Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Protocol Review
  • Published:

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: No relevant difference

Lab Animal volume 38, pages 256–257 (2009)Cite this article

Legal issues aside, one reason that an institution may have different policies for dogs (and other large animals) than for rodents may be the notion that their use in research is ethically more problematic. This idea in turn may be explained using the socio-zoological scale1. The basis of the socio-zoological scale is that people rate animals as morally more or less important, and therefore more or less worthy of protection, according to a number of factors having to do with the role of the animals in our lives. These factors may include the animal's usefulness, association with humans, physical attractiveness and potential to be harmful. By these measures, companion animal species, notably dogs and cats, are at the top of the scale in many North American and European societies today, whereas rodents are at the bottom.

The socio-zoological scale may be a reasonable description of commonly found attitudes, but its use as a basis for animal protection can be criticized on both scientific and ethical grounds. Scientifically, there is nothing in the biology of these animals that justifies their different positions on the scale. Both dogs and rodents are mammals, and in terms of capacity to feel pain or otherwise suffer—which arguably is the main issue in the legal framework for present laboratory animal science—there is no reason to expect these species to differ. Ethically, many people who have thought about the issue might argue that the general likeability of the species is not a fair basis for deciding how to treat animals but rather is unfair discrimination.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Arluke, A. & Sanders, C.R. Regarding Animals (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Roughan, J.V. & Flecknell, P.A. Training in behaviour-based post-operative pain scoring in rats—An evaluation based on improved recognition of analgesic requirements. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 96, 327–348 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Olsson is at IBMC-Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Portugal ,

    Anna S. Olsson

  2. Sørensen and Sandøe are in the Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.,

    Dorte B. Sørensen &  Peter Sandøe

Authors
  1. Anna S. Olsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorte B. Sørensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Sandøe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olsson, A., Sørensen, D. & Sandøe, P. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: No relevant difference. Lab Anim 38, 256–257 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0809-256b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0809-256b

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing