I believe the guideline:

"The principle of proportionality: responsibility for considering and balancing suffering and benefit"

is the most important aspect in biomedical research in terms of wellbeing. This is the moral saying that the end justifies the means where you should ensure that the suffering of the animal is balanced by the benefit that can be found. I know it sounds heartless, but we conduct animal studies to be able to help the population and I don't think there is any alternative, whether that be an in-vitro study or computational model, that can be used to predict the device's compatibility and longevity within a living animal. With that said, there should only be animal studies with the thought the science behind the study will aid to advance the knowledge of those to be used for the benefit of the population. Animal studies should not be run if there hasn't been due diligence in thinking of what the outcome of the study will be used for. 

I think the guideline "Responsibility for openness and sharing of data and material" is the most important guideline for multiple reasons. The first being that it really emphasizes that the scientific community should be just that, a community. Many get so deep into finding something novel and different that can be used for their recognition in the field and this really creates an issue as science and research are for helping the community, not the personal gain of oneself. The second reason why this is important, ties it back to the pre clinical studies aspect. This guideline can help people avoid unnecessary repetitive experimentation which can reduce the need for many animals in pre clinical research. Many industries have steered away from testing on animals, the makeup industry being the biggest one yet. However, in the biomedical field, this may not be feasible as animal testing is important in biomedical research because it has been used to study and treat a wide array of diseases. Another type of model to effectively research and experiment on is not appropriate in our field as we will be dealing with implantation, drug delivery, etc. 

Do you think there will ever be a time where biomedical research will no longer need animal models in research because another model works just as well or even better, and if so what type of model?  

@srp98 I would have to agree with you on what guideline I happen to think is the most important guideline for biomedical research on animals, "Responsibility for openness and sharing of data and material". The biggest issue revolving around ethics in the world of scientific research is the outrage or opposing views of people contributing to bad press and reputation in the field or company. The more people that are opposed to scientific research on animals, the less funding that company/field is likely to receive. For example, as more news is spread on using animals for research/harming them, there are more people trying to boycott the company or write bad reviews, tarnishing the company's reputation and in turn; making the company lose business, like most drugstore makeup companies as you've mentioned. To answer your question, on whether I think there will ever be a time where biomedical research on animals will no longer be needed, I do. This goes hand-in-hand with guideline number 2, "Responsibility for considering options (Replace)" An alternative method of testing on animals would be using human volunteer candidates or advanced computer modeling techniques like manipulating human tissue and cells which is referred to as silico models. This version would of course have to be with the permission of the human subject, or the use of organ donor human beings or those that have subjected to approve their body to be donated for scientific research. 

This guidelines are a good start to helping to outline and provide ethical standards to uphold. However, everyone that is involved in the animal research process needs to hold themselves accountable. The reason being is that the unethical mistreatment of animal research can start very early in the process. A good example of this was a big case that helped to give the final push for the passing of the Animal Welfare Act was the case of Pepper the dog. Pepper was a Dalmatian dog from Pennsylvania who disappeared in 1965. After a long and frantic search for by her family she eventually turned up euthanized in a New York hospital, having been stolen by an animal dealer who supplied vivisectionists. Pepper's story led to Congressional and Senatorial members being bombarded with angry letters demanding for action. The 1966 act set minimal standards for the handling, sale, and transport of cats, dogs, nonhuman primates, rabbits, etc. held by animal dealers or pre-research in laboratories. Laboratories must now be licensed and provide identification for their animals as a matter of theft prevention.

The discussion on whether animals should be experimented on for research purposes is complicated. Some view this method as unethical, while others believe that there is nothing wrong with it. One video that comes to mind from this discussion is “Save Ralph,” which tells the story of an (animated) rabbit that undergoes a series of experimental tests and isn’t treated with proper value and respect. I think that animal testing under the correct circumstances can be practiced, and I’m glad to know that there are guidelines in place specifically for these experiments. From the list of guidelines provided, it’s hard to determine which guideline is most important because they’re all important to follow. However, respecting the animals and minimizing their suffering (or eliminating suffering completely) is high on the priority list for these experiments. Therefore, the guidelines I think should be considered above anything else during animal testing are Responsibility for minimizing the risk of suffering and improving animal welfare and Responsibility for considering options. The first guideline is pretty obvious. Researchers should reduce the amount of pain test animals feel to the extent possible. If researchers are hesitant to test products on humans in fear of injuring them, then that same mindset should be applied to animal studies. In regards to the second guideline, researchers should always determine what other options are available for testing that don’t include animals. These other options should be given priority over animal testing if their results are reliable. At times, animal testing may be necessary, but respect for the animal as a living being should be top priority. What are some examples of ethical animal studies?

@srp98 I hope that one day there will be no need for animal models for testing. I know many computational simulations are getting more advanced and devices like organ on a chip and lab on a chip are also getting more advanced. It is really hard to predict the future, but I imagine this trend will continue. If these alternatives become sufficiently complex, I imagine that legally researchers will be required to use these alterative devices instead of living animals. I am very interested in that specifically, how will these alternatives shape the legal options of animal testing. Does anyone foresee a time when alternatives are so advanced that animal testing becomes fully outlawed?

No matter how many guidelines researchers and labs have to follow in order to use animals in biomedical experiments, animal experiments will always face issues. Because of these issues that arise, guidelines have been implemented to emphasize the wellbeing of the animals and truthfulness of the research being done. One of these guidelines that I believe is important to uphold in order to stay truthful and focus on the well being of the animals is the requirement of expertise on animals. I think that this requirement truly embodies many of the other guidelines as well. It is vital for a researcher to truly understand and be an expert on an animal before they can say that they are treating an animal correctly. I have read that recently zebrafish have become increasingly popular as an alternative to mice. One of the reasons given was that a fish is considered a phylogenetically lower species as we do not understand how they feel pain and suffering. By this logic, it does not uphold this requirement of expertise of an animal prior to experimental use. Knowing how an animal feels pain, reacts to pain, and may react to a lab setting is important to consider in experimental design and more importantly to gain valuable results. Addressing the prior post, I have also read that back in 2019 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C., announced  that it will stop conducting or funding studies on mammals by 2035. Now this does not outlaw animal testing altogether but shows an initiative that science may in fact be moving away from animal testing.

I think that an important guideline, as mentioned by others, is the "Responsibility for openness and sharing of data and material." This is important for both the scientific community as a whole but also for animal testing. By sharing research procedures and findings, the community at large can see which projects are worth pursuing, change their methods to better achieve the goal, or change a metric that they are interested in studying. Sharing the effects the research had on the animals helps prevent more animals from undergoing the same procedures in the name of science. For example, one study could have been more traumatic than anticipated on the animal model. The next group of researchers from a different organization can see this study and can come up with a better way to conduct their research so that the animals are treated more ethically. In a scientific utopia, scientists and organizations would be very transparent about their research but realistically, as mentioned by replies above, there will be some groups that would hide their data to continue their research by all means or to prevent others from using their work to receive credit for breakthroughs. 

"Organ-on-a-Chip" models may help lower the amount of animal models required for pre-clinical testing. I believe that currently, it is most effective in pharmacology. This is at least one step closer to relying less on animal models. It is difficult at the moment to have a relevant model for other purposes such as differentiating stem cells to then study interactions with. My capstone team was tasked with creating a similar microfluidic device that could be potentially used for this application. Based on the research we conducted, I do think that a device like this will be successfully created sometime during our lifetime, but I don't think it'll be anytime soon. 

I believe that “Responsibility for minimising the risk of suffering and improving animal welfare” is extremely important in biomedical research. Using animal models in experimental testing has consistently been an ethical conflict for decades due its nature. When conducting experiments, I think the researchers and others contributing to the research often overlook the risk of suffering being posed on the animal models and the importance of improved animal welfare. Because of this, I think that along with respecting the animal’s dignity, this guideline is fundamental. Animals used in research are often viewed as objects and not as living beings, which should be priority over all other things. The pain animals feel during these experiments are often disregarded. By minimizing the risk of suffering and improving animal welfare, researchers achieve key regulation in utilizing animal models in experimental designs.

Responsibility for minimizing the risk of suffering and improving animal welfare is what I deem most important in research. I understand that research has to be done to make advancements within many factors of life but I do not believe it has to be at the expense of an animal being traumatized, that is why I think increasing awareness of animal welfare is vital to a successful experiment and that can come from risk management training. I am glad to see this is a guideline and especially for pre and post-research operations. How can the FDA and other organizations ensure that this guideline is consistently practiced?

The guideline I found most important to this would be "requirement of due care," which encompasses the animals, the study, as well as those outside the study. The guidelines previously mentioned cover certain requirements for the FDA as well as the rules that permeate these studies. There have been multiple instances in previous years where animals being used in an experiment were not conducted with the utmost care, and the FDA stepped in to remedy this issue. In previous studies with animals before the FDA, animals were not labeled, not taken care of, and killed through the neglect of the care that these researchers had toward the animals. When the FDA stepped in, they had strict guidelines and somewhat obvious rules, such as keeping track of the animals, so the results matched the study. This guideline, in other words, gives the animals rights so that they are not mistreated or misused throughout this study as well as after the study. If the researcher were to conduct a study on an animal that would leave the animal scarred for the rest of their life, this requirement as well as the FDA guidelines would prevent something like this from happening by requiring the study to take care of the animal.

I am going to focus on, "Animals are sentient creatures with the capacity to feel pain, and the interests of animals must therefore be taken into consideration". In the old days, research was pretty brutal for animals that were tested, and although it is not the perfect situation today, it is a lot better. I know that many research projects now sedate the patient when inflicting pain and allow them to wake when sedation wears off. This may still seem horrible, but years ago researchers could inflict pain with nothing. There are also protocols when the animal is in too much pain to humanly euthanize it, and euthanasia is a better outcome then living in constant pain to pass uncomfortably.