Innovation and ethics: animal experimentation in rabies diagnosis

Abstract

Interdisciplinary approaches are emphasized in health communities, addressing the (re)emergence of various infectious diseases stemming from the human-animal-environment interface. An example is rabies, a serious zoonotic disease considered endemic in Brazil and globally neglected. Both epidemiological surveillance and confirmation of this disease rely on laboratory diagnosis, typically involving intracerebral inoculation of the suspected sample into mice, despite the availability of alternatives such as validated molecular techniques, recognized by the World Health Organization. This paper discusses the ethical implications of (not) adopting these methods, assuming that all animals should be respected and understood as unique individuals in their perception of the world rather than research subjects. This corroborates the need for new perspectives that redefine relationships between humans and non-human animals, which is key to introducing systemic, ethical-political changes aimed at ending animal instrumentalization, including within scientific contexts.

Rabies; Animal experimentation; Animal use alternatives; Ethics, research; Human-animal interaction

Resumo

Abordagens interdisciplinares são enfatizadas nas comunidades de saúde, atentando a (re)emergência de diversas doenças infecciosas que emanam da interface humano-animal-ambiente. A raiva, zoonose grave, considerada endêmica no Brasil e globalmente negligenciada, é um exemplo. Tanto a vigilância epidemiológica quanto a confirmação dessa doença dependem do diagnóstico laboratorial, realizado mediante inoculação intracerebral da amostra suspeita em camundongos, apesar de haver alternativas, como técnicas moleculares, validadas e reconhecidas pela Organização Mundial da Saúde. Este artigo discute as implicações éticas da (não) adoção desses métodos, partindo da premissa de que todos os animais devem ser respeitados e entendidos como sujeitos singulares em suas percepções do mundo, não como objetos de pesquisa. Esse fato corrobora a necessidade de novas perspectivas que ressignifiquem as relações entre humanos e animais não humanos, o que é primordial para o estabelecimento de mudanças sistêmicas, de caráter ético-político, que visem o fim da instrumentalização animal, inclusive no contexto científico.

Raiva; Experimentação animal; Alternativas ao uso de animais; Ética em pesquisa; Interação humano-animal

Resumen

En las comunidades sanitarias se está haciendo hincapié en los enfoques interdisciplinarios, considerando la (re)aparición de diversas enfermedades infecciosas que emanan de la interfaz hombre-animal-medio ambiente. La rabia, una zoonosis grave, considerada endémica en Brasil y desatendida en todo el mundo, es un ejemplo. Tanto la vigilancia epidemiológica como la confirmación de esta enfermedad dependen del diagnóstico de laboratorio, realizado mediante inoculación intracerebral de la muestra sospechosa en ratones, aunque existen alternativas, como las técnicas moleculares, validadas y reconocidas por la Organización Mundial de la Salud. En este artículo se discuten las implicaciones éticas de (no) adoptar estos métodos, partiendo de la premisa de que todos los animales deben ser respetados y entendidos como sujetos singulares en su percepción del mundo, no como objetos de investigación. Esto corrobora la necesidad de nuevas perspectivas que resignifiquen la relación entre los seres humanos y los animales no humanos, lo cual es primordial para establecer cambios sistémicos, de carácter ético-político, destinados a poner fin a la instrumentalización de los animales, incluso en el contexto científico.

Rabia; Experimentación animal; Alternativas al uso de animales; Ética en investigación; Interacción humano-animal

Rabies, one of the oldest known zoonoses ¹-², is an RNA virus disease that causes acute and progressive encephalitis with a virtually 100% mortality rate ³. Although all endothermic animals are susceptible to infection, mammals are the only known vectors and reservoirs ⁴.

Considered endemic in Brazil and globally neglected, rabies is entirely preventable through vaccination ⁵. Nevertheless, it continues to have a significant impact on a wide range of human ¹-² and non-human animals ⁶-⁸, especially marginalized beings in the Global South ³,⁵,⁹. Therefore, this impact is imbalanced and intrinsically related to factors such as the animal species involved, geographical and socioeconomic location and background of the disease, whose scientific analysis is marked by animal experimentation.

In his study of rabies and the development of the rabies vaccine, Louis Pasteur reported that one of the obstacles to extending animal vaccination to humans was that while animal experimentation was permitted, human experimentation was criminal. His approach was based on trial and error, with basic analysis procedures involving the injection of numerous substances and cultures into different animals, especially rabbits, for subsequent evaluation of the outcomes ¹⁰.

The French scientist lived in the 19th century, when there were no legal protocols in place regarding the ethics of experiments or standards for research involving human and non-human animals in the pursuit of scientific knowledge ¹⁰.

Currently, although alternatives are available, animal experimentation for rabies involves the use of newborn (1 to 3 days old) or weaned (21 to 28 days old) mice ¹¹,¹²for the performance of the mouse inoculation test (MIT), a confirmatory test for negative or inconclusive results previously indicated by a preliminary test, typically the direct fluorescence antibody (DFA) test ¹³.

Besides the assumption that MIT is, in itself, an unacceptable and cruel practice, as it involves the unnecessary use, confinement and death of non-human animals, the insistence on using this technique is aggravated by the fact that there are validated alternative methods that avoid such violence. In 2019, the Central Laboratory of the state of Paraná (Lacen/PR) replaced this practice and became the first public health laboratory in Brazil free of animal experimentation in rabies diagnosis ¹⁴. However, there is evidence that MIT continues to be used in Brazil in several laboratories charged with diagnosing this disease ¹⁵,¹⁶, despite its unethical nature.

Method

This paper drew on an extensive non-systematic literature review of studies on the ethics of rabies-related animal experimentation. The search was undertaken in databases such as Medline, Lilacs and SciELO as well as in different works on ethics and moral philosophy. Also analyzed were documents published by Brazilian and international health institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Pan American Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health and the Brazilian Ministry of Health.

Based on this analysis, a critical and ethical reflection was proposed regarding an alternative for the use of mice in rabies diagnosis, based on an example of ethics applied to a real-life context, with data from the Brazilian laboratory Lacen/PR.

Rabies in Brazil

Globally, 99% of human rabies cases result from bites by infected domestic dogs ⁵. Consequently, a significant part of the effort in disease control and prevention is targeted at these animals ². Improved control of urban rabies in Brazil was achieved with the creation of the National Rabies Prophylaxis Program in 1973, which, for example, introduced rabies vaccination for dogs and cats nationwide, significantly reducing rabies cases in these animals ¹⁷.

The current epidemiology of the disease, therefore, focuses on the sylvatic transmission cycle, especially involving bats, raccoons, non-human primates, foxes and other wild canids ¹⁸. Since 2004, both in Brazil and throughout Latin America, bat-mediated rabies has been responsible for nearly all human rabies cases ¹,¹⁷. predominantly concentrated in the North and Northeast regions ¹⁹. These animals are identified as maintainers of rabies in herbivores, especially cattle, which are considered accidental hosts due to the expansion of livestock farming in Brazil ¹⁸. Mice, in turn, are used in laboratory diagnosis to confirm infection.

Laboratory diagnosis of rabies

Laboratory diagnosis of rabies involves many functions and responsibilities. Besides receiving and processing samples for disease confirmation, it plays a key role in identifying viruses, setting biosafety standards, developing new methodologies, validating techniques and providing essential data for laboratory surveillance of zoonoses of public health interest ¹¹. Both the WHO and Instituto Pasteur de São Paulo—a leading laboratory in Brazil and Latin American—recommend conducting two rabies diagnosis tests: a preliminary test and a confirmatory test if the first one is negative or inconclusive ²⁰.

In Brazil, DFA has long been used as a preliminary test and MIT as a confirmatory test ¹³. The latter has the advantage of detecting the rabies virus in samples with low viral concentration. However, its disadvantages include the time required for completion, the cost and the constant need for a large number of mice, not to mention the ethical issues involved ²⁰.

MIT uses five to ten weaned mice or a litter of infant mice per sample. These animals, not always sedated, are placed in the prone position, with the researcher holding the scruff of their neck and pressing their head against a surface to keep it fixed and enable the necessary technical precision.

Intracerebral inoculation of 0.01 to 0.03 ml of the solution, which can be done in a biosafety cabinet or on the laboratory bench, is performed with an insulin syringe, with the needle inserted in the midpoint of an imaginary line between the right eye and the right ear ¹¹,¹². The animals are then observed and evaluated for at least thirty days ²¹. Those that develop neurological signs or die within the expected observation period of the test require diagnostic confirmation for rabies, which can be done by collecting the brain for evaluation in a new DFA test ¹¹.

Alternative methods and the pioneering work at Lacen/PR

For the confirmatory rabies test, it is recommended that, whenever possible, MIT be replaced with alternative methods ²² such as virus isolation in cell culture (VIC) ²¹,²³. This method is faster, simpler and less costly for isolating the rabies virus than MIT ²⁴, besides being equally sensitive ²⁵.

It is noteworthy that according to Article 32, paragraph 1 of Law 9,605/1998 (Environmental Crimes Law), a significant milestone in the individual protection of previously overlooked species ²⁶ and in the necessary adoption of alternative techniques in education and research ²⁷, it is a crime against fauna to carry out painful or cruel experiments on living animals, even for educational or scientific purposes, when alternative resources are available ²⁸. In other words, failure to use existing alternative methods is considered abusive or improper animal experimentation. However, the acquisition and maintenance of cell lines are cited as the main challenges in implementing VIC in routine laboratory practice to replace MIT ²⁰.

Nevertheless, in 2018, the WHO published new guidance recognizing reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), whether conventional or real-time (qPCR), as a valid primary technique for post-mortem rabies diagnosis in both human and non-human animals and an alternative to MIT ²². To this end, labs should carry out internal validation by comparing results of disease-positive and -negative samples achieved with different techniques, thus ensuring precision and reliability and adapting to the local epidemiological specificities of each laboratory ²⁹,³⁰.

In this context, Lacen/PR, a regional leading laboratory, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, carried out a comparative study between these two techniques, aiming to validate and implement qPCR to replace MIT, a goal that was met in the second half of 2019 ¹⁴,³¹. Thanks to this pioneering research in South America, Lacen/PR became the first public health laboratory in Brazil free from animal experimentation in rabies diagnosis ²⁹. Subsequently, in 2021, Centro de Diagnóstico Marcos Enrietti, a laboratory of Agência de Defesa Agropecuária do Paraná in charge of diagnosing rabies in herbivores, also introduced this replacement, becoming the first national agriculture network laboratory to do so ³².

Besides avoiding the use of nearly 26 thousand mice per year, Lacen/PR’s initiative has resulted in several advantages, such as an 80% reduction in result release time ³¹ and a 50% decrease in costs ¹⁴. Benefits related to biosafety are also noteworthy, as MIT procedures pose risks of self-inoculation and there is no efficient way to avoid self-injuries with needle syringes other than careful handling and good inoculation skills ¹¹.

Moreover, violent and repetitive practices in short periods of time, such as intracerebral inoculation, which involves pain and suffering, and the need to “euthanize” numerous mice after sterilization with the equipment used, may lead to significant emotional distress among lab workers ¹⁴,²⁹. It should be noted that the use of the term euthanasia in animal experimentation practice is questionable. The Brazilian philosopher Sônia T. Felipe suggests biocide as more appropriate, as death is not caused merely in the interest of individual that is dying; rather, it is inflicted upon the animal to eliminate traces of mistreatment, maiming, contamination and destruction caused by the experiments ³³.

Nevertheless, the use of alternative techniques to MIT seems to be limited to a handful of Brazilian laboratories, including, in addition to those mentioned, the Rabies Laboratory of Instituto Evandro Chagas and Instituto Pasteur de São Paulo ¹⁵. Therefore, the persistence of this practice evidences the force of speciesism, since, besides legal issues, there are alternatives that do not involve violence, enable faster diagnostic results, and are less costly and equally effective, directly impacting public health. This begs the question: Are the decisions made by researchers and managers based on their individual views or due to the difficulty in and resistance to using new techniques they do not master?

Non-human animals and morality

Efforts to guide behavior based on the best possible reasons, assuming that the interests of affected individuals are equally important, relate to the minimum conception of morality—a starting point for any theoretical discussion about individual behavior ³⁴. Traditional moral philosophy, grounded in anthropocentric-speciesist ethics, presupposes that the full enjoyment of certain biological, physiological and psychological abilities, such as belonging to a particular species, language and rationality, defines the space occupied by non-human animals and humans within morality ³⁵.

It is noteworthy in this respect that simply belonging to the human species does not ensure equal moral consideration among its members, given the different minority political groups, powerless and underprivileged, historically disregarded and marginalized ⁹,³⁶. According to Bones and collaborators ²⁷, banning unethical research involving the exploitation of non-human animals depends primarily on our moral progress.

The unsupported claims of the French rationalist philosopher René Descartes that language and thought are prerequisites for consciousness and, consequently, the ability to experience pain attempted to convince part of society that non-human animals are irrational automatons, akin to objects and devoid of sentience ³⁷,³⁸. Obviously, such a mindset has systematically and erroneously legitimized a number of violations of their interests.

On the other hand, the British philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham, one of the theorists of classical utilitarianism—which considers the consequences of actions—argued that the capacity to suffer (and to experience pleasure) rather than to reason or speak was the determining factor for an ethical duty of compassion towards non-human animals ³⁶.

Although the subject has been addressed since antiquity, it was only from the 1970s that the inclusion of non-human animals in the sphere of human morality became established as an issue of practical ethics and contemporary animal rights. In this context, the English psychologist and philosopher Richard Ryder, inspired by the book The Duty of Mercy, written in 1776 by the English musician and theologian Humphry Primatt, coined and systematized the concept of speciesism. Primatt’s work criticized ethics based on appearance, i.e., the act of inflicting pain and death on non-human animals simply because they do not belong to the human species ³⁹.

Ryder, who initially supported the use of non-human animals in research, realized that there was no specific term for this kind of discriminatory and demeaning behavior. Therefore, he proposed the word speciesism to designate this prejudiced and condescending treatment of non-human animals solely based on their species ³⁹. Additionally, throughout the 1990s he developed his theory of “painience” to grant rights to all living things capable of feeling pain ³⁹.

This new ethical parameter, which excluded reason, language or consciousness, made it possible to include living beings susceptible to experiencing various forms of suffering within the sphere of moral consideration ³⁵. Adopting a utilitarian viewpoint, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer ⁴⁰ popularized the concept of speciesism in his groundbreaking book Animal Liberation, originally published in 1975. He draws on informative data to show the various unjust and humiliating conditions to which non-human animals are subjected to satisfy human activities.

Committed to the three pillars of ethics (universality, public justification and impartiality), Singer established the principle of equal consideration of interests as a guide in his defense of using reference utilitarianism to address ethical dilemmas. This includes the issue of animals, but not exclusively, as it respects the preferences and interests of sentient beings, both human and non-human, affected by actions ⁴⁰. For him, it is sentience that determines an individual’s place within the moral sphere rather than aspects related to full possession of reason and language, as traditionally considered in moral philosophy ⁴¹.

In this regard, experiments on non-human animals cannot be ethically justifiable solely because they benefit humans in any way. After all, when an animal suffers, there can be no moral justification for disregarding that suffering ⁴². From this viewpoint, based on the moral status of equality, moral rights are the same for all who have them, even though they might differ in many aspects ⁴³. In other words, arbitrary criteria related to morally irrelevant issues, such as biological traits, are unjustifiable when they violate the rights to life, physical integrity and freedom.

A further contribution to the philosophical debate initiated by Singer was the book The Case for Animal Rights (1983) by Tom Regan ⁴⁴, an American philosopher and animal abolitionist who coined the term “subject-of-a-life” as a criterion for equality of rights among individuals. His work played a key role in increasing interest in the study of ethical issues related to the treatment of non-human animals, both within and outside academia ⁴⁵.

Through their principles of animal liberation—Regan’s deontological proposal recognizing the inherent value of subjects-of-a-life and Singer’s utilitarian proposal based on sentience—these authors were essential to expanding the moral community beyond human animals. However, they argue that feelings are not what compel humans to recognize the inherent equal value of animals and their right to be treated with respect ⁴⁶. Thus, both reject the role played by emotions, often associated with femininity, and by contextualization within animal ethics.

On the other hand, they appreciate aspects typically associated with masculinity, such as autonomy, abstraction and rationality ⁴⁷, thereby acknowledging, to some extent, the sexism that prevails in traditional ethical-political debates, which often naturalize practices based on abuse of power, exploitation, domination and oppression. Furthermore, they overlook the significance of feminist movements in the fight against animal exploitation.

A case in point is the social mobilization against vivisection and the role of suffragettes in England ⁴⁸, such as the writer and anti-vivisectionist Francis Power Cobbe, who addressed animal welfare as a moral philosophy and founded the first Society for the Protection of Animals in that country, precisely due to the use of animals in scientific experimentation ⁴⁹.

According to Cudworth ⁵⁰, exploitation is understood as the use of something as a resource; domination as systemic relations of power that constrain the flourishing of an individual, group or landscape; and oppression as a severe level of domination and its materialization in specific species. Both feminist (political and non-academic) and animal rights activism are directed against this institutionalized model of rationalist hegemonic thought, aiming to denounce and put an end to such practices.

This reflection on the affinities and intersections between these two groups (feminist and animal rights), stemming from the different forms of violence they undergo in social relationships, gained attention during the feminist movements of the 1960s and was reinforced by eco-feminist writings in the 1970s ⁴⁵,⁴⁸. Since then it has included discussions on animal ethics, such as the aforementioned works by Singer and Regan.

This does not mean that action should be guided solely by emotions; rather, other elements that are part of morality—such as care—should be considered to better guide decisions in moral dilemmas. One of the most controversial issues in modern society concerns the use of non-human animals in education and biomedicine. In this practice, mice and rats, sentient and conscious mammals, are the most exploited animals, accounting for up to 95% of all animals used in laboratories ⁴⁵.

Bioethics and animal experimentation in the context of rabies

Scientific experimentation is the second largest human activity in the world in terms of animal exploitation, second only to the agri-food sector ⁵². Despite being the forms of speciesism that cause the most animal suffering and are therefore at the core of this issue, both these activities are encouraged, tolerated and even funded by taxes ⁴⁰.

In the scientific field, experimentation occurs in education (teaching and training), research and testing, affecting approximately 500 million living non-human animals per year ³⁵. These animals are used in tests for cosmetics, chemicals, toxicity, allergies and diagnostics, among others. Often, these experiments do not contribute significantly to relevant medical research ⁴⁰ or to ensuring safety, efficacy and interspecies prediction ⁵³. But even if they did, that would not justify violating the rights of animals who are unfortunate to find themselves in a laboratory cage somewhere ⁵⁴.

Deemed to be quite an ancient practice, animal experimentation became a standard in biomedical research ⁵³ as of the 17th century. Alongside human cadaver dissection, it was used to gain knowledge about human body functions and to develop vaccines and medicines. The activity increased significantly in the 20th century with the emergence of new technologies, professions and industries based on the use of non-human animals.

Today, human experimentation is mainly used in clinical trials, which follow preclinical trials traditionally carried out on non-human animals ⁴⁵. On the other hand, the use of non-human animals remains widespread in the scientific milieu, even after important milestones related to animal defense, such as the 1978 Universal Declaration of Animal Rights ³⁵. Nevertheless, both this acknowledgement and the scientific contributions from academia on sentience, consciousness and animal welfare are crucial to support and brace the fight against speciesism.

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, proclaimed in 2012 by an international group of 25 neuroscientists, scientifically consolidated the notion that some non-human animals—such as vertebrates and certain invertebrates like cephalopods—have similar consciousness-generating structures to humans. Consequently, this understanding expands the scientific recognition that their consciousness is similar to ours ⁵⁵, making them sentient beings. And since they possess consciousness and interests, their emotional state morally matters.

Despite its anthropocentric focus on anatomical similarities with humans to equate capabilities across species, and although it may fail to grasp that each animal has its own way of living and being in the world, regardless of those similarities ⁵⁰, the declaration is considered a landmark for animal defense. In line with this trend, the Curitiba Declaration, drafted at the III Brazilian Congress of Bioethics and Animal Welfare in 2014, organized by the Federal Council of Veterinary Medicine, stated: We conclude that non-human animals are not objects. They are sentient beings. Consequently, they should not be treated as objects ⁵⁶.

More recently, in 2022, the Montreal Declaration on Animal Exploitation, drafted by scholars and signed by researchers and scholars in moral and political philosophy from different countries, concluded that because it unnecessarily harms animals, animal exploitation is fundamentally unjust. It also called for renouncing entrenched speciesist habits in order to transform institutions ⁵⁷.

Regarding non-human animals exploited in scientific contexts, MIT is just one of the many invasive procedures involving interventions that compromise an animal’s bodily integrity, such as punctures or incisions. Virtually all these procedures result in some form of physical discomfort, ranging from mild (such as during restraint) to severe with intense pain ⁵⁸.

In addition, Bachinski and collaborators ⁵⁹ point out that besides ethical considerations, using non-human animals in science can also be viewed as a methodological and biotechnological issue due to uncertainties regarding interspecies data extrapolation, exposure time and variations in gender, age and ethnicity in the human population.

Moreover, in Brazil, the ethical principles used to assess moral issues in experimentation differ between humans and non-human animals ⁵³, revealing the existence of a bioethical double standard ²⁶. The code of ethics regulating human experimentation is grounded in the four fundamental principles of bioethics—autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice ⁶⁰—that guide the rigorous protocols required for approving research with humans and consider the dignity and respect for the freedom of those involved.

In contrast, regulation of animal experimentation is less protective, grounded in the 3Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement of non-human animals in scientific activities. According to these principles, the ethicality of a procedure is based solely on compliance with pre-established protocols ²⁶. Therefore, theoretically, inflicting harm on an animal is tolerated as long as it is considered essential to a particular research, test or teaching methodology.

This means that despite attempts to minimize suffering through the 3Rs, the use of non-human animals in experimentation is nevertheless legitimized ⁶¹. It should be noted that only the principle of replacement is capable of furthering ethical scientific progress, as the others serve mainly as moral protection for researchers ⁵³. This discrepancy stems from a speciesist and anthropocentric conception of the dominant way of thinking and conducting science, where the ethical and legal foundation to protect individuals is based on whether or not they belong to a particular species.

Therefore, it is essential to discuss this issue from the viewpoint of ethics, as strict adherence to species membership is morally irrelevant. Sentience should be one of the main criteria in granting moral protection to any individuals involved in biomedical testing and research ²⁶. Thus, all beings capable of feeling pain and suffering, whether mentally, physically or emotionally, should be included on the same level of justice.

The specific case of rabies is complicated for involving a disease with near 100% mortality, thereby posing a serious public health problem ¹⁷. Researchers might prefer to focus on this aspect to justify the use of laboratory mice (or to shirk responsibility), claiming that diagnosis must be prioritized for reasons of disease surveillance. However, this line of reasoning is unjustified from a moral standpoint, as it is both speciesist and arbitrarily weighs the harms and benefits produced by this activity.

Although the established practice provides greater safety for those who use it, that does not necessarily mean it is the best technique or ethically unquestionable. Validated alternative methods, such as molecular techniques, have offered advantages in diagnostic speed and ethical conduct in science, avoiding the suffering and death of animals ¹⁴,²⁹,³¹. They also benefit humans, as quicker diagnosis results in more suitable treatment and more efficient epidemiological surveillance, demonstrating a genuine concept of multispecies health.

Therefore, it is essential to understand bioethics as a field of action and study that aims to connect moral and ethical conflicts with scientific debate, seeking better solutions to encountered problems ⁶⁰. The determining elements of a scientific paradigm that includes, as a supposedly inevitable practice, the intracerebral inoculation of a potential rabies virus in young mice need to be thoroughly investigated.

There is no justification for this technique, whether from an ethical, legal, technical, scientific or economic perspective. Its persistence, however, calls for reflective consideration of alternative tools in order to phase out the use of mice for confirmatory diagnosis of animal rabies, the main issue discussed in this paper.

Interdisciplinarity from a multispecies health perspective

Cooperative interdisciplinary communication, integrating knowledge from different areas for the development of more comprehensive solutions ⁶¹, is indispensable in this context. Consideration should be given to the identified issues involving the current corporate agri-food system, the vulnerability of humans and the different treatment of non-human animals susceptible to rabies, according to their circumstances.

This requires looking into the intrinsic contradictions in the different forms and degrees of domination of certain species by human action, as they reveal a common logic of domination among vulnerable individuals ⁵⁰. It is important to highlight the ethical discussion based on vulnerability, emphasizing the condition in which an individual becomes (and not only is) vulnerable and consequently is incapable of self- defense ⁵³, as is the case of non-human animals used in scientific experimentation.

The underlying structures of speciesism and multispecies relationships, which vary according to geographical, sociocultural and gender-related aspects, justify discussing rabies based on the proposal of the Multispecies Health Network (Rede Same) ⁶². This project aims to assist in building an alternative mindset and scientific and behavioral practice concerning non-human animals. Within a Latin American context, this approach makes sense for contributing to and emphasizing connections between sociocultural and economic aspects as determinants of health, besides being strongly opposed to the animalization of bodies, which oppresses both non-human animals and marginalized humans.

Thus, although there is some concern for human health in peripheral areas, Rede Same denounces the systematic marginalization of non-human animals within public health, where they are reduced to instruments in the prevention and control of human diseases. This underscores the complexity of health in peripheral areas due to racial, ethnic, patriarchal and interspecies practices. In this proposal, health is not limited to humans, but rather relates to multispecies communities where individuals are not viewed as instruments or commodities and their subjectivity is respected.

Insofar as values translate into actions, they should be developed so as to consider the inherent value of the lives of other beings, preserving and respecting their uniqueness and intentions. In addition, reinforcing the role of emotions and contextualization, an ethics of care complements traditional theories by addressing important dimensions of care and personal responsibility ⁴⁶.

In this way, an ethics of care supports the need to adopt alternative techniques to the use of non-human animals in science. Recognizing the vulnerability of others, from their perspective and regardless of their species, would make it possible to reconsider the selfish position assumed in many aspects of human existence ⁵³.

Final considerations

Although the Federal Constitution of Brazil generally prohibits cruel practices against non-human animals ⁶³, their use for scientific purposes has been sustained and tolerated, grounded in an anthropocentric perspective.

Resistance—individual, collective and institutional—to new ideas is also an integral element in evading necessary changes and adaptations. However, more than that, preference and choice for perpetuating speciesist practices are a reality. Moreover, such can be the immersion in this anthropocentric bias that people are not even aware of their resistance to new ideas, as they are often simply operating within the system.

Even attempts to mitigate the suffering of these animals, as in the concern with improving cage conditions, do not make MIT any less inconceivable. Complying with animal welfare regulations does not imply the absence of stress and suffering, while cage improvements do not necessarily benefit the animals, as the simple fact of being confined prevents the full enjoyment of their natural behavior ⁴⁵.

In addition, Silva and Corrêa ⁵³ argue that imprisonment goes beyond the cage, as the non-human animal is also confined within the mindset of contemporary dogmatic science and a political structure that supports highly questionable practices. Therefore, the oppression and exploitation of these animals involves denial of their species-specific behavior, confinement, physical harm and death.

The disclosure of such facts can contribute to ethical reflection on human actions and their criteria for laboratory practices. The evidence presented above on the implementation of a validated alternative technique shows it has a direct impact on public health, since diagnostic results were faster and as efficient as, if not better than, those of traditionally used techniques.

This technique offers reliability for everyday use, confirming rabies diagnoses with high sensitivity and specificity and eliminating the use of mice for this purpose. A nationwide survey is being conducted in Brazilian laboratories on the causes and limitations for the adoption of alternative techniques to confirm rabies diagnosis, aiming to accumulate knowledge for the implementation of the technique.

As many of our actions are driven by intuition and feeling rather than duty, in the field of biomedicine, care should be included as an element of morality and extended beyond the beings we interact with on a daily basis. Also noteworthy is that besides the political importance of implementing alternative techniques, social pressure is essential to drive this transition. To this end, more inclusive approaches in the relationship with other living beings are essential ⁶¹.

Like Regan ⁴⁴, we believe we have a duty to intervene and speak out in defense of animals, whether human or non-human, whose rights are violated. A critical analysis shows that speciesism is present not only in diagnosing rabies but also in defining which species deserve moral consideration and care. In this context, abolishing MIT is an ethical rather than merely scientific or economic issue.

Within the current structure, non-human animals are moral patients, meaning they are subject to the actions of moral agents, i.e., human animals, and thus we have the duty to act consciously and responsibly. Therefore, to change the conception of animals as machines for testing and research ²⁷ we need a much more fundamental shift in how we think about them ⁶⁴. The existence of alternative methods makes their application morally mandatory.

Thus, abolishing the use of mice in the diagnosis of animal rabies, enabling scientific practice free from this type of exploitation, involves structural transformations where all efforts matter: individual, collective, public and private. Redefying our relationships with other beings and with the environment we share is essential to achieving, among other things, a science free from animal oppression. This entails more affective and empathetic relationships with all beings that cohabit this planet, favoring the development and application of new techniques that reconcile ethics and scientific progress, benefiting multispecies health.

References

• ¹ Bilal A. Rabies is a zoonotic disease: a literature review. Occup Med Health Aff [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 4 dez 2022];9(3):1000344. Disponível: https://bit.ly/3Vve723
  » https://bit.ly/3Vve723
• ² World Organisation for Animal Health. Rabies [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 7 jan 2024]. Disponível: https://www.woah.org/en/disease/rabies/
  » https://www.woah.org/en/disease/rabies/
• ³ Fooks AR, Cliquet F, Finke S, Freuling C, Hemachudha T, Mani RS et al. Rabies. Nat Rev Dis Primer [Internet]. 2017 [acesso 24 ago 2023];3(1):17091. DOI: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.91
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2017.91
• ⁴ Greene CE. Doenças infecciosas em cães e gatos. 4ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2015. Capítulo 20, Raiva e outras infecções por Lyssavirus; p. 189-207.
• ⁵ World Health Organization. Rabies [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 7 jan 2024]. Disponível: https://tny.im/tgDN0
  » https://tny.im/tgDN0
• ⁶ Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Raiva animal. Ministério da Saúde [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 13 fev 2024]. Disponível: https://tny.im/EWbdQ
  » https://tny.im/EWbdQ
• ⁷ Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde; Organização Mundial da Saúde; Centro Pan-Americano de Febre Aftosa e Saúde Pública Veterinária. Programa regional de raiva em herbívoros domésticos [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 18 out 2022]. Disponível: https://tny.im/Dsaes
  » https://tny.im/Dsaes
• ⁸ Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. Informações sobre dados zoosanitários [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 5 nov 2022]. Disponível: https://bit.ly/4cQm4Xf
  » https://bit.ly/4cQm4Xf
• ⁹ Baquero OS. One Health of Peripheries: biopolitics, social determination, and field of praxis. Front Public Health [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 7 jan 2022];9:617003. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.617003
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.617003
• ¹⁰ Geison G. A ciência particular de Louis Pasteur. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto; 2002.
• ¹¹ Rupprecht CE, Fooks AR, Abela-Ridder B. Laboratory techniques in rabies [Internet]. 5ª ed. Vol. 1. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 [acesso 5 dez 2021]. Disponível: https://tny.im/ddEao
  » https://tny.im/ddEao
• ¹² Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Vigilância Epidemiológica. Manual de diagnóstico laboratorial da raiva [Internet]. Brasília: Editora do Ministério da Saúde; 2008 [acesso 5 mar 2021]. Disponível: https://tny.im/kEtyF
  » https://tny.im/kEtyF
• ¹³ Centoamore NHF, Chierato MER, Silveira VBV, Asano KM, Iamamoto K, Fahl WO et al. Comparison of five different laboratory techniques for the rabies diagnosis in clinically suspected cattle in Brazil. J Virol Methods [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 5 nov 2022];283:113918. DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113918
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113918
• ¹⁴ Corona TF, Minozzo GA, Cruz ECR, Riediger IN. Lacen/PR é o primeiro laboratório de saúde pública do Brasil a substituir a experimentação animal no diagnóstico da raiva. Formação & Informação [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 29 out 2021];(4):4-6. Disponível: https://tny.im/wdu7D
  » https://tny.im/wdu7D
• ¹⁵ Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Articulação Estratégica de Vigilância em Saúde. Guia para diagnóstico laboratorial em saúde pública: orientações para o sistema nacional de laboratórios de saúde pública [Internet]. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2021 [acesso 9 set 2022]. Disponível: https://tny.im/ft91
  » https://tny.im/ft91
• ¹⁶ Bones VC, Clemente HC, Weary DM, Molento CFM. Perceived barriers to the adoption of alternatives to laboratory animal use for rabies diagnosis. Altern Lab Anim [Internet]. 2014 [acesso 19 jan 2021];42(3):171-9. DOI: 10.1177/026119291404200305
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291404200305
• ¹⁷ Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Raiva [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 5 nov 2022]. Disponível: https://tny.im/icTqM
  » https://tny.im/icTqM
• ¹⁸ Rocha SM, de Oliveira SV, Heinemann MB, Gonçalves VSP. Epidemiological profile of wild rabies in Brazil (2002-2012). Transbound Emerg Dis [Internet]. 2015 [acesso 28 jun 2021];64(2):624-33. DOI: 10.1111/tbed.12428
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12428
• ¹⁹ Vargas A, Romano APM, Merchán-Hamann E. Raiva humana no Brasil: estudo descritivo, 2000-2017. Epidemiol Serv Saúde [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 19 jun 2022];28(2):1-9. DOI: 10.5123/S1679-49742019000200001
  » https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742019000200001
• ²⁰ Rodrigues AC, Marcusso RMN, Souza DN, Fahl WO, Caporale GMM, Macedo CI, Castilho JG. A comparative study of direct fluorescent antibody, mouse inoculation, and tissue culture infection testing for rabies diagnoses. J Virol Methods [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 4 out 2023];300:114426. DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114426
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114426
• ²¹ Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Secretaria de Defesa Agropecuária. Controle da raiva dos herbívoros: manual técnico [Internet]. 2ª ed. Brasília: Assessoria de Comunicação Social; 2009 [acesso 19 jan 2022]. Disponível: https://tny.im/FhDg9
  » https://tny.im/FhDg9
• ²² World Health Organization. WHO expert consultation on rabies: third report [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 [acesso 5 dez 2021]. Disponível: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272364
  » https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272364
• ²³ World Organisation for Animal Health. Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals [Internet]. 20ª ed. Paris: World Organisation for Animal Health; 2023 [acesso 8 dez 2023]. Chapter 3.1.18, p. 578-614. Disponível: https://tny.im/gKK4K
  » https://tny.im/gKK4K
• ²⁴ Brasil. Op. cit. 2008. p. 65.
• ²⁵ Bones VC, Gameiro AH, Castilho JG, Molento CFM. Comparative costs of the mouse inoculation test (MIT) and virus isolation in cell culture (VICC) for use in rabies diagnosis in Brazil. Altern Lab Anim [Internet]. 2015 [acesso 19 jan 2021];43(2):81-7. DOI: 10.1177/026119291504300203
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291504300203
• ²⁶ Alvim MS. Limites éticos do uso danoso de animais na experimentação a partir do paradigma moral e jurídico do princípio do tratamento humanitário. Revista Brasileira de Direito e Justiça [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 13 abr 2021];4(1):69-116. DOI: 10.5212/RBDJ.v.4.0002
  » https://doi.org/10.5212/RBDJ.v.4.0002
• ²⁷ Bones VC, Garcia RCM, Alves GG, Paixão RL, Rocha AA, Capilé K, Bachinski R. Humane education: the tool for scientific revolution in Brazil. In: Herrmann K, Jayne K, editores. Animal experimentation: working towards a paradigm change [Internet]. Leiden: Brill; 2019 [acesso 28 maio 2022]. p. 567-82. DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_024
  » https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_024
• ²⁸ Brasil. Lei n° 9.605, de 12 de fevereiro de 1998. Lei de Crimes Ambientais. Dispõe sobre as sanções penais e administrativas derivadas de condutas e atividades lesivas ao meio ambiente, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União [Internet]. Brasília, p. 1, 13 fev 1998 [acesso 16 abr 2021]. Seção 1. Disponível: https://tny.im/uLP32
  » https://tny.im/uLP32
• ²⁹ Minozzo GA, Corona TF, Cruz ECR, Biondo AW, Riediger IN. Lacen/PR se torna o primeiro laboratório de saúde pública a não usar animais de laboratório. Clínica Veterinária [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 28 jul 2022];(144):68-71. Disponível: https://tny.im/ioqNX
  » https://tny.im/ioqNX
• ³⁰ Rupprecht CE, Fooks AR, Abela-Ridder B. Laboratory techniques in rabies [Internet]. 5ª ed. Vol. 2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019 [acesso 5 dez 2021]. Disponível: https://tny.im/P0C73
  » https://tny.im/P0C73
• ³¹ Minozzo GA, Corona TF, Cruz ECR, Castro WAC, Kmetiuk LB, Santos AP et al. Novel duplex RT-qPCR for animal rabies surveillance. Transbound Emerg Dis [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 28 jul 2023];69(5):e2261-7. DOI: 10.1111/tbed.14565
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14565
• ³² Laboratório do Estado é pioneiro no uso de técnica molecular no diagnóstico da raiva. Agência Estadual de Notícias [Internet] 2021 [acesso 7 abr 2022]. Disponível: https://tny.im/v5Xev
  » https://tny.im/v5Xev
• ³³ Felipe ST. Ética e experimentação animal: fundamentos abolicionistas. 2ª ed. Florianópolis: Editora UFSC; 2019. p. 74.
• ³⁴ Rachels J, Rachels S. Os elementos da filosofia moral. 7ª ed. Porto Alegre: AMGH; 2013.
• ³⁵ Felipe ST. Ética e experimentação animal: fundamentos abolicionistas. 2 ed. Florianópolis: Editora UFSC; 2019.
• ³⁶ Oliveira FAG. Especismo estrutural: os animais não humanos como um grupo oprimido. In: Parente Á, Danner F, Silva MA, organizadores. Animalidades: fundamentos, aplicações e desafios contemporâneos [Internet]. Porto Alegre: Editora Fi; 2021 [acesso 16 jan 2022]. p. 48-71. Disponível: https://www.editorafi.org/ 268animalidades
  » https://www.editorafi.org/ 268animalidades
• ³⁷ Greek R, Kramer LA. How to evaluate the science of non-human animal use in biomedical research and testing: a proposed format for debate. In: Herrmann K, Jayne K, editores. Animal experimentation: working towards a paradigm change [Internet]. Leiden: Brill; 2019 [acesso 28 maio 2022]. p. 65-87. DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_003
  » https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_003
• ³⁸ Knight A. Critically evaluating animal research. In: Herrmann K, Jayne K, editores. Animal experimentation: working towards a paradigm change [Internet]. Leiden: Brill; 2019 [acesso 28 maio 2022]. p. 321-40. DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_015
  » https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_015
• ³⁹ Felipe ST. Acertos abolicionistas: a vez dos animais: crítica à moralidade especista. São José: Ecoânima; 2014.
• ⁴⁰ Singer P. Libertação animal: o clássico definitivo sobre o movimento pelos direitos dos animais. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes; 2010.
• ⁴¹ Moreira Filho LD. Ética animal: parte I. Conhecimento Prático Filosofia. 2011;1(31):18-25.
• ⁴² Singer P. Op. cit. p. 14.
• ⁴³ Regan T. Jaulas vazias: encarando o desafio dos direitos animais. Porto Alegre: Lugano; 2006. p. 48.
• ⁴⁴ Regan T. Op. cit.
• ⁴⁵ DeMello M. Animals and society: an introduction to human-animal studies. New York: Columbia University Press; 2012.
• ⁴⁶ Rosendo D. Sensível ao cuidado: uma perspectiva ética ecofeminista. Curitiba: Prismas; 2015.
• ⁴⁷ Velasco Sesma A. De la lógica de la dominación al respeto y la empatía: hacia una relación ecofeminista con los animales y la naturaleza. In: Rosendo D, Oliveira FAG, Carvalho P, Kuhnen TA, organizadores. Ecofeminismos: fundamentos teóricos e práxis interseccionais. Rio de Janeiro: Ape'Ku; 2019. p. 69-105.
• ⁴⁸ Poder Popular Antiespecista; União Vegana Feminista. Antiespecistas: o manual do veganismo popular e revolucionário. Brasil: Terra sem Amos; 2021.
• ⁴⁹ Stone A. Frances Power Cobbe and the philosophy of antivivisection. Journal of Animal Ethics [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 11 mar 2024];13(1):21-30. DOI: 10.5406/21601267.13.1.04
  » https://doi.org/10.5406/21601267.13.1.04
• ⁵⁰ Cudworth E. Beyond speciesism: intersectionality, critical sociology and the human domination of other animals. In: Taylor N, Twine R, editors. The rise of critical animal studies: from the margins to the centre. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014. p. 19-35.
• ⁵¹ Taylor N, Twine R. Introduction: locating the 'critical' in critical animal studies. In: Taylor N, Twine R, editors. The rise of critical animal studies: from the margins to the centre. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014. p. 1-15.
• ⁵² Fórum Nacional de Proteção e Defesa Animal. Ciência sem Jaulas [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 14 set 2022]. Disponível: https://forumanimal.org/site/bioetica/
  » https://forumanimal.org/site/bioetica/
• ⁵³ Silva TT, Corrêa MCDV. Inovação biomédica e ética: técnicas substitutivas na experimentação animal. Rev. bioét. (Impr.) [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 20 fev 2022];28(4):674-82. DOI: 10.1590/1983-80422020284431
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422020284431
• ⁵⁴ Regan T. Op. cit. p. 221.
• ⁵⁵ Low, P. The Cambridge declaration on consciousness [Internet]. In: Proceedings of the Francis Crick Memorial Conference; 7 jul 2012; Cambridge. Cambridge: Francis Crick Memorial Conference; 2012 [acesso 11 fev 2021]. Disponível: https://tny.im/weCSv
  » https://tny.im/weCSv
• ⁵⁶ Declaração de Curitiba [Internet]. In: Anais do 3º Congresso Brasileiro de Bioética e Bem-Estar Animal; 5-7 ago 2014; Curitiba. Brasília: CFMV; 2014 [acesso 11 fev 2021]. Disponível: https://tny.im/T5MHz
  » https://tny.im/T5MHz
• ⁵⁷ A Declaração de Montreal sobre a exploração animal. Ética Animal [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 20 nov 2023]. Disponível: https://tny.im/BTrgv
  » https://tny.im/BTrgv
• ⁵⁸ Knight A. The costs and benefits of animal experiments. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
• ⁵⁹ Bachinski R, Tréz T, Alves GG, Garcia RCM, Oliveira ST, Alonso LS et al. Humane education in Brazil: organisation, challenges and opportunities. Altern Lab Anim [Internet]. 2015 [acesso 13 abr 2021];43(5):337-44. DOI: 10.1177/026119291504300508
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291504300508
• ⁶⁰ Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Princípios de ética biomédica. 4ª ed. São Paulo: Loyola; 2002.
• ⁶¹ Abarkan FZ, Wijen AMA, van Eijden RMG, Struijs F, Dennis P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Visseren-Hamakers I. Identifying key factors for accelerating the transition to animal-testing-free medical science through co-creative, interdisciplinary learning between students and teachers. Animals (Basel.) [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 19 nov 2023];12(20):2757. DOI: 10.3390/ani12202757
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202757
• ⁶² Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. Rede de Saúde Multiespécie [Internet]. 2024 [acesso 10 maio 2024]. Disponível: https://redesame.fmvz.usp.br/sobre/
  » https://redesame.fmvz.usp.br/sobre/
• ⁶³ Brasil. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Promulgada em 5 de outubro de 1988. Normas.leg.br [Internet]. 2023 [acesso 16 abr 2021]. Disponível: https://tny.im/hgET2
  » https://tny.im/hgET2
• ⁶⁴ Singer P. Op. cit. p. XXV.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  13 Dec 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  23 Oct 2023
• Reviewed
  02 May 2024
• Accepted
  14 May 2024