Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.

BackgroundAlthough incidental findings (IF) are commonly encountered in neuroimaging research, there is no consensus regarding what to do with them. Whether researchers are obligated to review scans for IF, or if such findings should be disclosed to research participants at all, is controversial. Objective data are required to inform reasonable research policy; unfortunately, such data are lacking in the published literature. This manuscript summarizes the development of a radiology review and disclosure system in place at a neuroimaging research institute and its impact on key stakeholders.MethodsThe evolution of a universal radiology review system is described, from inception to its current status. Financial information is reviewed, and stakeholder impact is characterized through surveys and interviews.ResultsConsistent with prior reports, 34% of research participants had an incidental finding identified, of which 2.5% required urgent medical attention. A total of 87% of research participants wanted their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results regardless of clinical significance and 91% considered getting an MRI report a benefit of study participation. A total of 63% of participants who were encouraged to see a doctor about their incidental finding actually followed up with a physician. Reasons provided for not following-up included already knowing the finding existed (14%), not being able to afford seeing a physician (29%), or being reassured after speaking with the institute's Medical Director (43%). Of those participants who followed the recommendation to see a physician, nine (38%) required further diagnostic testing. No participants, including those who pursued further testing, regretted receiving their MRI report, although two participants expressed concern about the excessive personal cost. The current cost of the radiology review system is about $23 per scan.ConclusionsIt is possible to provide universal radiology review of research scans through a system that is cost-effective, minimizes investigator burden, and does not overwhelm local healthcare resources.

In 1966, Henry K. Beecher published an article entitled "Ethics and Clinical Research" in the New England Journal of Medicine, which cited examples of ethically problematic human research. His influential paper drew attention to common moral problems such as inadequate attention to informed consent, risks, and efforts to provide ethical justification. Beecher's paper provoked significant advancements in human research policies and practices. In this paper, we use an approach modeled after Beecher's 1966 paper to show that moral problems with animal research are similar to the problems Beecher described for human research. We describe cases that illustrate ethical deficiencies in the conduct of animal research, including inattention to the issue of consent or assent, incomplete surveys of the harms caused by specific protocols, inequitable burdens on research subjects in the absence of benefits to them, and insufficient efforts to provide ethical justification. We provide a set of recommendations to begin to address these deficits.

In 1966, Henry K. Beecher published an article entitled “Ethics and Clinical Research” in the New England Journal of Medicine , which cited examples of ethically problematic human research. His infl uential paper drew attention to common moral problems such as inadequate attention to informed consent, risks, and efforts to provide ethical justifi cation. Beecher’s paper provoked signifi cant advancements in human research policies and practices. In this paper, we use an approach modeled after Beecher’s 1966 paper to show that moral problems with animal research are similar to the problems Beecher described for human research. We describe cases that illustrate ethical defi ciencies in the conduct of animal research, including inattention to the issue of consent or assent, incomplete surveys of the harms caused by specifi c protocols, inequitable burdens on research subjects in the absence of benefi ts to them, and insuffi cient efforts to provide ethical justifi cation. We provide a set of recommendations to begin to address these defi cits.

How far does a researcher’s responsibility extend when an incidental finding is identified? Balancing pertinent ethical principles such as beneficence, respect for persons, and duty to rescue is not always straightforward, particularly in neuroimaging research where empirical data that might help guide decision making are lacking. We conducted a systematic survey of perceptions and preferences of 396 investigators, research participants, and Institutional Review Board members at our institution. Using the partial entrustment model as described by Richardson, we argue that our data supports universal reading by a neuroradiologist of all research MRI scans for incidental findings and providing full disclosure to all participants.

In the relatively short time since 2006-when Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics published an issue on moral issues relevant to the use of nonhuman animals in research [1]-significant changes have occurred for nonhuman animals in many quarters.Public sentiment, new policy initiatives, and scientific studies of nonhuman animals' capacities have all influenced the ways in which nonhuman animals are perceived and treated in research.Today, a large body of information is available for use in decision making about the acceptability of using nonhuman animals in research.The articles in this issue assess how moral argument and empirical studies stand to guide animal research policies and practices in future years.Many in bioethics have come to regard issues of animal research as a subfield of research ethics, bringing it closer to human research ethics.Animal ethics, like public health ethics, has struggled for recognition in bioethics.As the contributions to this issue show, some in bioethics who initially focused on human research ethics have now devoted significant time to animal research ethics, and some who started

Since 1985, the US Animal Welfare Act and Public Health Service policy have required that researchers using nonhuman primates in biomedical and behavioral research develop a plan “for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates.” In pursuing this charge, housing attributes such as social companionship, opportunities to express species-typical behavior, suitable space for expanded locomotor activity, and nonstressful relationships with laboratory personnel are dimensions that have dominated the discussion. Regulators were careful not to direct a specific set of prescriptions (i.e., engineering standards) for the attainment of these goals, but to leave the design of the programs substantially up to “professional judgment” at the local level. Recently, however, the Institute of Medicine, in its path-finding 2011 report on the necessity of chimpanzee use in research, bypassed this flexible and contingent concept, and instead, required as a central precondition that chimpanzees be housed in “ethologically appropriate” environments. In so doing, obligations of ethical treatment of one great ape species were elevated above the needs of some research. The evolution and significance of this change are discussed.

On December 15, 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research issued a final report commissioned by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It changed the landscape of discussion about the necessity of using chimpanzees in research. The Committee advanced three principles of scientifically warranted research on chimpanzees, but NIH’s statement of task provided inadequate opportunity for the Committee to investigate moral problems and their implications for public policy. The IOM Committee’s report is a landmark document, but it has weaknesses in its justificatory framework, largely resulting from the Committee’s narrow remit from NIH and IOM. We analyze cases mentioned in the report and argue that numerous central ethical issues are neglected, especially ones of justification. Additionally, we consider whether the principles offered by the Committee could be used as criteria governing the use of other animals in biomedical and behavioral research.

Abstract Rapid social change is often stimulated by commanding events. The case presented below, involving baboons, marks a critical turning point in the history of twentieth-century animal experimentation. The stakeholders include a respected scientist, an Ivy League university, the federal government, and the newly formed (at the time) activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA’s actions, as it turned out, triggered major changes in public attitudes toward animal welfare issues and regulation by public policy and law.

Abstract “This must constitute, in both magnitude and severity, the single most severe, systematic example of man’s inhumanity to another sentient animal.”1 So said John Webster, emeritus professor of animal husbandry at the University of Bristol’s Veterinary School. He was referring, rather surprisingly, to broiler chickens. In reaching this conclusion, he noted that in the United Kingdom alone, one-quarter of the heavy strains of these animals are in chronic pain for at least one-third of their six-week lives; only 10% are able to walk normally; up to 6% die during rearing; 4% have chronic arthritis; 3% break their bones; and 2 million die during transport each year. In 2003, some 9.1 billion of these animals were eaten in the United States,2 3.5 billion in the European Union, and 840 million in the United Kingdom.4 In less than 50 years, the broiler chicken—so named because of the way it is cooked— has become one of the most common animals consumed in human diets. The poultry meat sector is a significant employer (40,000 to 50,000 jobs in the United Kingdom alone) as well as a major consumer of cereals, soy, and meat, bone, and fish meals. These birds are reared intensively, in large numbers and at relatively low cost, and they provide a ready source of palatable tender meat for many people.

Abstract Can aggression be studied in an ethical manner? Aggression is a behavior found almost universally in the animal kingdom. It is defined as a hostile act that poses a threat to another creature. It is exhibited in many ways, including threatening body movements, vocalization, fighting, wounding and inflicting pain, sexual attack, and killing. Commonly, animals act aggressively to exclude others from their territory, to capture food, or to control populations. Displays of aggression are influenced by age (newborns and infants below a certain age do not show aggression), by the physical environment, by previous social experience, and by the aggression level in a particular community. One manifestation of aggression is infanticide—the killing of infants by adults. It occurs in several species of animal. Human infanticide is practiced in several cultures to control population, to favor the birth of a particular sex (usually male), and in waging war. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, biologists reported anecdotal observations of infanticide in both male and female wild animals.

Abstract Bacon, pork chops, ham, sausage, hot dogs, bratwurst, tenderloin, ribs, pork roast, pulled-pork sandwiches, and pepperoni pizza: the variety of products that can be made from pig meat runs the gamut. From a McDonald’s Egg McMuffin to the most exquisite pork belly on the menu at the world’s finest restaurants, products made from pigs are everywhere. Pigs are the largest single source of meat for human beings, accounting for almost 40% of meat consumption worldwide by weight.1 Each year in the United States, over 100 million pigs are slaughtered, for total cash receipts in excess of $10 billion. Most consumers of pig meat have no contact with the animals they eat and little if any knowledge of the conditions under which the animals are raised and slaughtered. The Humane Farming Association (HFA), a nonprofit group interested in animal welfare, has found that the conditions under which pigs are farmed are generally not of high quality. The HFA has obtained video footage of pigs being boiled alive, beaten, and killed without being stunned or otherwise rendered insensitive to pain. One farm the HFA investigated is HKY, a large hog farm located in Wausa, Nebraska. The HFA found that HKY is a representative example of improper care and harms caused by factory farms.

Abstract In 2004, five trucks from a Western logging company pulled into Mompano, a town in Congo.1 Mompano is in the center of the habitat of the bonobo—an extremely endangered species that, along with the chimpanzee, is the closest living relative of human beings. The trucks were laden with sacks of sugar, salt, and other supplies. The loggers offered the supplies to the villagers in return for an illegal permission to cut down all of the trees in the area.