(draft: not for distribution or quotation)
Our animal welfare laws should advance the ethic that harming animals requires justification.
The US has welfare oversight systems (two laws, plus an independent accreditation program) that guarantee most lab animals access to veterinary care, cages large enough to meet government standards, and provisions to protect their physical and mental health. The patchwork of laws and accreditation leaves too many animals without legal protections, and the standards for housing and caring for the animals has not kept up with advances in animal welfare science.
Animals in laboratories suffer more than they should, given what we know and given what they deserve. Our system of self-regulation leaves much in the hands of institutional animal ethics committees, and they fall short in two ways. These committees shy away from seriously considering the ethical justification for a scientist’s proposed research projects, i.e. they do not usually balance harms to animals against potential benefits for people. Moreover, most current ethics committees exclude the diversity of values and viewpoints that could promote a robust ethical review, erecting barricades to democratic participation or even to the most basic level of transparency. Thus, I outline my proposals for a next round of updated laws and policies that will bring us closer to the principal that no sentient animal should be harmed without a strong justification.
No comment yet, add your voice below!