Scientific enquiry is inexorably tied to animal experimentation in
the popular imagination and human history. Many, if not most, of the
spectacular innovations in the medical understanding and treatment of
today's human maladies have been based on research using animals. However,
the use of animals in research and experimentation has been debated,
defended, and protested by both individuals and organizations at various
levels. Responses range from personal lifestyle decisions and fervent
philosophical treatises to strident arguments, violent demonstrations,
and direct action. The continuum of attitudes about animals and the human
relationship with animals spans the range between those who support no
regulation of the human use of animals and those who advocate absolute
animal liberation from all human use (see II, Orlans 1993, p. 22).
History
The first recorded experimentation on animals occurred in ancient Rome,
but not until the Renaissance did scholars begin serious study of
how the body works. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and other artists
and anatomists pursued anatomical investigations of muscle and bone
structure. William Harvey (1578-1657) discovered the circulation of
the blood via his experiments on live deer. During this period, much
live animal experimentation both in England and France was based on
the view of French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) that
animals are incapable of feeling pain. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832),
the English utilitarian philosopher, thought otherwise. In his
"Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" in 1789,
Bentham declared, "The question is not, can they reason? Nor,
can they talk? But can they suffer? Despite
Bentham and others, the belief that animals could not perceive pain
persisted in many quarters into the twentieth century. Nineteenth century
French physiologist Claude Bernard
[End Page 91]
(1813-1878)-and his teacher,
François Magendie (1783-1855)-conducted wide-ranging
animal experiments including surgery, use of drugs, and removal of
body parts from many species. Bernard argued that while no amount of
benefit could justify any harm to human research subjects, even extreme
harm and pain for animal research subjects could be justified by the
potential benefit to human beings. Although he did use anesthetics in
his work after their discovery in 1847, even Bernard's later work was
controversial because of the numbers of animals used and the repetitive
nature of his research. The experiments of Magendie and Bernard both
laid the foundations for animal experimentation as a practice for
scientific advance and contributed in large measure to the emergence of
the anti-vivisection movement. Public protests over animal experiments
conducted in France and the fear that these might come to England led
to the passage of the first law controlling animal experimentation, the
"1876 Cruelty to Animals Act" in England. This history and the dynamic
tension between scientific inquiry and public concern set the stage for
the activism and scholarship of the twentieth century.
Since the 1960s, the amount of attention, activism, and scholarship
related to animal use has increased at a rapid pace. The modern animal
protection movement, led by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in his
book, Animal Liberation (II, 1975), based its advocacy on animals'
ability to experience pain and suffering (Bentham's argument). Singer's
book and other investigations into animal research, such as LIFE
magazine's photojournalism piece on pet theft, animal cruelty, and animal
experimentation (Concentration Camps for Dogs. LIFE (4 February
1966), pp. 22-29), brought the use of animals in research, testing, and
education to the attention of the general public. Activists, advocates,
laypersons, scientists, lawmakers, and animals themselves, have created
the interesting, complicated, and complex history of animal rights and
animal welfare over the last several decades.
Current Statistics
Worldwide, approximately 35 million animals are used in research each
year; the United States alone uses 12 million animals annually--more
than any other country. In 1998, the official number of research animals
recorded in the United States was 1,213,814. However, this number must
be increased tenfold to account for laboratory rats, mice, and birds,
which comprise about 90 percent of all animals used in research,
but are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and therefore,
are not counted. The most frequently used species in the United States
is mice, followed by rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, pigs, dogs, sheep,
primates, and cats. The annual Animal Welfare report prepared by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service contains annual statistics for animals used in U.S. research
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/publications.html). Animal research
data for other countries may be found at national web sites, but reporting
requirements vary around the globe and generally emanate from regulations
governing the use and treatment of animals in research. Nowadays, the
purpose of most experiments is to help treat human
[End Page 92]
disease; a small amount
of experimentation involving animal pain or death is for educational
purposes. Although some countries still conduct unregulated animal
research, more than 20 countries have specific legislation governing
the humane use of animals in biomedical research and education. These
include the U.S., Canada, all countries in the European Union, Australia
and New Zealand, and Japan. Much of this legislation is more stringent
than that in the U.S. Typical legislation requires adequate housing
conditions, controls on animal pain, and critical prior review of
experimental protocols. Some countries, such as the U.S., also include
provisions for the use of animal alternatives (see the 3 R's below),
and a few require some explicit ethical justification for the use of
animals in harmful experiments. Several websites list international
animal welfare legislation and guidelines, along with explanations
(see http://altweb.jhsph.edu/science/regs/reg.htm).
Main Features of U.s. Legislation
In the United States, the use of animals in biomedical research is
regulated by two federal laws, the Public Health Service Guide for
the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, administered by the Office for
Laboratory Animal Welfare of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
and the Animal Welfare Act, administered by the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA). The AWA controls research involving only the
specifically named animal species, while the Public Health Service
(PHS) guidelines regulate any animal research supported by federal
funds--e.g., animal research in all federal agencies. The full
text of these laws and other regulations is available online at:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awicregs.htm.
The PHS regulations, which are rooted in the 1963 standards for
animal care and use developed by scientists gathered by the Institute
of Laboratory Animals Resources of the National Research Council and
in the 1971 guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health,
were first published in 1973 and revised in 1979 and 1986. Although the
policies at first were voluntary and addressed only standards for animal
husbandry, under the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-158), the guidelines became law and now describe requirements for
experimental animal procedures conducted by all federal agencies. NIH,
a branch of the PHS, has been responsible for administering federal
grants for animal experiments since 1946. The PHS guidelines established
the oversight system of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees
(IACUCs) to evaluate research protocols, review care programs and
inspect laboratory facilities, assess and educate laboratory personnel,
and investigate complaints about the misuse or mistreatment of animals.
The Animal Welfare Act, first adopted in 1966 as a result of mounting
public concern about animal research, and amended in 1970, 1976, 1985, and
1990, compels registration of animal research facilities with the USDA,
sets minimum standards for the general and veterinary care of animals used
in research, requires inspections of laboratory facilities, and adopts
the use of local IACUCs to review research protocols for compliance with
regulations governing research
[End Page 93]
and measures to promote animal welfare. At
first, the law (Public Law 89-544) regulated the humane treatment in
research of only six species: dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits,
and nonhuman primates. The 1970 amendment authorized the Secretary of
Agriculture to include additional warm-blooded animals within its purview,
and gave the legislation its current name. As a result of this amendment,
research on farm animals is governed by the AWA. Other amendments to the
AWA required the use of pain-relieving drugs (Improved Standards for
Laboratory Animals Act of 1985), adopted the IACUC oversight system,
and extended coverage to include college and university student work
with animals. The U.S. National Agricultural Library established the
Animal Welfare Information Center in 1986 to serve as a resource and
education center about animal welfare and the AWA.
One difficulty with this present situation is that animal research
conducted by pharmaceutical companies or genetic engineering firms
often falls outside the federal regulations. Because it neither involves
named species nor is supported by federal funds, this research is not
governed by the requirements of law. This fact is one of the main driving
forces behind the efforts to include rats, mice, and birds under the
AWA. A lawsuit filed against the USDA in 1998, ARDF v. Glickman
(U.S. Secretary of Agriculture), eventually won coverage of those species
when it was settled out of court in September 2000. However, although
the USDA is now ready to draft regulations, the FY 2001 Congressional
appropriations bill specifically states that no USDA monies can be used
for this purpose, thereby effectively delaying any further action.
The "3 R's"
In recent years, the concern within the scientific community and in
the general public over the use of nonhuman animal subjects in research
and education has taken focus and direction from the 1959 book, The
Principles of Humane Experimental Technique by W. M. S. Russell
and R. L. Burch, which laid out the concept of the "Three R's" for
the first time, and thereby, inspired the movement for alternatives to
the use of animals in biomedical research and testing. The "Three R's"
are: replacement of conscious living animals with nonsentient
animals or materials, reduction of the number of animals used
in an experiment or procedure, and refinement of the techniques
used in order to decrease the incidence or amount of animal pain and
distress. Russell and Burch believed that following the 3 R's would
result in more ethical and humane treatment of animals. These concepts
have been adopted by a number of scientists and many animal advocacy
organizations and have been written into the laws of several countries.
Animals in Education
Another area in which animal alternatives are sought is in education. At
the graduate or professional level, experimentation or surgery on live
animals (vivisection) raises a host of concerns about unnecessary pain and
suffering and the
[End Page 94]
unethical use of animals. At some veterinary and medical
schools, students have refused to do nontherapeutic surgery on healthy
animals or to kill them. Several veterinary schools now teach animal
surgery by using only animals that are in need of surgery. Similarly, many
medical schools have eliminated their live-animal labs or have reduced the
number of healthy animals they use for surgical practice. At the middle,
secondary, and college levels, the major focus has been to eliminate all
experiments that involve infliction of pain on live vertebrate animals
and to reduce or eliminate animal dissection, which became a regular
part of the American high school biology curriculum in the 1920s, and
was common in U.S. colleges as early as the late 1800s (IV. D. Balcombe
2000). Animal dissection raises many ethical and environmental concerns:
the practice involves the unnecessary killing of animals; undermines
conservation efforts; ignores welfare standards during animal capture,
preparation, and shipping; releases formaldehyde into the environment;
focuses on descriptive biology to the detriment of creative scientific
thinking and research; causes some students to abandon further science
education or careers; and weakens the respect for life and the humane
treatment of animals. Justification for the use of dissection and
vivisection in education may be lessened by Balcombe's distinction that
in education, animals generally are used as a means to transfer existing
knowledge from one person (the teacher or instructor) to another (the
student), either by demonstration or by direct experience, rather than
as a method to advance existing knowledge. He does acknowledge, though,
that what students learn may enable them to advance human knowledge in the
future. Persons who support dissection and vivisection argue that these
practices provide better quality education, offer the best preparation for
scientific careers, and are justified if the animals are treated humanely.
Alternatives to the use of live or dead animals, such as interactive
3-D computer models, video footage, and plastic life-size models,
have been shown to be as effective as traditional methods. A number
of states have humane education laws that require teaching students
about the important role of animals and birds in the natural universe
and teaching them that kind, just, and humane treatment and protection
should apply to all animals. Some states also have dissection choice
legislation, which permits students to select educational alternatives
to dissection. Discussion materials, alternative resource catalogues,
and guidance on creating dissection choice policies are available from
organizations such as the Ethical Science and Education Coalition
(ESEC). The role animals play in education now is just as likely to
include a featured role in courses on animal ethics, animal welfare,
and animal rights at all educational levels and fields.
Genetic Manipulation of Animals
Advances in genetics have produced cloned animals (not covered in
this Scope Note) and transgenic animals, in which there has been a
deliberate modification of the genome so that it contains foreign
DNA. In transgenic animals, recombinant DNA technology is used to
make a heritable or nonheritable modification so that the resulting
animals, or their offspring, might be used to study the biology of
genetic regulation and the influence of certain proteins or hormones
in the
[End Page 95]
body, to produce specific proteins or hormones, to test the
toxicity of drugs or other interventions, and/or to improve growth
and yields in agriculture. This type of genetic alteration goes beyond
selective breeding for desired traits because it inserts genetic material
foreign to the animal's genome. One potential use for this technology
is to create animals with organs or tissue suitable for transplant to
humans-xenotransplantation. Nuclear transfer or other techniques
can be used to clone animals either to preserve a genetically altered
animal or to create identical animal lines. Polly, a sheep created by PPL
Therapeutics of Edinburgh, Scotland (who also created Dolly, the first
cloned animal), was the first transgenic animal to be cloned. Born in
September 1997, her genome contained a human gene that would cause her to
produce alpha-1-antitrypsin, a human blood protein used to treat cystic
fibrosis, in her milk. ANDi, the first genetically-altered primate was
born in January 2001.
Although this Scope Note focuses on animal use in research and education,
other areas also raise ethical concerns about animal rights and animal
welfare. These include the use of animals as companions, in agriculture,
in zoos, for entertainment or sport, and the treatment of wildlife and
endangered species. This bibliography contains only a small portion
of the vast amount of materials available; more can be found in the
resources that have been included.
Note: Included below are databases, websites, print and online
periodicals, and general books. The format of resource information is
often overlapping, so we have included all types of general information
in this one list. Annotations have been omitted when information is
readily available to researchers with Internet access. Finally, these
URLs were last accessed in January 2001. We regret that some addresses
may be changed before you use this document.
To search the BIOETHICSLINE database of journal articles and other
document types for literature on: animal care committees, animal
experimentation, animal organs, animal rights, animal
testing alternatives, or transgenic animals, enter the selected
term from the above list in the "search query box" provided using the
following format: /*animal care committees (kw). BIOETHICSLINE and
the other Internet Grateful Med databases will not be available after June
2001. We encourage you to search and download the animal experimentation
literature before then. After that time contact NRCBL for assistance.
To access citations to hundreds of books on: animal rights,
animal experimentation, or animal production, search
22.1, 22.2, or 22.3, respectively, as SUBJECTS in the GEORGE catalog
(http://library.georgetown.edu/search/).
Animal Welfare Information Center [AWIC], National
Agricultural Library, United States Department of Agriculture;
http://www.nal.usda. gov/awic/ offers the quarterly AWIC
Bulletin online.
Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and
Teaching-[ANZCCART]; http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZC CART/;
offers a quarterly newsletter online.
Bekoff, Marc, with Meaney, Carron A., eds. Encyclopedia of Animal
Rights and Animal Welfare. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. 446 p.
This collection of short essays covers many topics relating to animal
welfare and the use of animals by humans, including "Laboratory Animal
Use," "Antivivisectionism," "Alternatives to Animal Experiments,"
and "Education and the Use of Animals." An appendix lists numerous
organizations as additional resources that can provide educational
materials concerning animal rights and animal welfare.
Canadian Council on Animal Care. Ethics of
Animal Investigation. Ottawa: The Council,
1989. [Online]. http://www.ccac.ca[End Page 97]
Donnelly, Strachan, and Nolan, Kathleen, eds. Animals, Science and
Ethics. Hastings Center Report. 20 (3, May/June), 1990. [Special
Supplement]. 32 p.
This report discusses the moral status of animals; justification of
animal experimentation; animal suffering; policies and practices in
using animals for research and education; alternatives to animal use;
and regulation and the role of animal care and use committees.
Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments [FRAME]
(United Kingdom); http://www. frame-uk.demon.co.uk; publishes
the journal ATLA(Alternatives to Laboratory Animals), bimonthly,
partially available online.
Kraus, A. Lanny, and Renquist, David, eds. Bioethics and the Use
of Laboratory Animals: Ethics in Theory and Practice. Dubuque, IA:
Gregory C. Beniot, 2000. 233 p.
Lab Animal: Information, Ideas, Methods & Materials for the
Animal Research Professional, 11 issues per year, Nature Publishing,
partially online at http://www.lab animal.com/.
Manzo, Bettina. The Animal Rights Movement in the United States,
1975-1990: An Annotated Bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press,
1994. 296 p.
Murray, Thomas H., and Mehlman, Maxwell, J., eds. The Encyclopedia
of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 2000. 2 volumes.
See any of the many articles that address a broad array of issues arising
from the intersection of biotechnology and animals, e.g., "Patents and
Licensing, Ethics, Ownership of Animals and Plant Genes;" "Research on
Animals, Law, Legislative and Welfare Issues in the Use of Animals for
Genetic Engineering and Xenotransplantation;" and "Transgenic Animals:
An Overview."
National Research Council. Institute of Laboratory Animal
Resources. Committee on Pain and Distress in Laboratory
Animals. Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory
Animals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992. 137 p.
Psychologists for Ethical Treatment of Animals;
http://www.psyeta.org: Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science
(JAAWS), quarterly, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, some abstracts
online; and Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies,
three times per year, Brill, free, full-text online for volumes 1-8.
Reich, Warren T., ed. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York:
Macmillan, 1995. 5 volumes.
[End Page 98]
See articles entitled: "Animal Research," "Animal Welfare and Rights,"
"Veterinary Ethics," and "Xenografts." "Ethical Directives Pertaining
to the Welfare and Use of Animals" comprises Section V of the Appendix.
Rollin, Bernard E. An Introduction to Veterinary Medical Ethics:
Theory and Cases. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1999. 417 p.
Russell, W. M. S., and Burch, R. L. The Principles of Humane
Experimental Technique. London: Methuen & Co., 1959. 238 p.
The authors introduced the concept of the 3 R's-Replacement,
Reduction and Refinement.
Shapiro, Kenneth Joel. Animal Models of Human Psychology: Critique
of Science, Ethics, and Policy. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber,
1998. 328 p.
Using eating disorders as a case study, Shapiro, the Executive Director
of Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, examines ethical
issues in psychology's use of animals in research and provides the
field's official position on animal welfare and use.
Adams, Carol J., and Donovan, Josephine, eds. Animals & Women:
Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Durham: Duke University Press,
1995. 381 p.
This collection of essays explores the theoretical connections between
feminism and animal advocacy and the historical connections between
women and animals.
Philosophical essays address the question of whether nonhuman persons
exist. Topics include moral principles and speciesism, animal minds,
personhood and great apes, dolphins, and elephants, and a historical
overview of the concept of a "person."
Clark, Stephen R. L. Animals and Their Moral Standing. New York:
Routledge, 1997. 194 p.
In this collection of essays, Christian philosopher Clarke explores a
variety of topics to support his claim that "all creatures with feelings
and wishes [he argues that animals fall into this group] should be
thought of as ends-in-themselves, and not merely as means."
DeGrazia, David. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral
Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 302 p.
DeGrazia provides a short philosophical history and orientation to
theories of animal ethics. He uses a coherence or reflective equilibrium
model of justification to argue that "many animals have moral status
and that
[End Page 99]
much of our current use of animals is ethically indefensible"
and incoherent. Drawing on philosophical theory and empirical data, he
affirms a principle of equal consideration for animals, but identifies
relevant differences between individuals who bear moral status, even
as he demonstrates that self-awareness, language, and other features of
mental life can be found in animals.
Donovan, Josephine, and Adams, Carol J., eds. Beyond Animal Rights:
A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals. New York:
Continuum, 1996. 216 p.
The editors argue that care theory is more appropriate for animals than
rights theory. Care theory does not privilege rationality, acknowledges
unequal relationships, values the emotions, and considers sympathy,
empathy, and love to be moral responses.
Finsen, Lawrence, and Finsen, Susan. The Animal Rights Movement in
America: From Compassion to Respect. New York: Twayne, 1994. 309 p.
Offering an account of the historical antecedents, participating
organizations, political concerns and tactics, and philosophies of and
opposition to animal rights, the authors also address the influence of
environmentalism, ecofeminism, and animal liberation on the movement.
Frey, R. G. Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1980. 176 p.
Frey provides an early philosophical account of why animals have no
interests, and therefore lack significant moral status.
Gluck, John P.; DiPasquale, Tony; and Orlans, F. Barbara, eds. Applied
Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation and Laboratory
Applications. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press,
Forthcoming 2001.
Greek, C. Ray, and Greek, Jean Swingle. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese:
The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals. New York: Continuum,
2000. 256 p.
Anesthesiologist and veterinarian respectively, the authors argue that the
continued use of animals in research is unnecessary to develop new drugs,
technologies, or medical techniques beneficial to human beings. Not only
is animal experimentation unethical and cruel, but "extrapolating data
from animals to humans is either misleading, unnecessary, dangerous,
or all three" and the dependence on an animal model is a scientific
fallacy supported by mass deception and confusion.
Isaacs, Ronald H. Animals in Jewish Thought and
Tradition. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 2000. 250 p.
Rabbi Isaacs draws on biblical, Talmudic, and midrashic writing for
information about the role and relationship of Jews to animals in thought,
ritual, liturgy, law, and tradition. The ancient text "Perek Shira,"
containing songs of praise ascribed to animals, is reprinted.
Kalechofsky, Roberta, ed. Judaism and Animal Rights: Classical
and Contemporary Responses. Marblehead, MA: Micah Publications,
1992. 356 p.
Classical and contemporary authors address animal research and
experimentation from the Jewish perspective; other sections examine
vegetarianism and ritual slaughter.
[End Page 100]
Leahy, Michael P. T. Against Liberation: Putting Animals in
Perspective. Revised edition. New York: Routledge, 1994. 286 p.
Leahy draws on Wittgenstein's theories of philosophy of language
to argue that animals lack linguistic ability and, therefore,
self-consciousness. He characterizes them as "primitive beings."
Linzey, Andrew. Animal Theology. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1995. 214 p.
Linzey holds "that human dominion over animals needs to take as its
model the Christ-given paradigm of lordship manifested in service." He
extends theological arguments to animals (including constructing a
liberation theology), and then addresses specific areas of animal abuse:
experimentation, killing for food, genetic engineering, patenting,
and sport hunting.
Linzey, Andrew, and Regan, Tom, eds. Animals and Christianity: A Book
of Readings. New York: Crossroads, 1988. 210 p.
Drawn from classical and contemporary writing, this anthology explores
both the compassion and indifference toward animals found within
Christianity, as well as the meaning of human dominion over animals,
the purpose for which animals were created, and any moral obligations
that might arise from the unity of creation.
Mack, Arien, ed. Humans and Other Animals. Columbus: Ohio State
University Press, 1999. 439 p.
Appearing first as a special issue of the journal Social Research
entitled "In the Company of Animals," these conference papers were
presented at the New School for Social Research in 1995.
Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff, and McCarthy, Susan. When Elephants
Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals. New York: Dell Publishing,
1995. 291 p.
This best-selling book written for popular audiences uses scientific
research and anecdotes to argue that animals possess consciousness and
a capacity to feel.
Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University
of Georgia Press, 1984. 158 p.
Midgley charges that the rationalist tradition's absolute dismissal of
animals as worthy of consideration does not score a clear victory. She
argues for an approach that recognizes species-based bonds and barriers
as important and generally operative, but not exclusive, infallible,
or concentric; rather these bonds are overlapping and the boundaries are
flexible. Midgley also offers an early examination of the relationship
between women and animals.
Miller, Harlan B., and Williams, William H., eds. Ethics and
Animals. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1983. 400 p.
This book contains original papers by seminal thinkers presented at the
May 1979 conference "The Moral Foundations of Public Policy: Ethics and
Animals" at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The
essays cover the spectrum and diversity of views on human-animal
relationships and human uses of animals.
Noske, Barbara. Beyond Boundaries: Humans and Animals. Buffalo,
NY: Black Rose Books, 1997. 253 p.
Anthropologist and philosopher Noske analyzes the sociohistorical context,
[End Page 101]
cultural notions, and subtle messages of language and their influences on
human-animal and animal-human relationships. After exploring continuities
and discontinuities between animals and humans, Noske concludes with an
anthropology of animals.
On Animal Experimentation: Seeking Common Ground. Cambridge Quarterly
of Healthcare Ethics 8 (1): 9-87, Winter 1999. [Special Section]
A series of essays explores the opposing viewpoints in the animal
experimentation debate and how the two sides can compromise and reach a
"common ground."
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible
Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press,
1993. 297 p.
Convinced equally of the benefits of research on animal subjects and
of the need vigorously to pursue alternatives to harming and killing
animals, Orlans provides a comprehensive, balanced, and clear overview of
the history, current status, and attitudes toward animal experimentation
and alternatives. She also offers the facts about legislation, protocol
review, and animal use in education, as well as community participation
in animal review committees, international efforts to measure and reduce
animal pain and suffering, and the availability of information about
animal research.
Orlans, F. Barbara; Beauchamp, Tom L.; Dresser, Rebecca; et al. The
Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1998. 330 p.
Sixteen case studies span the broad spectrum of ways humans use
animals-e.g., for biomedical, behavioral, and wildlife research;
safety testing; education; food and farming; companion animals; and
religious rites. The premise that certain characteristics--e.g.,
self-consciousness, purposeful actions, and the ability to reason
and communicate--confer on a living creature a certain level of moral
standing that then influences ethical choices about animal treatment is
asserted in the introduction. Schools of thought, such as utilitarianism,
deontological theory, and various animal rights theories, are discussed.
Paul, Ellen Frankel; Miller, Fred D.; and Paul, Jeffrey, eds. Why
Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical
Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2000. 258 p.
Pimple, Kenneth D.; Orlans, F. Barbara; and Gluck, John P., eds. Ethical
Issues in the Use of Animals in Research. [Special Issue] Ethics &
Behavior 7 (2): 1997. 192 p.
This is a collection of articles from presentations made at workshops
held in 1995 and 1996 entitled "Ethical Issues in Animal Research." The
first four essays explore the questions of whether animals have rights,
how such rights are derived, and whether animals are members of a moral
community. Other essays cover animal experimentation from a religious
point of view and look at the role of Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committees.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1983. 425 p.
In this now classic text, Regan offers a philosophical analysis and
argument for animal rights based on a principle
[End Page 102]
of respect and animals'
Regan, Tom, and Singer, Peter. Animal Rights and Human Obligations,
2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989. 280 p.
This rich collection of essays from important historical and contemporary
sources presents both sides of the debate about animal rights. Sections
on the treatment of farm animals, animals in science, and wildlife
are included.
Regan, Tom, ed. Animal Sacrifice: Religious Perspectives on the
Use of Animals in Science. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1986. 270 p.
Scholars draw on scriptural writings, written and oral tradition, law,
religious parables, and folklore to explain religious teachings on animals
and their use in science. Religions include: Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.
Rudacille, Deborah. The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The War Between
Animal Research and Animal Protection. New York: Farrar, Strauss
and Giroux, 2000. 390 p.
Science writer and former research writer at the Johns Hopkins Center for
Alternatives to Animal Testing, Rudacille sets in historical perspective
the contributions made to biomedical advances by both scientists and
animal protectionists.
Ryder, Richard. Victims of Science. Revised edition. London:
National Anti-Vivisection Society, 1983. 180 p.
Ryder's comprehensive overview of animal experimentation worldwide
provides early statistics on animal use, photographs of animals undergoing
experimentation, and a strong argument against continued use of animals
in research.
Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards
Spe-ciesism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 284 p.
Ryder presents an interesting history of humankind's changing attitudes
toward and relationships with animals from the ancient world through
modern times. Ryder, who coined the term "speciesism," relies chiefly
on British history as a framework and emphasizes the influence of the
Victorian era on animal welfare in Britain, but does discuss the issue
from the broader world perspective.
Scruton, Roger. Animal Rights and Wrongs, 2d ed. London: Demos,
1998. 111 p.
Scruton charges that the arguments of Singer, Regan, and Ryder are
philosophically insufficient to support their positions on animal
rights and blur the distinction between moral beings and the rest of
nature. Scruton argues that animals are not moral beings and do not
possess rights, but finds that human beings often have a duty of care
toward animals and always must treat them properly as governed by moral
considerations stemming from virtue, sympathy, and piety.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation, 2d ed. New York: New York Review
of Books, 1990. 320 p.
The acknowledged inspiration for the modern animal rights movement,
Singer argues that the "power of ethical reasoning can prevail over the
self-interest of our [human] species" to cause thinking persons to oppose
any infliction of suffering on animals. It is, in fact, the capacity
to suffer that
identifies
[End Page 103]
animals as moral beings. Singer describes the
unethical pain and suffering imposed on animals in scientific, military,
and commercial animal research and in the food production industry.
Smith, Jane A., and Boyd, Kenneth M., eds. Lives in the Balance:
The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991. 352 p.
This report of a Working Party that the Institute of Medical Ethics in
Great Britain established in 1986 to study the ethical issues in the
use of animals in biomedical research covers philosophical and moral
arguments, pain and distress in animals, benefits of research versus
harm to animals, and development and use of nonanimal alternatives.
World Congresses on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life
Sciences. Proceedings from . . . Meeting 1, Baltimore, MD, November 1993
[Education, Research, Testing, 1995]; Meeting 2, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
October 1996 [Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics, 1997]; Meeting
3, Bologna, Italy, August/September 1999 [Progress in the Reduction,
Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation, 2000]
Begun in 1993 by Alan Goldberg of the Johns Hopkins Center for
Alternatives to Animal Testing, the aims of the Congresses are "to review
progress made toward refining, reducing, and replacing (the 3R's) the use
of animals in education, research, and testing; to develop a realistic
understanding of the status of alternatives; to create an understanding
that in research, animal studies, together with clinical studies and in
vitro methods, advance science and contribute to our basic understanding
of biology and disease; and to promote dialogue between animal protection
and scientific communities."
Zurlo, Joanne; Rudacille, Deborah; and Goldberg, Alan M. Animals and
Alternatives in Testing: History, Science, and Ethics. New York:
Mary Ann Liebert, 1994. 86 p.
The use of animals in toxicity testing, the scientific status of
alternatives, and the legal regulations governing animal experimentation
are discussed.
III. Regulating Animal Experimentation
American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
(AALAS). Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees: A Comprehensive
Online Resource. [Online at http://www. iacuc.org.]
This provides an organized resource for institutional animal care and use
committees to find information on the Internet. The listserv IACUC-Forum
supports the discussion of topics of interest.
American Psychological Association. Committee on Animal Research
and Ethics. Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of
Animals. Washington, DC: The Association, 1993. 11 p. [Online at
http://www.apa.org/science/anguide. html.]
Canadian Council on Animal Care. Guide to the Care and Use of
Experimental Animals. Ottawa, Ontario,
[End Page 104]
Canada: The Council, Vol. 1,
2d ed., 1993, Vol. 2, 1984. [Online at http://www.ccac.ca.]
National Research Council. Commission on Life Sciences. Institute for
Animal Laboratory Resources. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996; 125 p.
Smith, Adrian. The Regulation of Animal Experimentation
in Norway: An Introduction. Oslo: Laboratory Animal Unit,
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, 1998; 22 p. [Online at
http://oslovet.veths.no/booklet/Booklet.pdf.]
United Kingdom. Home Office. Draft Guidance on the Operation of the
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Consultation [Online at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ccpd/cons.htm.]
IV. Special Topics
A. Genetic Manipulation of Animals
Bruce, Donald, and Bruce, Ann, eds. Engineering Genesis: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering in Non-Human Species. London: Earthscan,
1998. 337 p.
The Working Group on Genetic Engineering in Non-Human Life Forms of the
Society, Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland,
discusses ethical and theological issues associated with genetic
engineering and considers the broad social context and implications
of this technology. The Group does not find genetic engineering wrong
in itself but objects to the rapid pace of developments and the lack
of accountability to the public. An appendix contains models to guide
decision making about biotechnology.
In conjunction with other CCAC statements, these guidelines pertain to the
review of transgenic protocols and the production, use, and management
of transgenic animals. Ethical standards require that the creation and
use of transgenic animals be justified.
Donnelley, Strachan; McCarthy, Charles R.; and Singleton, Rivers, eds. The
Brave New World of Animal Biotechnology. Hastings Center Report
24 (1) [Special Supplement], January/February 1994. 32 p.
The first major report under the Center's Ethics and Environment Program,
these essays address the ethical, legal, scientific, and public policy
regulations surrounding the creation and protection of transgenic animals
and the environment.
These Opinions accept the genetic modification of animals only when the
aims of such technology are ethically justified and the conditions for
the making, use, care, release, and marketing of genetically modified
animals and their products are ethical as assessed on specific points
by Member States' licensing bodies.
Fox, Michael W. Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future of
Plants, Animals, the Earth . . . and Humans. New York: Lyons Press,
1999. 256 p.
Against a historical overview of developments in the area of genetic
engineering of plants and animals, veterinarian/bioethicist Fox focuses
on the ethical, social, and environmental consequences he believes will
follow from "the development of a new industry and world order based on
genetic manipulation, control, and monopoly." He urges an approach that
treats animal, plant, and human life with more compassion.
Maclean, Norman, ed. Animals with Novel Genes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994. 266 p.
Individual chapters examine the actual and potential future contributions
of and ethical concerns related to transgenic animals, insects, fish,
birds, rodents, large mammals, and minor animal systems in medicine,
science, and agriculture.
Mepham, T. Ben; Combes, Robert D.; Balls, Michael; et al. The
Use of Transgenic Animals in the European Union: The Report
and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 28. [Online at
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/science/pubs/ECVAM/ecvam28.htm.]
Summarizing the current status of transgenic animal research in the EU,
the ECVAM Workshop draws conclusions about this technology, develops a
monitoring scheme, and proposes recommendations to aid EU regulatory
authorities in formulating regulations governing the appropriate
production and use of transgenic animals.
Rollin, Bernard E. The Frankenstein Syndrome--Ethical and Social
Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995. 241 p.
Rollin argues that public ability to understand and think about the
scientific and ethical concerns truly raised by genetic engineering has
been stymied because these technologies are too literally equated with
the "Frankenstein myth" of monstrous life. He unpacks these concerns
and explains the reasons behind the radical change in the dominant
social ethic for the treatment of animals-from a focus simply on
anti-cruelty and kindness to an ethic of rights concerned about abuse,
suffering, justice, and fairness.
Tudge, Colin. Engineer in the Garden: Genes and Genetics from the
Idea of Heredity to the Creation of Life. New York: Hill and Wang,
1995. 388 p.
[End Page 106]
Science journalist Trudge offers a history of genetic theory from its
classical Darwinian roots in the mid-1800s to its modern day expression in
scientific techniques that "engineer" genetics. He argues that scientific
literacy is a requirement for citizenship in the global community because
it has become fundamental to our ability to discuss deep philosophical
questions about the meaning and manner of life.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research. Points to Consider in the
Manufacture and Testing of Therapeutic Products for Human
Use Derived from Transgenic Animals. 1995. [Online at
http://www.fda. gov/cber/ptc/ptc_tga.txt.]
This and many other documents regulating transgenic
animals and xenotransplantation are available online at
http://www.fda.gov/cber/.
Wheale, Peter, and McNally, Ruth, eds. Animal Genetic Engineering:
Of Pigs, Oncomice and Men. London: Pluto Press, 1995. 293 p.
Conference papers by scientists, civil servants, biotech entrepreneurs,
animal welfare advocates, and philosophers of science ethics address the
welfare of transgenic farm and laboratory animals; patenting; production
of transgenic animals for disease models, organ sources, or therapeutic
products; and the use of embryo transfer and reproductive techniques in
animals. A glossary is included.
B. Great Apes
Blum, Deborah. The Monkey Wars. New York: Oxford University Press,
1994. 306 p.
Science writer Blum's wide-ranging and balanced exploration of the
controversial use of primates in research is based on her Pulitzer Prize
winning (1992) newspaper articles. She provides a detailed history of
primate research and the efforts to regulate and/or end it from her
interviews with scientists and researchers on both sides of the issue,
as well as with moderate animal advocates and radical activists, and
her observations in research laboratories.
Cavalieri, Paola, ed. The Great Ape Project. Etica & Animali
8: 1-178, 1996.
This international, refereed, research journal devotes the first
issue in its English incarnation to discussing and developing the
view that nonhuman great apes are the moral equals of human great
apes. Contributing authors address the topic from a variety of cultural
backgrounds and position it within contemporary debates in evolutionary
biology, philosophy of mind, anthropology, and applied ethics. They
address how dominant world views must change to support a theory of
universal anthropoid rights.
Cavalieri, Paola, and Singer, Peter, eds. The Great Ape Project:
Equality Beyond Humanity. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994. 312 p.
This book launched the Great Ape Project (GAP) as
an international movement and its associated Website
(http://www.greatapeproject.org), journal, and newsletter;
inspired animal studies courses at universities and law schools;
and inaugurated a new chapter in the relationship between ethics and
ethology. It is edited and written by well-respected scholars from
the sciences and the humanities who are all "committed to the single
goal of including nonhuman great apes within
[End Page 107]
the moral community" and
extending to them the moral equality and basic rights enjoyed by human
great apes. These 34 persons were the authors and first signatories
of the "Declaration on Great Apes," which was published here for the
first time (see also online at http://www.greatapeproject.org or
http://www.planet.it/freewww/gap_ etica/ape.html). The declaration
contains three principles that must govern relations between human
and nonhuman great apes: (1) the right to life; (2) the protection of
individual liberty; and (3) the prohibition of torture. GAP is undertaking
a census of all great apes during 2001, and the organization's long-term
goal is a United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Great Apes.
Coetzee, J. M. The Lives of Animals. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1999. 127 p.
Awarded the Booker Prize for this book, Coetzee argues for according
basic legal rights to animals, especially to the great apes.
Fouts, Roger, with Mills, Stephen Tukel. Next of Kin: What Chimpanzees
Have Taught Me about Who We Are. New York: William Morrow,
1997. 420 p.
Roger Fouts taught American Sign Language to Washoe, who became the
first chimpanzee to communicate with humans by this means. Fouts has
enjoyed a 30-year relationship with Washoe, campaigned to improve living
conditions for captive research chimps, and founded the Chimpanzee and
Human Communications Institute at Central Washington University to train
researchers in animal psychology in humane research methods.
National Research Council [NRC] (United States). Commission on Life
Sciences. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Committee on Long-Term
Care of Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for their
Ethical Care, Management, and Use. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1997. 92 p.
The Committee studied the dilemma of an overpopulation of U.S. federal
research chimpanzees who were bred and born for research, but never were,
or no longer are, needed for biomedical research. Recommendations include
imposing a five-year breeding moratorium, not endorsing euthanasia for
population control, and assuring lifetime support for the core population
of chimpanzees.
This act is the first to grant specific legal protection for nonhuman
hominids, Great Apes. It prohibits the use of all great apes in research,
testing, or teaching "unless such use is in the best interests of the
non-human hominid" or its species and "the benefits to be derived from
the use of the non-human hominid in the research, testing, or teaching
are not outweighed by the likely harm to the non-human hominid."
Wise, Steven M. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for
Animals. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2000. 362 p.
[End Page 108]
A 20-year practitioner of animal protection law, Wise argues that
we must expand fundamental legal and moral rights to encompass great
apes because their intelligence and emotional sensitivity demand it,
and because failure to do so is unjust and undermines the foundation of
human rights. The law must cease its treatment of animals as "things,"
"objects," or "property."
United Kingdom. Home Secretary's Supplementary Note to the Home
Secretary's Response to the Animal Procedures Committee. 6 November
1997.
In response to the Animal Procedures Committee 1997 Annual Report
(http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anim act/aspaf.htm ), the British
Home Office issued a formal government ban on the use of great apes as
laboratory animals. Even though the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas,
pygmy gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans) have not been used as laboratory
animals even under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, this
ban, although not a legislative statute, virtually ensures that great
apes will not be used for research in the future.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee
on Health and Environment. Biomedical Research: Protecting Surplus
Chimpanzees: Hearing on H.R. 3514. Serial No. 106-109. 18 May
2000. [Online at http://com-notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/hemain/.]
"The Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act" or
CHIMP Act would establish a system of sanctuaries for chimpanzees who were
bred and used for research by U.S. federal agencies, but are now surplus
to the needs of biomedical researchers or are retired from participation
in active research. Senate Bill, S. 2725 is the companion bill.
C. Rats, Mice, and Birds
Plous, Scott, and Herzog, Harold. Should the AWA Cover Rats, Mice, and
Birds? The Results of an IACUC Survey. Lab Animal 28 (6): 38-40,
June 1999.
As part of a recent survey of IACUC members, the authors questioned
respondents about their attitudes concerning including rats, mice,
and birds under the AWA definition of warm blooded animals.
Orlans, F. Barbara. The Injustice of Excluding Laboratory Rats, Mice,
and Birds from the Animal Welfare Act. Kennedy Institute of Ethics
Journal 10 (3): 229-38, September 2000.
Trull, Frankie L., and Rich, Barbara A. More Regulation of Rodents
[editorial]. Science 284 (5419): 1463, 28 May 1999.
United States. District Court. District of Columbia. Animal Legal
Defense Fund v. Madigan [Date of Decision:
[End Page 109]
8 January 1992]. Federal
Supplement 781: 797-806, 1992.
The court found that the exclusion of rats, mice, and birds from the
definition of "animal" under the Animal Welfare Act was arbitrary and
capricious and a violation of the act. The court ordered the USDA to
reconsider the plaintiff's rule-making petition. This decision was
overturned on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, District of
Columbia Circuit (Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Secretary of Agriculture
(Mike Espy). [Date of Decision: 20 May 1994]), which held that the
plaintiffs did not demonstrate constitutional standing to sue and/or
a statutory right to judicial review under the APA [Administrative
Procedure Act].
D. Science Education And The Use of Animals
Balcombe, Jonathan. The Use of Animals in Higher Education:
Problems, Alternatives and Recommendations. Washington,
DC: Humane Society Press, 2000. 104 p. [Online at
http://www.hsus.org/programs/research/monograph.html.]
Balcombe, then associate director for education in the animal research
issues section of the Humane Society of the United States, focuses on the
educational use of animals at the secondary school and college level,
especially when there is significant harm or "cost" to the animal,
but includes middle school through advanced study in graduate, medical,
or veterinary schools. He makes 28 recommendations for change.
Since its creation in 1985, the nonprofit Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has worked to promote alternatives to the
use of animals in medical schools and medical research. PCRM's education
and advocacy campaign has been instrumental in the decisions of 72 of
the 127 U.S. medical schools to use "more clinically relevant, humane,
and cost-effective alternatives [to live animal research labs]."
The educational affiliate of NEAVS, ESEC focuses on dissection and
education and advocates for dissection "choice" legislation, offers a
guide on "how to pass a student "choice" dissection policy in your school
district," and prepares a catalogue of dissection alternatives. Founded
in 1895, NEAVS protects and advocates for animals used in education
through education, legislation, litigation, and direct action campaigns.
HSUS provides summaries and contact information about college (and a
[End Page 110]
few
veterinary school) courses concerned with animal ethics, animal rights,
and/or animal welfare. Listings can be reviewed by discipline or by
state. HSUS links to state dissection choice laws, an annotated list
of studies on attitudes toward dissection, and other education links to
virtual dissections and alternatives databases.
Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources. Commission on Life
Sciences. National Research Council. Principles and Guidelines
for the Use of Animals in Precollege Education. April
1989. In Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in
the Nation's Schools, pp. 125-26, 1990. [Online at
http://www4.nas.edu/cls/ilarhome.nsf/web/Principles/.]
The National Research Council recommends compliance with 10 principles
whenever animals are used in precollege education or in science fair
projects.
The text of this overview article has been embellished with links to
other Web resources.
National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). The Use of
Animals in Biology Education. October 1995. 2 p. [Online at
http://www.nabt.org/animals.html.]
A membership association whose mission is to empower "educators to provide
the best possible biology and life science education for all students,"
NABT's policy statement "recommends the prudent and responsible use
of animals in the life science classroom." Teachers also "should
foster a respect for life" and "teach about the interrelationship
and interdependency of all things." NABT endorses and adopts the 10
principles developed by the Institute of Laboratory Animals Resources
(ILAR) for the use of animals in precollege education.
Increasing numbers of animal studies courses are being taught at academic
institutions. This article provides an overview of these developments; the
philosophy behind formalized education about animal issues; a comparison
of British and American approaches to ethics education by Richard Ryder;
and concludes with a sampling of animal-related educational programs,
courses, journals, books, conference series, and university appointments.
E. Xenotransplantation: Transplanting Animal Organs into Humans
Cooper, David K.C., and Lanza, Robert P. Xeno: The Promise of
Transplanting Animal Organs into Humans. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000. 274 p.
Fox, Marie, and McHale, Jean. Xenotransplantation: The Ethical and Legal
Ramifications. Medical Law Review 6 (1): 42-61, Spring 1998.
France. National Consultative Bioethics Committee for Health and
Life Sciences. Opinion on Ethics and [End Page 111]Xenotransplantation: Opinion
No. 61. Paris: The Committee, 11 June 1999. 16 p. [Online at
http://www.ccne-ethique.org/english/avis/a_061.htm#deb.]
Great Britain. Department of Health. Advisory Group on the Ethics
of Xenotransplantation. Animal Tissue into Humans: A Report by
The Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. London:
Stationery Office, 1996. 258 p.
Institute of Medicine [IOM] (United States). Division of Health Sciences
Policy. Committee on Xenograft Transplantation: Ethical Issues and
Public Policy. Xenotransplantation: Science, Ethics and Public
Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996. 126 p.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics Animal-to-Human
Transplants: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation London,
England: The Council, 1996. 147 p. [Partially online at
http://www. nuffield.org/bioethics/publication.]
This report addresses alternatives to xenotransplants, the likely success
of xenotransplants, concerns regarding the rights and welfare of the
animals used, the potential for transmitting infections, and other
ethical and social implications.
United States. Department of Health and Human Services. PHS Guideline
on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation: Draft-Not for
Implementation. Washington, DC: The Department, October 2000. 58
p. [Online at http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/xenophs 1000.pdf.]
Veatch, Robert M. The Ethics of Xenografts. In his Transplantation
Ethics, pp. 259-73. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000.
This chapter includes an overview of the issues raised in
xenotransplantation since Baby Fae was given a chimpanzee heart in 1984.
The authors acknowledge the advice and contributions of F. Barbara Orlans,
Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow; Harriet Hutson Gray, M.T.S., M.S.L.S.,
Reference and Digital Librarian; and Doris M. Goldstein, M.L.S., M.A.,
Director of Library and Information Services at the Kennedy Institute of
Ethics; and John P. Gluck, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology,
University of New Mexico, in the preparation of this Scope Note.
Laura Jane Bishop, Ph.D., is a Research Associate, National Reference
Center for Bioethics Literature, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Anita Lonnes Nolen, M.A., is Archivist and Systems Librarian, National
Reference Center for Bioethics Literature, Georgetown University,
Washington, DC.
Copyright
© 2001 by Johns Hopkins University Press. All
rights reserved. This work may be used, with this header included, for
noncommercial
purposes within a
subscribed
institution.
No copies of this work may be distributed electronically outside of the
subscribed institution, in whole or in part, without express written
permission
from the
JHU Press.
![[Project Muse]](/images/b_muse.gif){kind=small}
![[Search Page]](/images/b_search.gif){kind=small}
![[Journals]](/images/b_journals.gif){kind=small}
![[This Journal]](/images/b_thisjournal.gif){kind=small}
![[Top]](/images/b_contents.gif){kind=small}
![[Top]](/images/b_top.gif){kind=small}