework, Ethical Review and Additional Considerations |
---|---|
Humans in field contexts: Clinical trials conducted on human participants with a focus on international settings. | Scientific necessity/Justification of use:
|
Harm-benefit analysis (HBA): Anticipated benefits for the individual or society must outweigh the risks to the individual [40,41,42], which requires demonstration of the scientific quality of the study [41,42,43,44].Strict legislative, regulatory and ethical guidance oversee research conduct [41,42]. | |
Ethical principles: Include—autonomy, protection, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice for human participants [43]. | |
Ethical review: Formal and legally required, and includes local, in-country ethical review by the relevant bodies [45,46]. There are notable variations in the capacity [45] and practice of research ethics [44], which would benefit from a better understanding of social, economic and political contexts in host countries [45,46,47,48]. | |
Additional considerations apply: |
© 2018 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 (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tasker, L.; Getty, S.F.; Briggs, J.R.; Benka, V.A.W. Exploring the Gaps in Practical Ethical Guidance for Animal Welfare Considerations of Field Interventions and Innovations Targeting Dogs and Cats. Animals 2018, 8, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020019
Tasker L, Getty SF, Briggs JR, Benka VAW. Exploring the Gaps in Practical Ethical Guidance for Animal Welfare Considerations of Field Interventions and Innovations Targeting Dogs and Cats. Animals. 2018; 8(2):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020019
Chicago/Turabian StyleTasker, Louisa, Susan F. Getty, Joyce R. Briggs, and Valerie A.W. Benka. 2018. "Exploring the Gaps in Practical Ethical Guidance for Animal Welfare Considerations of Field Interventions and Innovations Targeting Dogs and Cats" Animals 8, no. 2: 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020019
APA StyleTasker, L., Getty, S. F., Briggs, J. R., & Benka, V. A. W. (2018). Exploring the Gaps in Practical Ethical Guidance for Animal Welfare Considerations of Field Interventions and Innovations Targeting Dogs and Cats. Animals, 8(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8020019