Abstract
Most discussions on animal experimentation refer to domesticated animals and regulations are tailored to this class of animals. However, wild animals are also used for research, e.g., in biological field research that is often directed to fundamental ecological-evolutionary questions or to conservation goals. There are several differences between domesticated and wild animals that are relevant for evaluation of the acceptability of animal experiments. Biological features of wild animals are often more critical as compared with domesticated animals because of their survival effects. An important issue is what is called here “natural suffering”: the suffering from natural circumstances. Should this type of suffering be taken into account when suffering from experimentation is evaluated? As an answer, it is suggested that ``natural functioning'' should be considered as an additional standard in the evaluation of wild animal experimentation. Finally, two topics related to the ecological context are considered. Firstly, the often inevitable involvement of non-research animals in wild animal experimentation, and secondly, the eco-centric approach to nature conservation. According to the latter position, animals are subordinated to ecosystems. All these aspects make the evaluation of wild animal experiments much more complex than experiments with domesticated animals. Preliminary scores are proposed to deal with these aspects. It is argued that this should not lead to a more complex governmental regulation, since an effective maintenance and control are hard to realize and one may loose the cooperation of researchers themselves. In addition, non-governmental professional organizations such as research societies and funding organizations play a pivotal role.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Anonymous, “Guide Lines for the Treatment of Animals in Behavioural Research and Teaching,” Animal Behaviour65 (2003), 249-255.
Bateson, P., “When to Experiment on Animals?” New Scientist1496 (1986), 30-32.
Bateson, P., “Assessment of Pain in Animals,” Animal Behaviour42 (1991), 827-839.
Bekoff, M., “Experimentally Induced Infanticide: The Removal of Birds and Its Ramifications,” The Auk110 (1993), 404-406.
Boon, D., Teksten en toelichting Wetgeving dierenwelzijn(Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, 1999).
Brom, F. W. A., Onherstelbaar verbeterd. Biotechnologie bij dieren als een moreel probleem(Van Gorcum; Utrecht: Centrum voor Bio-ethiek en Gezondheidsrecht, Assen, 1997).
Callicott, J. B. “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again,” in J. B. Callicott (ed.), Defense of Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy(State University of New York Press, Albany, 1989), pp. 49-59.
Cock Buning, T. de and T. Theune, “A Comparison of Three Models for Ethical Evaluation of Proposed Animal Experiments,” Animal Welfare3 (1994), 107-128.
Elwood, R. W., “Ethical Implications of Studies on Infanticide and Maternal Aggression in Rodents,” Animal Behaviour42 (1991), 841-849.
Fraser D., D. M. Weary, E. A. Pajor, and N. Millican, “A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns,” Animal Welfare6 (1997), 187-205.
Heeger, R. and F. Brom, “Intrinsic Value and Direct Duties: From Animal Ethics to Environmental Ethics,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics14 (2001), 241-252.
Howard, W. E., “Animal Research is Defensible,” Journal of Mammalogy74 (1993), 234-235.
Huntingford, F. A., “Some Ethical Issues Raised by Studies of Predation and Aggression,” Animal Behaviour32 (1984), 210-215.
Klaver, I., J. Keulartz, H. van den Belt, and B. Gremmen, “Born to be Wild: A Pluralistic Ethics Concerning Introduced Large Herbivores in the Netherlands,” Environmental Ethics24 (2002), 3-21.
Koolhaas, J. M., S. M. Korte, S. F. de Boer, B. J. van der Vegt, C. G. van, Reenen, H. Hopster, I. C. de Jong, M. A. W. Ruis, and H. J. Blokhuis, “Coping Styles in Animals: Current Status in Behavior and Stress-Physiology,” Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews23 (1999), 925-935.
McConway, K., “The Number of Subjects in Animal Behaviour Experiments: Is Still Still Right?” in M. A. Dawkins and M. Gosling (eds.), Ethics in Research on Animal Behaviour(Academic Press, London, 1992), pp. 35-38.
Ministry VWS, “Dierproeven in Nederland,” Documentatie15 (2000).
Musschenga, A. W., “Naturalness: Beyond animal Welfare,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics15 (2002), 171-186.
Nesse, R. M., “Proximate and Evolutionary Studies of Anxiety, Stress and Depression: Synergy at the Interface,” Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews23 (1999), 895-903.
Piek H., De omgang met dieren. Richtlijnen voor verantwoord omgaan met dieren in natuurgebieden van Natuurmonumenten(Vereniging Natuurmonumenten, 's-Graveland, 2000).
Porter, D. G. “Ethical Scores for Animal Experiments,” Nature356 (1992), 101-102.
Price, E. O., “Behavioural Development in Animals Undergoing Domestication,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science65 (1999), 245-271.
Regan, T., The Case for Animal Rights(Routhledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1983).
34713, consulted: December 3rd, 2002.
Rijssen, P. van, Research on the Wild Animals Put to the Test(Section Science & Society, Haren, 2002).
Russel, W. M. S. and R. L. Burch, The Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques(Methuen, London, 1959).
Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal,” in T. Regan and P. Singer (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2nd edn. (Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, 1989), 73-86.
Singer, P. “Animal Liberation,” The New York Review of Bookssection 20 (1973), 17-21.
Still, A. W., “On the Number of Subjects Used in Animal Behaviour Experiments,” Animal Behaviour30 (1982), 873-880.
Swart, J. A. A., H. J. van der Windt, and J. Keulartz, “Valuation of Nature in Conservation and Restoration,” Restoration Ecology9 (2001), 230-238.
Taylor, P. W., Principles of Ethics. An Introduction(Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, 1975).
Tramper, R., Ethische richtlijnen. Richtlijnen voor het omgaan met zelfstandig levende dieren in de terreinen van Staatsbosbeheer(Staatsbosbeheer, The Hague, 1999).
VandeVeer, D., “Interspecific Justice,” Inquiry22 (1979), 55-79.
Vorstenbosch, J. M. G., F. R. Stafleu, E. A.M. J. Eckelboom, F. Krijger, R. Tramper, M. de Jonge, and B. M. J. de Kanter-Loven. Grenzen en Gradaties. Over zeer ernstig ongerief van dieren en essentiële behoeften van mens en dier in het kader van de beoordeling van dierexperimenten(Centrum voor Bio-ethiek en Gezondheidsrecht, Utrecht, 1999).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Swart, J.A. The Wild Animal as a Research Animal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17, 181–197 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000017394.83477.fd
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000017394.83477.fd