Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Improved standards for laboratory animals?

Charles R McCarthy

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
    |September 1, 1993
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    The brave new world of animal biotechnology. Project report.

    The Hastings Center report·1994
    Same author

    Regulatory aspects of the distinction between research and medical practice.

    IRB·1984
    Same journal

    Coming to America: Bioethical Training at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and the Establishment of Medical Ethics in Germany.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    A Reply to Bernstein, Jayaram, and Hutler's "Assessing the Liberty-Based Case Against Pandemic Lockdowns".

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    Assessing the Liberty-Based Case Against Pandemic Lockdowns.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    Relational Autonomy in Nonideal Medical Decision-Making.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    Ambiguous Invitations: Nonmaleficence, Uncertainty Attitudes and Public Health Policy.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    Editor's Note, June 2025.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    See all related articles

    The Animal Legal Defense Fund case mandated new U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations for laboratory animal welfare, focusing on minimum standards. This ruling, however, may ultimately harm research animals by limiting protections.

    Area of Science:

    • Animal Welfare Science
    • Regulatory Science
    • Biomedical Research Ethics

    Background:

    • A 1993 court ruling mandated the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) revise regulations concerning exercise for dogs and psychological well-being for nonhuman primates in biomedical research.
    • The case, Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. The Secretary of Agriculture, et al., centered on whether minimal government standards or institution-specific, effective standards best protect laboratory animals.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To analyze the implications of the 1993 court decision regarding USDA regulations for laboratory animal welfare.
    • To argue for a more flexible interpretation of the Animal Welfare Act than that applied by the court.
    • To evaluate the ultimate impact of the ruling on the welfare of animals used in research.

    Main Methods:

    Keywords:
    Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Secretary of AgricultureAnimal Welfare ActBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchDepartment of AgricultureLegal Approach

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Legal analysis of the summary judgment issued by Judge Charles R. Richey.
  • Interpretation of the Animal Welfare Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
  • Argumentative analysis of regulatory approaches to animal welfare in research settings.

    • Main Results:

    • The court favored the Animal Legal Defense Fund, requiring the USDA to withdraw existing regulations and establish new ones with only minimum, measurable standards.
    • The court's decision prioritized adherence to the Administrative Procedures Act and a strict interpretation of the Animal Welfare Act, sidestepping the debate on optimal animal protection strategies.
    • The article contends that neither plaintiffs nor defendants truly won, with laboratory animals being the ultimate losers due to potentially reduced protections.

    Conclusions:

    • The court's narrow interpretation of the Animal Welfare Act may lead to suboptimal welfare standards for research animals.
    • A more flexible legal interpretation could allow for more robust and effective animal protection measures in biomedical research.
    • The ruling highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory compliance and the pursuit of the highest standards of animal care in research environments.