Survey regarding the use of animals in research at unesp biosciences institute, Botucatu - SP
Keywords:
Laboratory animals, animal experimentation, ethics, bioethicsAbstract
The use of animals for scientific purposes in the biological area is a current paradigm. This
study aimed, by using a questionnaire, to investigate the opinions of researchers and the
practice and conditions of use of animals in scientific experimentation in the area of
Biological Sciences, of the Institute of Biosciences (IB), Universidade Estadual Paulista
"Julio de Mesquita Filho "(UNESP), campus of Botucatu. Of 39 researchers, 28% used
animals in research, with a predominance of rodents and fish. The use of animals in research
was considered highly necessary or necessary for 79% of researchers, including those who did
not use animals for this purpose, with a predominance of researchers with more than 20 years
career. From those who use animals, 73% did not believe in the viability of replacement
methods in their research areas. Among the researchers who did not use animals any more,
83% did so by changing the area of research and not for ethical or financial reasons. Some
elimination methods ("euthanasia") are in violation of current legislation, 73% of the
environments had temperature and light control and there was no environmental enrichment
in 65% of environments. The vast majority of researchers and mainly the olders, still consider
the animal model as necessary to test scientific hypotheses. The conclusion was that the use of
substitutive methods should be encouraged, by validation of substitute methods, so that
researchers may become familiar with this new perspective. From the animal point of view it
is necessary to follow the current legislation regarding “euthanasia”, the use of painkillers
during all invasive interventions and inclusion of environmental enrichment for improving the
welfare of animals.
References
ALTEX. 2007;24(2):91-109.
2. Frajblat M, Amaral VLL, Rivera EAB. Ciência em animais de laboratório. Cienc Cult.
2008;60(2):44-6.
3. Duncan IJD. Welfare is to do with that animals feel. J Agric Environ Ethics. 1993;6(Spec
Suppl 2):8-14.
4. Singer P. Igualdade para os Animais? In: Ética prática. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 1993.
p.65-92.
5. Darwin C. The origin of species. London: John Murray; 1859.
6. Alves ND. Dor, senciência e bem-estar em animais: pequenos animais. In: Anais do 1o
Congresso Brasileiro de Bioética e Bem-Estar Animal e 1o Seminário Brasileiro de
Biossegurança e Biotecnologia Animal; 2008; Recife. Recife: CFMV; 2008. p.18-9.
7. Luna SPL. Dor, sensciência e bem-estar em animais: sensciência e dor. In: Anais do 1o
Congresso Brasileiro de Bioética e Bem-Estar Animal e 1o Seminário Brasileiro de
Biossegurança e Biotecnologia Animal; 2008; Recife. Recife: CFMV; 2008. p.16-7.
8. Wells N. The use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand: a legal
perspective. ALTEX. 2006;23(Spec Issue):85-9.
9. Knight S, Vrij A, Bard K, Brandon D. Science versus humanwelfare? Understanding
attitudes toward animal use. J Soc Issues. 2009;65(3):463-83.
10. Ruksenas O. Animals and alternatives in biomedical education in the Baltics. ALTEX.
2006;23(Spec Issue):78-80.
11. Patronek GJ, Rauch A. Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives
to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education. J Am Vet Med Assoc.
2007;230(1):37-43.
12. Fleischmann KR. Frog and cyberfrogs are friends: dissection simulation and animal
advocacy. Soc Anim. 2003;11(2):123-43.
13. Strauss R, Kinzie MB. Student achievement and attitudes in a pilot study comparing an
interactive videodisc simulation to conventional dissection. Am Biol Teach.
1994;56(7):398-402.
14. Balcombe J. Dissection: the scientific case for alternatives. J Appl Anim Welf Sci.
2000;4(2):118-26.
15. Youngblut C. Use of multimedia technology to provide solutions to existing curriculum
problems: virtual frog dissection [thesis]. Fairfax: George Mason University; 2001.
16. Feeney DM. Human rights and animal welfare. Am Psychol. 1987;42(6):593-9.
17. Hagelin J, Carlsson H, Hau J. An overview of surveys on how people view animal
experimentation: some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Underst Sci.
2003;12(1):67-81.
18. Herzog HA, Galvin S. Common sense and the mental lives of animals: an
empirical approach. Anthropomorphism, anecdotes and animals. Albany: State University
of New York Press; 1997.
19. Takooshian H. Opinions on animal research: scientists versus the public. PsyETA Bull.
1988;(7):5-7.
20. Phillips MT, Sechzer JA. Animal research and ethical conflict. An analysis of the
scientific literature 1966-1986. New York: Springer Verlag; 1989.
21. Gunther AC. Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of
opinion. Public Opin Q. 2001; 65(3):295-320.
22. Stokes EL, Flecknell PA, Richardson CA. Reported analgesic and anaesthetic
administration to rodents undergoing experimental surgical procedures. Lab Anim.
2009;43(2):149-54.
23. Flecknell PA, Roughan JV. Assessing pain in animals: putting research into practice.
Anim Welf Sci. 2004;13(1):71-5.
24. Viau V, Sharma S, Plotsky PM, Meaney MJ. Increased plasma ACTH responses to stress
in nonhandled compared with handled rats require basal levels of corticosterone and are
associated with increased levels of ACTH secretagogues in the median eminence. J
Neurosci. 1993;13(3):1097-105.
25. Petroianu A. Aspectos éticos na pesquisa em animais. Acta Cir Bras. 1996;11(3):157-64.
26. Cerqueira N. Métodos alternativos ainda são poucos e não substituem totalmente o uso de
animais. Cienc Cult. 2008;60(2):47-8.
27. Wolfer DP, Litvin O, Morf S. Laboratory animal welfare: cage enrichment and mouse
behaviour. Nature. 2004;432(7019):821-2.
28. Olsson AS, Dahlborn K. Improving housing conditions for laboratory mice: a review of
‘environmental enrichment’. Lab Anim. 2002;36(3):243-70.
29. Morales MM. Métodos alternativos à utilização de animais em pesquisa científica: mito
ou realidade? Cienc Cult. 2008;60(2):33-6.
30. Lima WT. Entendimento humano da experimentação animal. Cienc Cult. 2002;60(2):26-
7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
