Use of Animals in Scientific Research

Case Study 6.4

This scenario is an example of competing interests among stakeholders involved in animal research and care. As evident in the case, Dr. Jiao Fang is very correct because there is overwhelming evidence showing that the animals are seemingly in distress and pain. It is highly unethical to put animals in distress, high degree of discomfort, and pain. Dr. James Zogby’s dismissive attitude and stance are detrimental to the proper treatment and care of the animals in the case. In this regard, Dr. Zogby is not taking care of animals in the right manner and as stated in Proverbs 12:10. Given the competing interests at hand, Dr. Jiao faces a dilemma on the right approach to address the issue without affecting the mentor-training relationship or jeopardizing her career with Dr. Zogby’s lab. Finding a better alternative solution to the issue is critical given that improperly managing competing interests in animal research and care could have inappropriate impacts and results (Macrina, 2005). Therefore, the best alternative solution is for Dr. Jiao to recommend further observations of the animals to Dr. Zogby. She could also recommend the involvement of other stakeholders within or outside the lab in observing and monitoring the animals. Insights obtained from the observations could then be used to make necessary changes that enhance the safety and health of the animals.

Case Study 6.7

As evident in the scenario, Dr. Ellen Schwartz is facing a dilemma that could have significant ramifications for the experiments depending on the decision she makes or the course of action she takes. While Dr. Schwartz’s initial plan seems to be the most ethical thing to do in the scenario, it could be deemed questionable in animal research regulations. One of the issues that could likely emerge if she goes ahead with her initial plan is the fact that she is not listed as an investigator on the protocol. On the other hand, if she does nothing about the scenario, she could be found liable for anything that happens to the rats on grounds of probably sabotaging the experiment. Therefore, the most suitable course of action for Dr. Schwartz is to create an emergency protocol and document all her observations. When documenting her observations, Dr. Schwarz should gather as much information as possible regarding what happened to the rats. This could involve contacting the two other students working at the lab in order to have more insights into what happened. Dr. Schwartz should then contact Dr. Tanaka with the information or a supervisor. The next course of action would then be determined by feedback obtained from Dr. Tanaka or the contacted supervisor. In so doing, Dr. Schwartz would effectively balance the legal and ethical issues emerging from the case. By balancing the interests of all parties involved, Dr. Schwartz will effectively take care of others’ interests, which is a biblical principle in Philippians 2:2.

Case 6.9

IACUC protocol provides alternatives to the mouse ascites method of monoclonal antibody production. These alternatives were developed as part of efforts by IACUC to avoid distress, pain, or discomfort (Office of Research, 2019). I believe that these are the grounds on which Dr. Carley Featherstone’s research protocol was rejected by IACUC. However, there are questions on whether the commercial source for the monoclonal antibody that was later approved is legal and ethical since it was produced by Dr. Featherstone after her appeal was rejected. Given the facts of the scenario, Dr. Featherstone’s solution can be deemed legal and ethical. While the solution was developed using the ascites method of producing monoclonal antibody, it is legal because Dr. Featherstone had the approval to use the technique at her previous institution. The prior approval for the use of the method implies that Dr. Featherstone has legal grounds for using it. This solution is also ethical because Dr. Featherstone sought IACUC permission to use it when she resubmitted the protocol. She not only engaged in the production of the commercial source but also sought permission prior to using it. Since Dr. Featherstone’s initial research protocol was rejected, Dr. Louis has the obligation to report information regarding the commercial source to IACUC. By reporting the information, Dr. Louis will be acting ethically and will help IACUC to have more information regarding the commercial source. This will be in line with the ethical principle of taking care of the interests of others as shown in Philippians 2:2.

Case Study 6.10

As noted by Festing & Wilkinson (2007), the use of animals for research should be carried out within an ethical framework. This implies that any responsible scientists should use animals in a manner that does not cause unnecessary suffering or pain, especially if it can be avoided. Therefore, the best thing to do in this scenario is to stop the experiment and inform IACUC about the death of the rats. The death of the rats could have occurred due to many factors including the implantation of a catheter into the base of the skull. Stopping the experiment would be the responsible and ethical thing to do because of the potential suffering or deaths it has caused. While stopping the experiment could risk earning disfavor from Tom, it could also be helpful for him to stop engaging in unethical practices that could further harm the rats. When reporting the death of the rats to IACUC, details regarding the experiment and how each step was carried out will be provided. Reporting the issue to IACUC will be in line with the biblical principle of subjecting oneself to governing authorities as shown in Romans 13:1.

Social Drinking and Drinking Coffee

Drinking coffee and social drinking basically involve the consumption of refreshments for various reasons. Social drinking is different from drinking coffee because social drinking involves alcohol consumption in various social settings. While both of them do not necessarily create personal, mental or physical problems, social drinking can result in alcohol addiction if carried out excessively. However, both social drinking and drinking coffee could make one a slave to the substances if they result in addiction as stated in 2 Peter 2:19.