Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T18:17:20.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Analogous Reasoning for Assessing Discomfort in Laboratory Animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

F R Stafleu ,
E Rivas ,
T Rivas ,
J Vorstenbosch ,
F R Heeger  and
A C Beynen
F R Stafleu
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, State University of Utrecht, P O Box 80.166, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands Centre for Bio-ethics and Health Law, State University of Utrecht
E Rivas
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Theoretical Psychology, State University of Utrecht
T Rivas
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Theoretical Psychology, State University of Utrecht
J Vorstenbosch
Affiliation:
Centre for Bio-ethics and Health Law, State University of Utrecht
F R Heeger
Affiliation:
Centre for Bio-ethics and Health Law, State University of Utrecht
A C Beynen
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Animal Science, State University of Utrecht, P O Box 80.166, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When assessing discomfort in animals analogous reasoning is often used, namely, that the causes or symptoms of discomfort in people will also apply to animals. This practical rule of thumb can be based on an ‘analogy-postulate’. This postulate takes into account the anatomical and physiological similarities of vertebrate nervous systems and the comparability and homology in the behavioural and physiological responses to discomfort of humans and other vertebrates in similar situations. There are theoretical and practical problems with this analogous reasoning. Theoretical objections include claims that feelings do not exist, are irrelevant or that scientific knowledge is not necessary to recognize feelings. Practical problems will occur when assessing the discomfort of animals without proper knowledge of the relevant species-specific information. Nevertheless, we think that there are two equivalent sound reasons for accepting the analogy-postulate. First, there is more evidence in favour of acceptance of the postulate than of its rejection. Secondly, the negative moral consequences of erroneously rejecting the postulate are far greater than those of mistakenly accepting it.

Keywords

analogyanimal welfareassessmentdiscomfortpostulate
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , May 1992 , pp. 77 - 84
Copyright
© 1992 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Flecknell, P A 1984 The relief of pain in laboratory animals. Laboratory Animals 18: 147–160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickman, C P, Hickman, C P (jr), Hickman, F M 1978 Biology of Animals. C V Mosby Company: Saint LouisGoogle Scholar
Iggo, A 1985 Pain in Animals. Text of Hume Memorial Lecture. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters BarGoogle Scholar
Morton, D B, Griffiths, P H M 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record 116: 431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B 1976 Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits. Allen and Unwin: LondonGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1975 Animal Liberation. Avon Books: New YorkGoogle Scholar
Stafleu, F R, Heeger, F R, Beynen, A C 1989 A case study on the impact of clinically observed abnormalities in mice with gallstones on the ethical admissibility of a projected experiment with gallstone-bearing mice. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 17: 101–108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Hooff, JARAM 1988 On the ethology of pain, its experience and expression. In Beynen, A C, Solleveld, H A (eds) New Developments in Biosciences: Their Implications for Laboratory Animal Science, pp 41–46. Martinus Nijhoff: DordrechtGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Van Putten, G 1985 Behaviour as a Possible Indicator for Pain in Piglets. Report B-26. Research Institute for Animal Production ‘Schoonoord’: ZeistGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Verhoog, H 1988 Het bewuste dier. In Visser, MBH, Grommers, F J (eds) Dier of Ding. Pudoc: WageningenGoogle Scholar