Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — April 2014 Animal welfare rules and regulations related to farm animal welfare continue to be proposed and instituted in many jurisdictions around the world. It is difficult to ensure compliance with many of these regulations because there are little or no provisions for enforcement. Animals in chronic discomfort can be economically viable and with profit margins often slim to non-existent, flouting of regulations can be expected. Is there a practical way to “level the playing field” so that farms ignoring welfare regulations do not benefit from these actions?
Question de déontologie du mois — Avril 2014 Partout dans le monde, de nombreuses compétences continuent de proposer et d’établir des règles et règlements se rapportant au bien-être des animaux. Il est difficile de garantir le respect de bon nombre de ces règlements car très peu de mesures, le cas échéant, sont prévues pour l’application. Les animaux souffrant d’inconfort chronique peuvent être viables sur le plan économique et, vu que les marges de profit sont souvent minces ou non existantes, on peut s’attendre à ce que l’on fasse fi des règlements. Y a-t-il un moyen pratique d’«uniformiser les règles du jeu» afin que les fermes qui ne respectent pas les règlements en matière de bien-être animal ne profitent pas de ces actions? Comments/Commentaires :
Name/Nom : Address/Adresse :
Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, Veterinary Science, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10, Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: [email protected] Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.
Les réponses au cas présenté sont les bienvenues. Veuillez limiter votre réponse à environ 50 mots et nous la faire parvenir par la poste avec vos nom et adresse à l’adresse suivante : Choix déontologiques, a/s du Dr Tim Blackwell, Science vétérinaire, ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales de l’Ontario, 6484, chemin Wellington 7, unité 10, Elora (Ontario) N0B 1S0; téléphone : (519) 846-3413; télé copieur : (519) 846-8178; courriel : [email protected] Les propositions de questions déontologiques sont toujours bienvenues! Toutes les questions et situations présentées dans cette chronique s’inspirent d’événements réels dont nous modifions certains éléments, comme les noms, les endroits ou les espèces, pour protéger l’anonymat des personnes en cause.
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office ([email protected]) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere. L’usage du présent article se limite à un seul exemplaire pour étude personnelle. Les personnes intéressées à se procurer des réimpressions devraient communiquer avec le bureau de l’ACMV ([email protected]) pour obtenir des exemplaires additionnels ou la permission d’utiliser cet article ailleurs. CVJ / VOL 55 / APRIL 2014
305
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
Ethical question of the month — January 2014 Acquiring funding for research at universities is becoming more difficult. To ensure objectivity and fairness, granting agencies require extensive pre-proposals followed by more demanding final proposals. Many strongly encourage multiple funding partners which requires more grant writing. The percentage of competitive research grants sought that are successful can be as low as 10% to 20%. As a result, university professors spend much time in unsuccessful efforts to acquire research funding. A solution to this problem comes from the private sector which views university faculty as sources of credible and economical high quality research. If a hypothesis proposed by industry is of questionable scientific value, researchers reply that the work is valued by their “industry partners.” Faculty can now base their careers on non-competitive grants that fund research that tests hypotheses of someone else’s creation. As “negative” findings are seldom published, private industry risks little if their study does not produce the desired positive outcome. Can this trend of faculty acting as contractually limited researchers for private industry create unforeseen problems?
Question de déontologie du mois — Janvier 2014 Il devient de plus en plus difficile d’acquérir des fonds pour la recherche dans les universités. Afin d’assurer l’objectivité et l’équité, les organismes subventionnaires exigent des demandes préliminaires suivies de propositions finales plus exigeantes. Beaucoup d’entre eux encouragent des partenaires subventionnaires multiples, ce qui exige plus de rédaction pour les subventions. Le pourcentage de réussite des subventions de recherche concurrentielles peut être aussi bas que de 10 % à 20 %. Par conséquent, les professeurs d’université consacrent beaucoup de temps à travailler à des projets d’acquisition de fonds de recherche qui se soldent par un échec. Une solution à ce problème provient du secteur privé qui envisage les professeurs d’université comme des sources de recherche crédible et économique de grande qualité. Si une hypothèse proposée par l’industrie est d’une valeur scientifique douteuse, les chercheurs répondent que les travaux sont valorisés par leurs «partenaires de l’industrie». Les professeurs peuvent maintenant baser leur carrière sur des subventions non concurrentielles qui financent de la recherche qui vérifie des hypothèses sur la création d’une autre personne. Vu que les résultats «négatifs» sont rarement publiés, il y a peu de risques pour l’industrie privée si leur étude ne produit pas le résultat positif souhaité. Est-ce que cette tendance où les professeurs agissent comme des chercheurs à contrat limité pour l’industrie privée soulève des problèmes imprévus?
An ethicist’s commentary on industry research I am significantly more concerned about some of the very predictable consequences of basing research funding and scientific progress on the private interests of corporate entities. I am well aware that government funding is not the objective, disinterested process it is touted to be, and that peer review leaves much to be desired. Nonetheless, depending on industry funding represents an even more problematic policy. Interested readers should check the text of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production report on the problems associated with industrial animal agriculture, available at PCIFAP.org, on which I was privileged to serve. Therein, one can find a fairly detailed plea for public funding of agricultural research, particularly research on farm animal well-being. Private funding, as one of my agricultural colleagues puts it, tends to result in “the best research money can buy.” Whenever I teach Science and Ethics to PhD candidates, I bring in a colleague whose research career illustrates this point. In a very graphic manner, he explains that he was funded by a company to test the efficacy of a feed additive. His research concluded that rather than promoting growth and weight gain, the product in question actually harmed these parameters, resulting in a considerably worse state for the animals than adding nothing. He notified the company, and was told to repeat the test. He again got the same results. The company requested that he not publish those results. He in turn informed the company that he 306
was entitled by the contract to publish, regardless of what the results showed. At this point, he was threatened by the company, that he would never receive additional funding from them or from other companies, even competitors. Again, he responded that he was bound by the ethics of science to disseminate the results. Shortly thereafter, he found his funding significantly decreased. Were he not an extraordinarily principled and honorable person, he might well have caved in now that he knew “how the game was played.” At least some companies respected his integrity, and eventually his career was restored. In other cases I am familiar with, researchers falsified data to please sponsors. This tale should surprise no one. After all, the goal of private industry is to please their stockholders by making money. A commitment to searching out the truth, regardless of consequences, is rarely company policy. Yet in agricultural research, the goal is invariably extolling the virtues of a company product. In other cases, the goal is to mitigate social concern about health, animal welfare, environmental despoliation or other issues associated with use of a product. Suppose you are a company producing sow gestation crates. There exists a great deal of skepticism and downright public antipathy towards such stalls. It is difficult to believe that when such a company underwrites a “scientific” study of sow welfare in relation to sow housing, the result is not fore-ordained. This may occur in subtle ways, as when a company adopts a self-serving definition of sow welfare CVJ / VOL 55 / APRIL 2014
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
(for example, protection from predators). And when the majority of the researcher’s funding comes from vested interests, it is impossible to believe that what emerges is “neutral data,” and that what is being served is “objective science.” Generally, when such cases occur, they are rarely so flagrant. But one must bear in mind that antagonizing research sponsors is at best a black mark in one’s career history, and may well represent a fatal blow.
308
In other words, the privatization of sources of funding for research does not serve the public interest. It is for this reason that the Pew Commission vigorously argued for public funding in such controversial and inherently corruptible areas. What we have described is perhaps a fatal blow to the credibility of privately funded research.
CVJ / VOL 55 / APRIL 2014
Question de déontologie du mois — Avril 2014 Partout dans le monde, de nombreuses compétences continuent de proposer et d’établir des règles et règlements se rapportant au bien-être des animaux. Il est difficile de garantir le respect de bon nombre de ces règlements car très peu de mesures, le cas échéant, sont prévues pour l’application. Les animaux souffrant d’inconfort chronique peuvent être viables sur le plan économique et, vu que les marges de profit sont souvent minces ou non existantes, on peut s’attendre à ce que l’on fasse fi des règlements. Y a-t-il un moyen pratique d’«uniformiser les règles du jeu» afin que les fermes qui ne respectent pas les règlements en matière de bien-être animal ne profitent pas de ces actions? Comments/Commentaires :
Name/Nom : Address/Adresse :
Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, Veterinary Science, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10, Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: [email protected] Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.
Les réponses au cas présenté sont les bienvenues. Veuillez limiter votre réponse à environ 50 mots et nous la faire parvenir par la poste avec vos nom et adresse à l’adresse suivante : Choix déontologiques, a/s du Dr Tim Blackwell, Science vétérinaire, ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales de l’Ontario, 6484, chemin Wellington 7, unité 10, Elora (Ontario) N0B 1S0; téléphone : (519) 846-3413; télé copieur : (519) 846-8178; courriel : [email protected] Les propositions de questions déontologiques sont toujours bienvenues! Toutes les questions et situations présentées dans cette chronique s’inspirent d’événements réels dont nous modifions certains éléments, comme les noms, les endroits ou les espèces, pour protéger l’anonymat des personnes en cause.
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office ([email protected]) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere. L’usage du présent article se limite à un seul exemplaire pour étude personnelle. Les personnes intéressées à se procurer des réimpressions devraient communiquer avec le bureau de l’ACMV ([email protected]) pour obtenir des exemplaires additionnels ou la permission d’utiliser cet article ailleurs. CVJ / VOL 55 / APRIL 2014
305
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
Ethical question of the month — January 2014 Acquiring funding for research at universities is becoming more difficult. To ensure objectivity and fairness, granting agencies require extensive pre-proposals followed by more demanding final proposals. Many strongly encourage multiple funding partners which requires more grant writing. The percentage of competitive research grants sought that are successful can be as low as 10% to 20%. As a result, university professors spend much time in unsuccessful efforts to acquire research funding. A solution to this problem comes from the private sector which views university faculty as sources of credible and economical high quality research. If a hypothesis proposed by industry is of questionable scientific value, researchers reply that the work is valued by their “industry partners.” Faculty can now base their careers on non-competitive grants that fund research that tests hypotheses of someone else’s creation. As “negative” findings are seldom published, private industry risks little if their study does not produce the desired positive outcome. Can this trend of faculty acting as contractually limited researchers for private industry create unforeseen problems?
Question de déontologie du mois — Janvier 2014 Il devient de plus en plus difficile d’acquérir des fonds pour la recherche dans les universités. Afin d’assurer l’objectivité et l’équité, les organismes subventionnaires exigent des demandes préliminaires suivies de propositions finales plus exigeantes. Beaucoup d’entre eux encouragent des partenaires subventionnaires multiples, ce qui exige plus de rédaction pour les subventions. Le pourcentage de réussite des subventions de recherche concurrentielles peut être aussi bas que de 10 % à 20 %. Par conséquent, les professeurs d’université consacrent beaucoup de temps à travailler à des projets d’acquisition de fonds de recherche qui se soldent par un échec. Une solution à ce problème provient du secteur privé qui envisage les professeurs d’université comme des sources de recherche crédible et économique de grande qualité. Si une hypothèse proposée par l’industrie est d’une valeur scientifique douteuse, les chercheurs répondent que les travaux sont valorisés par leurs «partenaires de l’industrie». Les professeurs peuvent maintenant baser leur carrière sur des subventions non concurrentielles qui financent de la recherche qui vérifie des hypothèses sur la création d’une autre personne. Vu que les résultats «négatifs» sont rarement publiés, il y a peu de risques pour l’industrie privée si leur étude ne produit pas le résultat positif souhaité. Est-ce que cette tendance où les professeurs agissent comme des chercheurs à contrat limité pour l’industrie privée soulève des problèmes imprévus?
An ethicist’s commentary on industry research I am significantly more concerned about some of the very predictable consequences of basing research funding and scientific progress on the private interests of corporate entities. I am well aware that government funding is not the objective, disinterested process it is touted to be, and that peer review leaves much to be desired. Nonetheless, depending on industry funding represents an even more problematic policy. Interested readers should check the text of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production report on the problems associated with industrial animal agriculture, available at PCIFAP.org, on which I was privileged to serve. Therein, one can find a fairly detailed plea for public funding of agricultural research, particularly research on farm animal well-being. Private funding, as one of my agricultural colleagues puts it, tends to result in “the best research money can buy.” Whenever I teach Science and Ethics to PhD candidates, I bring in a colleague whose research career illustrates this point. In a very graphic manner, he explains that he was funded by a company to test the efficacy of a feed additive. His research concluded that rather than promoting growth and weight gain, the product in question actually harmed these parameters, resulting in a considerably worse state for the animals than adding nothing. He notified the company, and was told to repeat the test. He again got the same results. The company requested that he not publish those results. He in turn informed the company that he 306
was entitled by the contract to publish, regardless of what the results showed. At this point, he was threatened by the company, that he would never receive additional funding from them or from other companies, even competitors. Again, he responded that he was bound by the ethics of science to disseminate the results. Shortly thereafter, he found his funding significantly decreased. Were he not an extraordinarily principled and honorable person, he might well have caved in now that he knew “how the game was played.” At least some companies respected his integrity, and eventually his career was restored. In other cases I am familiar with, researchers falsified data to please sponsors. This tale should surprise no one. After all, the goal of private industry is to please their stockholders by making money. A commitment to searching out the truth, regardless of consequences, is rarely company policy. Yet in agricultural research, the goal is invariably extolling the virtues of a company product. In other cases, the goal is to mitigate social concern about health, animal welfare, environmental despoliation or other issues associated with use of a product. Suppose you are a company producing sow gestation crates. There exists a great deal of skepticism and downright public antipathy towards such stalls. It is difficult to believe that when such a company underwrites a “scientific” study of sow welfare in relation to sow housing, the result is not fore-ordained. This may occur in subtle ways, as when a company adopts a self-serving definition of sow welfare CVJ / VOL 55 / APRIL 2014
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
(for example, protection from predators). And when the majority of the researcher’s funding comes from vested interests, it is impossible to believe that what emerges is “neutral data,” and that what is being served is “objective science.” Generally, when such cases occur, they are rarely so flagrant. But one must bear in mind that antagonizing research sponsors is at best a black mark in one’s career history, and may well represent a fatal blow.
308
In other words, the privatization of sources of funding for research does not serve the public interest. It is for this reason that the Pew Commission vigorously argued for public funding in such controversial and inherently corruptible areas. What we have described is perhaps a fatal blow to the credibility of privately funded research.
CVJ / VOL 55 / APRIL 2014
