An Alternative to the Orthodoxy in Animal Ethics? Limits and Merits of the Wittgensteinian Critique of Moral Individualism

In this paper, we analyse the Wittgensteinian critique of the orthodoxy in animal ethics that has been championed by Cora Diamond and Alice Crary. While Crary frames it as a critique of “moral individualism”, we show that their criticism applies most prominently to certain forms of moral individualism (namely, those that follow hedonistic or preference-satisfaction axiologies), and not to moral individualism in itself. Indeed, there is a concrete sense in which the moral individualistic stance cannot be escaped, and we believe that it is this particular limitation that justified Crary’s later move to a qualified version of moral individualism. At the same time, we also argue that there are significant merits to the Wittgensteinian critique of moral individualism, which pertain to its attack on the rationalism, naturalism, and reductionism that characterise orthodox approaches to animal ethics. We show that there is much of value in the Wittgensteinians’ call for an ethics that is more human; an ethics that fully embraces the capacities we are endowed with and one that pays heed to the richness and complexity of our moral lives

Certainties and the Bedrock of Moral Reasoning: Three Ways the Spade Turns

n this paper, we identify and explain three kinds of bedrock in moral thought. The term "bedrock," as introduced by Wittgenstein in §217 of the Philosophical Investigations, stands for the end of a chain of reasoning. We affirm that some chains of moral reasoning do indeed end with certainty. However, different kinds of certainties in morality work in different ways. In the course of systematizing the different types of certainties, we argue that present accounts of certainties in morality do not reflect their diversity. Our analysis yields three types of moral certainty: QUASI-UNDOUBTABLE CERTAIN PROPOSITIONS, CERTAIN PROPOSITIONS, and TRANSCENDENTAL CERTAINTIES. We show that the first two types can, at least to some extent, be intelligibly doubted. Therefore, they do not possess the characteristics that would classify them as bedrock in the strictest sense. TRANSCENDENTAL CERTAINTIES cannot likewise be doubted because they are rules that enable moral thinking. Thus, deviating from them is unintelligible. We shall argue that all three types reflect ways in which moral language games come to an end, while only one, TRANSCENDENTAL CERTAINTIES, displays the characteristic of being solid bedrock

Necessary, but Not Sufficient. The Benefit Concept in the Project Evaluation of Animal Research in the Context of Directive 2010/63/EU

Directive 2010/63/EU (henceforth “Directive”) on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes mandates that every project proposal in EU member states involving procedures on living non-human vertebrates and cephalopods has to be approved in an review process, including a harm-benefit-analysis (HBA), to assess “whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and distress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical consideration and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or the environment”. Despite the justifying relevance of “outcome” and “benefit”, it remains unclear how to understand these concepts. However, national authorities and applicants require a clear understanding of this to carry out a HBA. To analyze the underlying premises of the HBA and its consequences for the evaluation process, we introduce a heuristic to analyze the relation between “outcome”, “benefit” and “prospective benefit assessment”. We then apply the heuristic to all seven legitimate purposes for animal research stated in the Directive, namely basic research, translational or applied research, product safety, education and training, protection of the environment, preservation of species and forensic inquiries. As we show, regardless of which purpose is aimed for, applicants are hard-pressed to demonstrate tangible benefits in a prospective assessment. In the HBA, this becomes a problem since—as we argue—the only reasonable, expected and tangible outcome of research can ever be knowledge. The potential long-term benefits on the basis of gained knowledge are unforeseeable and impossible to predict. Research is bound to fall short of these proclaimed societal benefits and its credibility will suffer as long as research has to validate itself through short-term societal benefit. We propose to revise the ethical evaluation based on the HBA and we think it necessary to develop an alternative model for project evaluation that focuses on the value of knowledge as a scientific outcome as a necessary but not sufficient condition for societal benefit. View Full-Text Keywords: animal ethics; harm-benefit analysis; animal research ethics; benefit concep

MEDIPS: genome-wide differential coverage analysis of sequencing data derived from DNA enrichment experiments

MOTIVATION: DNA enrichment followed by sequencing is a versatile tool in molecular biology, with a wide variety of applications including genome-wide analysis of epigenetic marks and mechanisms. A common requirement of these diverse applications is a comparison of read coverage between experimental conditions. The amount of samples generated for such comparisons ranges from few replicates to hundreds of samples per condition for epigenome-wide association studies. Consequently, there is an urgent need for software that allows for fast and simple processing and comparison of sequencing data derived from enriched DNA. RESULTS: Here, we present a major update of the R/Bioconductor package MEDIPS, which allows for an arbitrary number of replicates per group and integrates sophisticated statistical methods for the detection of differential coverage between experimental conditions. Our approach can be applied to a diversity of quantitative sequencing data. In addition, our update adds novel functionality to MEDIPS, including correlation analysis between samples, and takes advantage of Bioconductor's annotation databases to facilitate annotation of specific genomic regions. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The latest version of MEDIPS is available as version 1.12.0 and part of Bioconductor 2.13. The package comes with a manual containing detailed description of its functionality and is available at http://www.bioconductor.org

PWD/Ph-encoded genetic variants modulate the cellular Wnt/β-Catenin response to suppress ApcMin-triggered intestinal tumor formation

Genetic predisposition affects the penetrance of tumor-initiating mutations, such as APC mutations that stabilize β-catenin and cause intestinal tumors in mice and humans. However, the mechanisms involved in genetically predisposed penetrance are not well understood. Here, we analyzed tumor multiplicity and gene expression in tumor-prone ApcMin/+ mice on highly variant C57BL/6J (B6) and PWD/Ph (PWD) genetic backgrounds. (B6 × PWD) F1 APCMin offspring mice were largely free of intestinal adenoma, and several chromosome substitution (consomic) strains carrying single PWD chromosomes on the B6 genetic background displayed reduced adenoma numbers. Multiple dosage-dependent modifier loci on PWD chromosome 5 each contributed to tumor suppression. Activation of β-catenin–driven and stem cell–specific gene expression in the presence of ApcMin or following APC loss remained moderate in intestines carrying PWD chromosome 5, suggesting that PWD variants restrict adenoma initiation by controlling stem cell homeostasis. Gene expression of modifier candidates and DNA methylation on chromosome 5 were predominantly cis controlled and largely reflected parental patterns, providing a genetic basis for inheritance of tumor susceptibility. Human SNP variants of several modifier candidates were depleted in colorectal cancer genomes, suggesting that similar mechanisms may also affect the penetrance of cancer driver mutations in humans. Overall, our analysis highlights the strong impact that multiple genetic variants acting in networks can exert on tumor development

Compete or cooperate with ‘Dr. Google’? Small animal veterinarians’ attitudes towards clients’ use of internet resources—a comparative study across Austria, Denmark and the UK

Veterinary medicine is increasingly affected by animal owners having the opportunity to become better informed on pet health issues by using various internet resources. Using an online questionnaire including a section on clients’ use of internet resources to obtain medical information, this study aimed to investigate veterinarians’ estimates of the percentage of clients using internet resources, how often clients question veterinarians’ professional medical advice based on online information, and veterinarians’ attitudes towards clients’ use of internet resources, across Austrian, Danish, and UK veterinarians (n = 641). The results show that 48.8% of respondents estimated that 40–79% of their clients use internet resources to find medical information. Further, 70–80% of respondents stated that they are occasionally challenged by clients questioning their advice based on online information. Although veterinarians recognized the potential advantages related to clients’ use of internet resources, such as an increased acceptance of advanced diagnostics and treatments, they also highlighted clients’ increased expectations or false impressions of small animal practices as potentially negative aspects in this context. As internet use increases, it seems likely that these issues will become increasingly important in the future

Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society

The 3Rs principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in science has been gaining widespread support in the international research community and appears in transnational legislation such as the European Directive 2010/63/EU, a number of national legislative frameworks like in Switzerland and the UK, and other rules and guidance in place in countries around the world. At the same time, progress in technical and biomedical research, along with the changing status of animals in many societies, challenges the view of the 3Rs principle as a sufficient and effective approach to the moral challenges set by animal use in research. Given this growing awareness of our moral responsibilities to animals, the aim of this paper is to address the question: Can the 3Rs, as a policy instrument for science and research, still guide the morally acceptable use of animals for scientific purposes, and if so, how? The fact that the increased availability of alternatives to animal models has not correlated inversely with a decrease in the number of animals used in research has led to public and political calls for more radical action. However, a focus on the simple measure of total animal numbers distracts from the need for a more nuanced understanding of how the 3Rs principle can have a genuine influence as a guiding instrument in research and testing. Hence, we focus on three core dimensions of the 3Rs in contemporary research: (1) What scientific innovations are needed to advance the goals of the 3Rs? (2) What can be done to facilitate the implementation of existing and new 3R methods? (3) Do the 3Rs still offer an adequate ethical framework given the increasing social awareness of animal needs and human moral responsibilities? By answering these questions, we will identify core perspectives in the debate over the advancement of the 3Rs

Harm–benefit analysis – what is the added value?:A review of alternative strategies for weighing harms and benefits as part of the assessment of animal research

Animal experiments are widely required to comply with the 3Rs, to minimise harm to the animals and to serve certain purposes in order to be ethically acceptable. Recently, however, there has been a drift towards adding a so-called harm-benefit analysis as an additional requirement in assessing experiments. According to this, an experiment should only be allowed if there is a positive balance when the expected harm is weighed against the expected benefits. This paper aims to assess the added value of this requirement. Two models, the discourse model and the metric model, are presented. According to the former, the weighing of harms and benefits must be conducted by a committee in which different stakeholders engage in a dialogue. Research into how this works in practice, however, shows that in the absence of an explicit and clearly defined methodology, there are issues about transparency, consistency and fairness. According to the metric model, on the other hand, several dimensions of harms and benefits are defined beforehand and integrated in an explicit weighing scheme. This model, however, has the problem that it makes no real room for ethical deliberation of the sort committees undertake, and it has therefore been criticised for being too technocratic. Also, it is unclear who is to be held accountable for built-in ethical assumptions. Ultimately, we argue that the two models are not mutually exclusive and may be combined to make the most of their advantages while reducing the disadvantages of how harm-benefit analysis in typically undertaken