Measuring merit in animal research

Merit review of scientific projects involving laboratory animals is a central issue in the current debate over the ethics of animal experimentation. In this essay, I examine several conceptual, regulatory, and practical problems inherent in the merit review process. Contemporary challenges to the existing merit review system and suggestions for reform are also discussed. The essay concludes with comments on legal and political questions relevant to the future of merit assessment.     

Protection of animal research subjects

The use of experimental animals, mostly rodents, in biomedical research and especially in oncology and immunology should be acknowledged with respect, recognizing the contribution of animal experimentation in the fascinating scientific progress in these disciplines of research. It is an obligation of the investigator to justify the scientific and ethical aspects of each study requiring the use of animals. The international guiding principles for using animals in biomedical research are well defined and have been distributed worldwide by the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) since 1956, when this Organization was founded. In Poland the ICLAS philosophy and principles are highly respected and were implemented firstly by the members of the Commission on Biology of Experimental Animals appointed in 1962 by the Department of Medical Science of the Polish Academy of Science in Warsaw. Animal Protection Acts, first proclaimed in 1928 were gradually modified and improved. Actual legislation (enacted in 1997, 2003 and 2005) is consistent with EU Directives (86/609/EEC) and follows the internationally recommended principles that include ICLAS guidelines concerning animal welfare and care condition in biomedical research. The problem of “alternative methods” is briefly discussed. Dr. Donald Boisvert, CCAC — Canadian Council on Animal Care A lecture on the subject of this paper was presented at the 6th International Bioethics Conference entitled ‘The Responsible Conduct of Basic and Clinical Research’, held in Warsaw, Poland, 3–4 June 2005. The author is the National Representative of Polish Academy of Science to the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) and a Member of the ICLAS Governing Board.     

Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research

Although gender differences in attitudes toward animal research have been reported in the literature for some time, exploration into the nature of these differences has received less attention. This article examines gender differences in responses to a survey of attitudes toward the use of animals in research. The survey was completed by college students and consisted of items intended to tap different issues related to the animal research debate. Results indicated that women were more likely than men to support tenets of the animal protection movement. Likewise, women were more likely than men to favor increased restrictions on animal use and were more concerned than men about the suffering of research animals. Analysis of item contents suggested that women endorsed items reflecting a general caring for animals, were more willing than men to make personal sacrifices such as giving up meat and medical benefits in an effort to protect animals, and were more likely than men to question the use of animals in research on scientific grounds. Men, on the other hand, tended to emphasize the potential benefits arising from the use of animals in research.     

The ethical judgment of animal research

One hundred sixty subjects acted as members of a hypothetical Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and evaluated five proposals in which animals were to be used for research or educational purposes. They were asked to approve or reject the proposals and to indicate what factors were important in reaching their ethical decisions. Gender and differences in personal moral philosophy were related to approval decisions. The reasons given for the decisions fell into three main categories: metacognitive statements, factors related to the animal, and factors related to the design of the experiment.     

Norm-of-reaction: definition and misinterpretation of animal research

The development of a phenotype is due to an interaction of the genotype with the environment. Two terms have been used to describe the outcome of this interaction, the norm-of-reaction and the reaction range. The first represents the theoretically limitless distribution of the phenotypes that may be expressed by a given genotype. The reaction range implies an upper and lower limit for phenotype expression possible from a given genotype. A critical distinction between the reaction range and the norm-of-reaction is that the norm-of-reaction is a statement of the conceivable interactions found but does not imply any predictability other than that within the conditions previously tested experimentally, that is, the tails of a normal distribution are infinitely variable, whereas the concept of reaction range implies a limitation inherent in the genotype, that is, a finite range. Empirical support for the reaction-range concept is questionable. Animal studies cited in support of the reaction range have been inappropriately and incorrectly interpreted.     

Cluster analysis in community research: Epistemology and practice

Cluster analysis refers to a family of methods for identifying cases with distinctive characteristics in heterogeneous samples and combining them into homogeneous groups. This approach provides a great deal of information about the types of cases and the distributions of variables in a sample. This paper considers cluster analysis as a quantitative complement to the traditional linear statistics that often characterize community psychology research. Cluster analysis emphasizes diversity rather than central tendency. This makes it a valuable tool for a wide range of familiar problems in community research. A number of these applications are considered here, including the assessment of change over time, network composition, network density, person-setting relationships, and community diversity. A User's Guide section is included, which outlines the major decisions involved in a basic cluster analyses. Despite difficulties associated with the identification of optimal cluster solutions, carefully planned, theoretically informed application of cluster analysis has much to offer community researchers. Editor's note: Dr. Edward Seidman served as action editor for this article while serving as Associate Editor for Methodology.     

Some values guiding community research and action

The dual purposes of applied research-contributing to understanding and improvement-are only partially served by method systems that encourage studying (with increasing precision) a narrow range of questions of modest societal importance. To optimize contributions to challenging societal problems, a field's cherished standards should be adapted to support more adventuresome forms of community research and action. This paper outlines 10 values for community research and action, based on insights from the fields of behavioral and community psychology. These values-reflect the goals and challenges of establishing collaborative relationships with research participants, determining research goals and methods, designing and disseminating interventions, communicating research findings, and advocating for community change. Critical challenges are outlined, and implications for the field and its clients are discussed.     

Justifying a presumption of restraint in animal biotechnology research

Articulating the public's widespread unease about animal biotechnology has not been easy, and the first attempts have not been able to provide an effective tool for navigating the moral permissibility of this research. Because these moral intuitions have been difficult to cash out, they have been belittled as representing nothing more than fear or confusion. But there are sound philosophical reasons supporting the public's opposition to animal biotechnology and these arguments justify a default position of resistance I call the Presumption of Restraint. The Presumption of Restraint constitutes a justificatory process that sets out the criteria for permitting or rejecting individual biotechnology projects. This Presumption of Restraint can be overridden by compelling arguments that speak to a project's moral and scientific merit. This strategy creates a middle-of-the-road stance that can embrace particular projects, while rejecting others. The Presumption of Restraint can also serve as a model for assessing moral permissibility in other areas of technological innovation.     

Engagement and recruitment for family therapy research in community settings

Based on the recruitment experience in a family therapy research project with heroin addicts, this paper explores the difficulties of researcher networking with other social service agencies. Concepts from contextual family therapy are used to explore four general areas that contribute to successful intra-agency relationships: 1) Evaluating the nature of larger system relationships; 2) identifying the resources and needs of a clinic; 3) joining with the counseling staff; and 4) addressing the impact of public policy and ideology on clinic life. A case of engaging one clinic is presented and nine guidelines for engaging large community settings for participation in family therapy research are offered. These areas are considered in light of the relational dynamics that arise when working with multiple social service systems.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the American Family Therapy Association conference in Washington, DC, June 1986. The authors are grateful to the recruitment staff of the Intergenerational Family Therapy Project: Guillermo Lopez, Bart Rubin, Sharara Godfry, and Armando Chenyek. This research was supported in part by a grant to Guillermo Bernal from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA03543).