119LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123Biol Res 41: 119-123, 2008 BR

Received: March 7, 2008. In Revised form: April 7, 2008. Accepted: April 7, 2008

Bioethics and animal research. A personal perspectiveand a note on the contribution of Fritz Jahr1

FERNANDO LOLAS

Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics, University of Chile (Collaborating Center of the World HealthOrganization) Bioethics Program, Pan American Health Organization, E-mail: lolasf@chi.ops-oms.org

ABSTRACT

Reviewing fundamental aspects of bioethics and outlining the work of the Bioethics Program of the PanAmerican Health Organization, this paper draws attention to the work of a forgotten pioneer- Fritz Jahr- whocoined the term bioethics in 1927 and anticipated many of the arguments and discussions now current inbiological research involving animals-

Key terms: Bioethics, Biological research, Pan American Health Organization, Fritz Jahr.

RESEARCH: INVENTION, INNOVATION AND

TRANSFORMATION

Research is the core activity of modernscience and technology and can be definedas the production and dissemination ofvalid, reliable and generalizable knowledge.Knowledge is not simply information, butinformation organized according to alegitimate social interest (utility, beauty,education, profit) (Lolas, 1998, 2000).

Three social processes comprise research.Invention is the creation of new concepts orways of constructing observational realities.It increases intellectual input and may beconsidered the type of research thatprofessional scientists value most, usuallycalling it “fundamental” or “basic”.Innovation is the creation of new ways ofapplying or modifying realities uncovered byinvention. It increases practical output.Hence, the term “applied” usually used inconnection with medicine and engineering,for example. Transformation is themodification of persons and institutions as aresult of knowledge production. It is usuallythe intellectual impact of the humanities andthe social sciences, whose contribution

sometimes does not produce new data ornew applications but new ways ofinterpreting reality and human works.

All three processes may be involved inresearch but usual practice tends to separatethem and produce independent communities.Teams involved in invention (or basicresearch) may or may not engage ininnovation (applied research). Nevertheless,transformation is a result of research atinstitutional and personal levels. Institutionsnot engaged in research are different fromthose having this activity as one of theirmissions or objectives.

Since research (and not erudition) is thecore of science as social practice, itnecessarily involves risks, benefits, andharms that may affect the lives of persons,groups, or societies. From the moralstandpoint, all research has consequences, ashistorical lessons show. This means thatevery human action, even no action, hasmoral consequences, irrespective of the wayin which people choose to analyze it(religious, philosophical, etc.). All humanactivities are subject to ethical scrutiny,since ethics is the rational reflection aboutmoral life and its effects on humanity. The

1 During the preparation of this paper, the author received support from the Alexander von HumboldtFoundation at the University of Heidelberg, Germany

LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123120

two most common ethical traditions ofWestern thought –deontology, or the theoryof duties, and teleology, the theory ofconsequences- have become associated inthe discourse of current bioethics, which canbe conceived of as social process ,disciplinary matrix or procedure forreaching conclusions, and academic product.

BIOETHICS: THE WORD AND ITS MEANING

The first documented use of the wordbioethics dates back to 1927, when FritzJahr, a protestant pastor and theologianfrom Halle, gave the title “Bio-Ethik: EineUmschau über die ethischen Beziehungendes Menschen zu Tier und Pflanze” to anarticle published in the journal Kosmos.(Jahr, 1927).

The main idea behind Jahr’s article wasto anticipate what he later called “thebioethical imperative” (Jahr, 1934).Paraphrasing Immanuel Kant with thecategorical imperative, Jahr suggested thatall living beings were entitled to respect andshould be treated not as means but as ends inthemselves (Engel, 2004; Sass, 2007a, b).

Distancing himself from the teachings ofHindu scholars whose viewpoints could beconfused with his own, Jahr addressed thebiblical Fifth commandment (prohibition tokill) in its implications for the welfare ofanimals and plants and examining, mostlyfrom a theological point of view, what canbe considered a “humane” treatment ofliving beings. In his1934 paper, he assertsthat the bioethical imperative is self evidentin relation to animals, in the sense that itappeals to conscience not to torture orotherwise inflict damage on animals(referring mostly to mammals) but thatplants should be accorded similar treatment.And concludes “Als Umschreibung desfünften Gebotes ergigt sich der bio-ethischeImperativ: “Achte jades Lebewesengrundsätzlich als einen Selbstzweck undbehandle es nach Möglichkeit alssolchen!”(Jahr, 1934).

It should be recalled that the Zeitgeist ofthe first decades of the XXth centuryproduced in Europe a curious fusion betweenlaws and regulations placing limits on

medical experimentation and legislationslater considered discriminatory andinhuman, not only in Germany but in othercountries as well. At the time of theRepublic of Weimar, when Jahr writes,Julius Moses had been able to passlegislation on proper human experimentation(1931) that some doctors during the Naziregime did not comply with, as demonstratedby the Nuremberg trial of doctors and itsimpact on research practice (Weizsäcker,1947; Eckart, 2008).

This is not the place to trace the originsand evolution of Jahr’s concept of bioethicsand the developments it accompanied oranticipated at a time characterized by acomplex mixture of nationalist sentiments,heroic nihilism, and political turmoil.Suffice only to say that its relevance forbiological research employing animals isstill open for discussion.

In the decade of the seventies of the XXthcentury Van Rensselaer Potter also used theterm meaning a wide consideration ofsolidarity in the biosphere. He later insistedon his proposal of a “global ethics”, ascience of survival for the human and otheranimal species (Potter, 1970, 1971).

During the last decades of the XXthcentury the term was employed in a varietyof contexts. Two main streams can bediscerned: an application of ethicalreasoning to medicine and the healthsciences and a general ethical standpoint forthe analysis of science and technology.Initiatives linking the humanities and thenatural sciences and the coalescence of“cultures” have been in the Zeitgeist of theXXth century (Lolas, 1998, 2002)

Different meanings of the word“bioethics” make it difficult to formulate adefinite set of principles constituting aconsolidated discipline. Resistance to itsuse has been observed in some Europeancountries. In the developing world, somehave used the term with political intentionto question developments in industrializedcountries. Resource-poor settings haveaccepted bioethical concepts inspired byEuropean and North American institutions.

Currently, bioethics is an umbrella termcovering different attempts to humanize thescientific enterprise, the practice of the

121LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123

health professions, and the respect forhuman rights in economics, politics, andsocial research

VARIETIES OF BIOETHICS

It is no wonder that with such diverseorigins and usages, many forms of bioethicscan be discerned. Topics addressed bybioethics have a long past but a shorthistory (Lolas 2002a).

One aspect relates to basic and appliedresearch with human and animal subjects.Medical consequences of advances ingenomics, organ transplantation, stem cellresearch and biotechnology along with theirethical, legal, and social implicationsconstitute an expanding area of bioethicalreflection.

Bioethics has also analyzed the interfacebetween scientific communities and laypeople. Politicians, legislators, entrepreneurs,without formal scientific training need to beinformed about science and technology inorder to make informed decisions on resourceallocation, public policy and regulatorypractices. Cases contributing to the visibilityof bioethics have been violations of moralcodes disseminated through public media.Without such exposure, important documentssuch as the Nuremberg Code, the Declarationof Helsinki, the Belmont Report or theCIOMS Guidelines would not have receivedattention (Lolas, 2001)

Delivery of services, priority setting innational or international contexts, respect forhuman rights and solidarity or reciprocity indealing with vulnerable populations orethnic minorities belong also to thebioethical enterprise (Lolas et al, 2007)

Considering these different domains,bioethics is clinical, research-oriented,regulatory, cultural and commonsense. Itspractice is influenced by religious, gender(feminist bioethics) and politicalconsiderations.

THE PRACTICE OF BIOETHICS

In many regions of the world, LatinAmerica included, the common form of

bioethics practiced to-day is principialism.The most widespread form of reasoning isbased on so-called intermediate principles,between higher order values and rules ofconduct. The principles outlined in severaldocuments like the Belmont Report,Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS EthicalGuidelines and others are autonomy(respect for persons), beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. Some authors addtrustworthiness, reciprocity, solidarity,truthfulness, relevant to the pursuit ofscientific research including projectplanning, data collection, sampling, andpublication (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001;CIEB, 2008).

The essential thrust of bioethics is thedialogical nature of decision making, basedon deliberation. All stakeholders andbeneficiaries of research and innovationshould partake of the ideas, risks, benefits,and outcome of research. This includessponsors, researchers, administrators, serviceproviders, research subjects and public atlarge.

One implication of bioethics for theconduct of research is the need to shareinformation, decision, and outcome beyondthe scientific community to those who mayuse or apply scientific knowledge. A codeof ethics for scientists should includeprovisions for obtaining and maintainingpublic trust on the self-regulation of scienceand technology. Most of the classicaldocuments elaborated so far derive fromsituations in which rights of persons oranimals were violated or not adequatelyrespected in the name of scientific progress.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOETHICS

The dialogical nature of bioethics hascreated new social institutions or reshapedold ones. For research, research ethicscommittees, called Institutional (orIndependent) Review Boards in the US andData Safety and Monitoring Boards toreview, approve, and follow up projects.

Experience suggests that research ethicscommittees should be close to theinstitutions, be integrated by memberswithout conflicts of interest related to the

LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123122

projects under evaluation and by lay people,lawyers, priests and other experts.

There exist also committees chargedwith oversight of clinical practice (hospitalethics committees) or associated withprofessional organizations. At the level ofstates, provinces, or nations, some countrieshave higher-level commissions foraddressing conflicts or clarifications arisingfrom ethical oversight or for formulatinglong term and long range public policies.

A growing body of li terature isconcerned with characteristics andoperation of these different types ofbioethical institutions (Cf. CIEB website)

USES AND ABUSES OF BIOETHICS

Bioethics is not simply application ofphilosophical notions to scientific problemsor a new formulation of classicalprofessional deontology. It is a dialogicform of deliberation considering socialinterests and the cultural or religious normsabout what is proper, what is good and whatis just. The institution of the committee orthe consultative group stresses the socialcharacter of the bioethical enterprise.Bioethics can be misused as a political toolor as a means of exercising power. Thepotential usefulness of bioethicaldeliberation can be downgraded toantiscientific discourses and superficialadmonitions against “ethical imperialism”.

The program established by the PanAmerican Health Organization (PAHO) inassociation with the University of Chile andthe Chilean government in 1994 aims toexercise ethical oversight over research withhuman subjects, evaluate health policiesfrom an ethical point of view, and extendresearch and publication to ecological ethics,food ethics and animal research (Lolas,2004, 2006 a,b, 2007). The commitmentextends to ecological, biological, clinical,and social issues and is reflected in theflagship publication‘Acta Bioethica (ISSN0717-5906). It also maintains a virtuallibrary on bioethics with the support ofBIREME (http: //bioetica.bvsalud.org/htmal/es/home.html) , publishes the newslettersBioética Informa (ISSN 0717-6112) and

Salud Oral-Bioética (ISSN 0718-2392) and aseries of books on research ethics, socialbioethics, and clinical ethics, all freelyavailable at the websites (Cf. PAHO BIO,2008; CIEB, 2008)

THE CONTRIBUTION OF FRITZ JAHR TO THE

BIOETHICS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH

As a theologian and educator, Fritz Jahr didnot explicitly address scientific research withanimals when he coined the term bioethics.Most of what has later been said, however, isanticipated in his writings. Beyond the“humane” conduct of research indicated bythe famous “three Rs” (replacement,reduction, refinement) and the appropriatetreatment of animals (Russell & Burch,1959; Cardozo et al., 2007), what is mostremarkable is his notion of the “bioethicalimperative”. It summarizes withoutfanaticism or fundamentalism what is owedto animals as living beings, what can bereasonably expected from advances in theregulation of research and what the trainingof investigators should consider.

REFERENCES

BEAUCHAMP T L & CHILDRESS J F (2001) Principlesof Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 5th ed. (First edition 1979)

CARDOZO, C, MRAD A, MARTÍNEZ C, RODRÍGUEZE, LOLAS F, editors (2007) El animal como sujetoexperimental. Aspectos técnicos y éticos. Santiago deChile: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en BioéticaUniversidad de Chile. (available at www.uchile.cl/bioetica)

CIEB (Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética,Universidad de Chile) http: //www.uchile.cl/bioetica

ECKART W (2008) Personal communicationENGEL E M (2004) O desafio das biotécnicas para a ética

e a antropología. Veritas 5: 205-228JAHR F (1927) Bio-Ethik. Eine Umschau über die ethischen

Beziehungen des Menschen zu Tier und Pflanze.Kosmos.Handweiser für Naturfreunde 24(1): 2-4

JAHR F (1934) Drei Studien zum 5. Gebot. Ethik. Sexual-und Gesellschaftsethik 11: 183-187

LOLAS F (1998) Bioética. El diálogo moral en las cienciasde la vida. Santiago de Chile: Universitaria (2ª ediciónSantiago: Mediterráneo, 2001)

LOLAS F (2000) Bioética y antropología médica. Santiagode Chile: Mediterráneo

LOLAS F (2001) Aspectos éticos de la investigaciónbiomédica. Conceptos frecuentes en las normasescritas. Rev Méd Chile 129: 680-684

LOLAS F (2002a) Temas de bioética. Santiago de Chile:Universitaria

123LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123

LOLAS F (2002b) Bioética y Medicina. Santiago de Chile:Biblioteca Americana

LOLAS F, editor (2004) Diálogo y cooperación en salud. Diezaños de bioética en la OPS. Santiago de Chile: Unidad deBioética OPS/OMS, Organización Panamericana de laSalud. (available at www.paho.org/bioetica)

LOLAS F (2006a) Bioethics at the Pan American HealthOrganization: origins, developments, and challenges.Acta Bioethica 12: 113-119

LOLAS F, editor (2006b) Ética e innovación tecnológica.Santiago de Chile: Centro Interdisciplinario deEstudios en Bioética Universidad de Chile. (availableat www.uchile.cl/bioetica)

LOLAS F (2007) El animal como sujeto experimental: unabioética para la ciencia de fronteras. In Cardozo, C. etal. (editors) El animal como sujeto experimental.Santiago de Chile: Centro Interdisciplinario deEstudios en Bioética U. de Chile, pp. 13-19

LOLAS F & DE FREITAS DRUMOND G (2007)Fundamentos de uma antropología bioetica. São Paulo:Loyola / Centro Universitario São Camilo

LOLAS F, MARTIN D K & QUEZADA A (2007)

Prioridades en salud y salud intercultural. Santiago deChile: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en BioéticaUniversidad de Chile

PAHO BIO (Pan American Health Organization BioethicsProgram) http: //www.paho.org/bioetica

PESSINI L, DE BARCHIFONTAINE C & LOLAS F(2007) Perspectivas de la bioética en Iberoamérica. SãoPaulo & Santiago de Chile: São Camilo / OPS

POTTER V R (1970) Bioethics, the science of survival.Perspect Biol Med 14: 127-153

POTTER V R (1971) Bioethics: Bridge to the Future.Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall

RUSSEL W M & BURCH R L (1959) The principles ofHumane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen

SASS H M (2007a) Fritz Jahr’s bioethischer Imperativ. 80Jahre Bioethick in Deutschland von 1927 bis 2007.Bochum: Zentrum für medizinische Ethik,Medizinethische Materialien Heft 175

SASS H M (2007b) Fritz Jahr’s concept of bioethics.Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17: 279-295

VON WEIZSÄCKER V (1947) “Euthanasie” undMenschenversuche . Psyche 1: 68-102

LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123124