Executive summary: This research examines how biomedical researchers justify using large numbers of zebrafish larvae instead of fewer mice in experiments, highlighting tensions between the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement in animal research ethics.
Key points:
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 protects vertebrates and cephalopods, but fish are only protected after independent feeding, allowing unregulated use of zebrafish larvae <=5 days post-fertilization (dpf).
Researchers justify using large numbers of unprotected zebrafish <=5 dpf as full “Replacement” of protected mice, despite evidence suggesting zebrafish can likely experience pain at this stage.
The high numbers of zebrafish used are seen as an advantage for statistical power, justified under “Reduction” by decreasing future use of mice.
Legal status, not evidence of sentience, dictates the moral consideration given to animals, dissolving the ethical tension of using many “lower” versus fewer “higher” animals.
The Act’s protection criteria are arbitrary and unfit, failing to minimize animal suffering. Reform is needed to base protection on evidence of sentience and suffering capacity.
A revised ethical framework is required to guide researchers on welfare trade-offs when replacing “higher” with “lower” animals, considering factors beyond legal status.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This research examines how biomedical researchers justify using large numbers of zebrafish larvae instead of fewer mice in experiments, highlighting tensions between the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement in animal research ethics.
Key points:
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 protects vertebrates and cephalopods, but fish are only protected after independent feeding, allowing unregulated use of zebrafish larvae <=5 days post-fertilization (dpf).
Researchers justify using large numbers of unprotected zebrafish <=5 dpf as full “Replacement” of protected mice, despite evidence suggesting zebrafish can likely experience pain at this stage.
The high numbers of zebrafish used are seen as an advantage for statistical power, justified under “Reduction” by decreasing future use of mice.
Legal status, not evidence of sentience, dictates the moral consideration given to animals, dissolving the ethical tension of using many “lower” versus fewer “higher” animals.
The Act’s protection criteria are arbitrary and unfit, failing to minimize animal suffering. Reform is needed to base protection on evidence of sentience and suffering capacity.
A revised ethical framework is required to guide researchers on welfare trade-offs when replacing “higher” with “lower” animals, considering factors beyond legal status.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.