Engineering Research and Animal Subjects

She notes that depending on one’s perspective on research on nonhuman animals informed consent may be problematic and further observes that:

Regardless of whether scientists argue for or against use of animals in experiments, scholars generally agree that researchers must justify their studies and that they ought not use animal tests where alternatives exist. Most people generally agree that animals represent a vulnerable class of research subjects deserving protection. (p. 29)

Mitcham (1994) offers a somewhat broader perspective on professional responsibilities in his “Practical Guidelines for Engineering Design Research:"

Are the models we use sufficiently complex to include a diversity of non-standard technical factors?

Does reflective analysis include explicit consideration of ethical issues?

Have we made an effort to consider the broad social context of the engineering research, including impacts on the environment?

Have we critically examined end-user assumptions?

Have we undertaken the research in dialogue with personal moral principles and with the larger non-technical community?

Have we given more direct consideration to peripheral implications of the research? (pp. 167-168)

Mitcham, while clearly calling for careful attention to important “macroethical” (Herkert 2001) issues in engineering research, does not explicitly mention use of animal research subjects in discussing his guidelines. Both Shrader-Frechette and Mitcham are, however, concerned with the researcher’s professional responsibility for environmental impacts.

Biomedical Engineering

Bioethicists and practioners in biomedical engineering have begun to recognize the importance of ethics in biomedical engineering. Wueste (2000), for example, notes that while there is no code of ethics for bioengineering, ethical principles can be found in the “customary norms” of the profession as well as other codes of engineering ethics (see below). Of particular importance, Wueste argues, is the unique responsibility of biomedical engineers (as compared to other engineers) for the welfare of patients:

The National Committee on Biomedical Engineering has identified three ways in which biomedical engineering differs from other branches of engineering. First, biomedical engineers work with biological materials that behave differently from and have different properties than the materials that most engineers work with. Second, preparation for a career as a biomedical engineer involves study of both engineering principles and the life sciences. Third, and most important for present purposes, is “the indirect and very often direct responsibility of biomedical engineers for their work with patients.” Such responsibility for the well-being of others is a clear indicator that a role has an ethical dimension. (p. 189.6)

Interestingly, while “criteria of thorough testing” is one of five norms of institutional practice for biomedical engineers that Wueste highlights, he makes no direct mention of animal research subjects.

Other recent writers on biomedical engineering, while stressing the importance of humane treatment of animal research subjects, have staunchly defended the need for and importance of animal research. Saha and Saha (1997), for example, point to the requirement for the use of animal models in biomedical research and in the testing of biomaterials and implants and, subsequently, the need for moral reflection on such issues by biomedical engineers. They argue

…that safety cannot truly be insured without testing within a living system, and with implants intended to be used within the human system for many years, testing may likely need a comparative number of years. Unless humans are to be the sole subjects of such experimentation, animals will need to figure more prominently in such testing. Since animal rights groups and advocates are raising important questions as to the ethical justification of using animals for research, it is important that researchers form a moral basis for such studies. (p. 174)

However, rather than directly responding to the philosophical arguments of critics of animal research, Saha and Saha adopt the defensive position typical of many animal researchers by pointing out that research is only one activity for which humans use animals:

…the…conclusion that human beings are not morally justified in exploiting animals for human benefits…cannot be restricted to animal research alone, but to every form of animal exploitation. Animals have been used in farming as beasts of burden and have been mass produced as food. Animal materials are used in a variety of products including clothing, and even the brewing of beer. In the past, humanity’s exploitation of animals was not questioned except by some religions and vegetarians. Not only have animals been used as a source of food, clothing, transportation, and beasts of burden, but hunting and fishing involve the destruction of animal life for sport. If the exploitation of animals for the sake of curing disease and healing injuries is to be condemned, then all other forms of animal use must similarly be shunned. (p. 177)

Spelman (2002) also avoids direct engagement with philosophical arguments by discussing costs and benefits of animal research and proper procedures.

Codes of Ethics

It is perhaps understandable that engineers and scientists are unwilling to engage in philosophical debate—after all, their training rarely includes the appropriate knowledge and skills. There is, however, a legacy within the engineering profession of codifying the ethical values of the profession, and engineers are often more comfortable looking for ethical guidance in such codes

All contemporary codes of engineering ethics state that the paramount responsibility of engineers is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The topic of animal research subjects is not broached in engineering codes. This omission, however, is not unique to engineering. In a survey of scientific society presidents, only 39% of responding societies that deal with research animals had provisions on animal use in their codes of ethics (compared, for example, to provisions on conflict of interest in 76% of the codes of all responding societies). (Bird 1998)

More generally, in recent years engineering codes of ethics have begun to consider environmental issues. For example, the current Code of Ethics of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, adopted in 1990, pledges IEEE members:

…to accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment…

In 1998, after several years of debate, ASME International (formerly the American Society of Mechanical Engineers) adding the following “fundamental canon” to its Code of Ethics of Engineers:

Engineers shall consider environmental impact in the performance of their professional duties.

In a popular text on engineering ethics, Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins (2000) discuss both the animal liberation movement and the environmental movement, noting that the perspectives of each reject strong notions of anthropocentric ethics. While stressing that the environmental movement is much more relevant to engineering practice, they acknowledge a role in engineering ethics for concern with animal welfare:

Engineering projects sometimes destroy the habitats and the lives of animals, and products developed by engineers are sometimes tested on animals in inhumane ways. In such situations engineers may be forced to make moral decisions about the proper attitude toward nonhuman animals. (p.223)

Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins find it useful to divide environmental issues into two categories, those related to human health, such as air pollution, and non-health related concerns, such as preservation of wilderness areas. Although the authors personally believe both categories of environmental concern can be directly or indirectly justified in terms of human welfare, they acknowledge that the framers of codes of engineering ethics did not likely have in mind non-health related concerns, even in the codes such as those mentioned above where environment is specifically invoked. As a solution, the authors propose that engineering codes not require that engineers be concerned with non-human health related environmental issues, but at the same time engineers be granted the right to organizational disobedience on these grounds:

We believe that professional engineering obligations regarding non-health related issues can best be handled in terms of two proposals:

Although engineers should be required to hold paramount human health in the performance of their engineering work (including health issues that are environmentally related), they should not be required as professionals (that is, required by the codes) to inject non-health-related environmental concerns into their engineering work.

Engineers should have the right to organizational disobedience with regard to environmental issues, as this is required by their own personal beliefs or their own individual interpretations of what professional obligation requires. (p. 227)

In 1996 revisions to their Code of Ethics the American Society of Civil Engineers made explicit the engineer’s commitment to the environment and also introduced the notion of sustainable development to the code. In the new ASCE code, the first “Fundamental Principle” pledges engineers to “using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment,” while the first Canon was amended in order to require engineers to “...strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.” In addition, revisions were incorporated in the “Guidelines to Practice Under the Fundamental Canons of Ethics” under Canons One and Three which require engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development, disclose instances where such principles are not adhered to, and to be active in civic affairs and in educating the public in connection with sustainable development.

Many see sustainable development is inextricably linked to ascribing inherent value to nature. Kothari (1990), for example, has observed:

The shift to sustainable development is primarily an ethical shift. It is not a technological fix, nor a matter of financial investment. It is a shift in values such that nature is valued in itself and for its life support function, not merely for how it can be converted into resources and commodities to feed the engine of economic growth. Respect for nature’s diversity, and the responsibility to conserve that diversity, define sustainable development as an ethical ideal. Out of an ethics of respect for nature’s diversity flows a respect for the diversity of cultures and livelihoods, the basis not only of sustainability, but also of justice and equity.

On the other hand, consistent with the general observation of Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins noted above, Vesilind and Gunn (1998) argue that the new ASCE code of ethics places only instrumental value on the environment. For one thing, they point out, the ASCE code doesn’t even define sustainable development. ASCE later defined the term as “…the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.” Vesilind and Gunn argue, however, that such abstract conceptions of sustainable development offer little in the way of operational definitions that would be of use in solving ethical dilemmas, one example of which they cite as:

What pain and suffering by a laboratory test animal do we accept in order to reduce health problems in humans? (p. 62)

Emerging Engineering Values

Davis (1998) has noted that professional codes of ethics, like technical standards, evolve over time as the profession itself and professional values change. The “paramountcy clause,” for example, did not become standard parlance in engineering codes until the last half of the 20^th century.

Indeed attitudes toward ethical treatment of animals are beginning to change in some fields of engineering. Hall and Lima (2001), for example, contrast the reductionist methodology of traditional engineering with perspectives required in biological engineering, including the centrality of biology and the critical need to take into account social and ethical concerns:

Because a reductionist approach does not adequately address all aspects of a biological system and how these systems are interrelated, biological engineers will have to re–frame problems to be solved. We must cast a wider net and look at the reactions that will occur as a result of the actions we apply or impose upon a biological system. This approach will require the profession to address ethical and moral issues in a proper cultural context, which represents an arena into which traditional engineering approaches rarely venture. (p. 1040)

The authors discuss a case involving a traditional design for a tiger enclosure at a zoo and a contemporary design much more in tune with the tiger’s biological needs and concepts of humane treatment, and show how exposing students to such cases can lead to the examination of broader ethical questions such as whether captivity of the animal is justified.

Similarly, Koerkamp et al. (2001) discuss a Dutch study of future “socially desirable” practices in livestock farming that would be consistent with sustainable development practices and would incorporate the following long-term goals:

1. transparency in the production chain;

2. reduction of the environmental impact by a factor 20;

3. increase animal welfare and food safety;

4. food production with added value;

5. new animal food and livestock products;

6. gear livestock systems to animal keepers

That engineering can be responsive to changing social values is also reflected in changing organizational outlooks. Engineering as an institution has begun to gradually alter its views on issues such as sustainable development, as evidenced by “A Declaration by the US Engineering Community to the World Summit on Sustainable Development,” promulgated by several US-based engineering societies in preparation for the 2002 Johannesburg summit, that reads in part:

Creating a sustainable world that provides a safe, secure, healthy life for all peoples is a priority for the US engineering community. It is evident that US engineering must increase its focus on sharing and disseminating information, knowledge and technology that provides access to minerals, materials, energy, water, food and public health while addressing basic human needs. Engineers must deliver solutions that are technically viable, commercially feasible and, environmentally and socially sustainable.

As public concern about the appropriateness of using animals research subjects and the humane treatment of animals that are used increases, and engineering as a profession becomes more responsive to such concerns, the branches of engineering that are engaged in such research are likely to adopt codes of ethics or amend existing codes in order to explicitly address such issues. A good model for beginning this transition is the proposal by Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins noted earlier. While the codes should not prohibit engineers from using animal research subjects when there is appropriate justification and strict adherence to guidelines for humane treatment, codes should grant to engineers the right of organizational disobedience regarding their ethical concerns over the use and treatment of animals.

Cases for Discussion (onlineethics.org)

I. The New Hip

Additional question: Are there any provisions in existing engineering codes of ethics that would assist Dr. Chandler in making her decision?

II. Unexpected Adverse Events

Additional question: Suppose Dr. Adams were still a postdoc working under the direction of another researcher who insisted on continuing the project through eight weeks. What revisions in engineering codes of ethics would you recommend that might clarify Dr. Adams’ ethical responsibilities in this case?

Works Cited

Bird, S. J. (1998) The Role of Professional Societies: Codes of Conduct and Their Enforcement. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (3):315-320.

Davis, M. (1998) Thinking Like an Engineer. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hall S. G. and M. Lima (2001) PROBLEM–SOLVING APPROACHES AND PHILOSOPHIES IN BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING: CHALLENGES FROM TECHNICAL, SOCIAL, AND ETHICAL ARENAS. Transactions of the ASAE 44 (4):1037–1041. American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Harris, C., Jr., M. Pritchard, and M. Rabins (2000) Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 2nd Ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Herkert, J.R. (2001) Future Directions in Engineering Ethics Research: Microethics, Macroethics and the Role of Professional Societies. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (3): 403-414.

Koerkamp et al. (2001) Towards socially desirable livestock farming systems in 2040. ASAE Meeting Paper Number: 01-4035.

Kothari, R. (1990) Environment, technology and ethics. Pp. 27-35 in Engel J.R. and J.G. Engel, Eds. Ethics of Environment and Development. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Mitcham, C. (1994) Engineering design research and social responsibility. Pp.153-168 in K. Shrader-Frechette, Ed. Ethics of Scientific Researc. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Saha S. and P. Saha (1997) Biomedical Ethics and the Biomedical Engineer: A Review. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 25, 163-201.

Shrader-Frechette, K., Ed. (1994) Ethics of Scientific Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Spelman, F. A. (2002) The Ethics of Animal Research. Proceedings of the Second Joint EMBS/BMES Conference.

Vesilind, P. Aarne and Alastair S. Gunn (1998) Engineering, Ethics, and the Environment. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press.

Whitbeck, C. (1998) Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Wueste, D. E. (2000) Professional Ethics in Biomedical Engineering. In Joseph D. Bronzino, Ed. The Biomedical Engineering Handbook: Second Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.

Other References

Rowan, A.N. (1995). Ethics education in science and engineering: The case of animal research. Science and Engineering Ethics 1:181-184.

Saha, S. and P. S. Saha (2000) Ethical Issues of Animal and Human Experimentation in the Development of Medical Devices. In Joseph D. Bronzino, Ed. The Biomedical Engineering Handbook: Second Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.