Experience gained from a previous enquiry on this subject in human tuberculosis led to the belief that much information might be derived from an investigation of the complement fixation reaction in animals experimentally infected with tubercle bacilli. Accurate dosage can be measured and the true path of infection is definitely known. Various enquiries were suggested and investigated by the detailed examination of rabbits and guinea-pigs; the latter class of rodents were used in batches of six to twelve in number, as otherwise the individual differences between animals in the same group of experiments are entirely overlooked. My cultures of the human tubercle bacillus were obtained by inoculating guinea-pigs with the sputum from typical cases of pulmonary tuberculosis at the Brompton Hospital Sanatorium at Frimley. Pure cultures of the bacillus were obtained from the infected guinea-pigs and cultivated on Dorset's egg medium, so that within a period varying from 14 to 21 days an abundant growth was obtained. The culture of the bovine bacillus was supplied to me by Professor Delépine who obtained it directly from the tissues of an infected cow, and subcultures were kept going on Dorset's egg medium. In every experiment without exception the animals were infected with definitely known quantities of the human or bovine bacillus. These were obtained by carefully scraping the growth off the surface of the egg medium and weighing it on sterile platinum foil, while in some cases (for comparison) a portion of the growth was dried in a desiccator before it was weighed. The untreated or dried bacilli were then shaken in a known quantity of sterile saline, so that a perfect emulsion free from clumps was obtained. The bacilli were kept in the dark in brown stoppered bottles and were always employed within a few days of their preparation.

Each year the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) holds an Animal Welfare Forum. The papers presented at this annual event are published in the Journal of the AVMA and are collectively reprinted as a ‘proceedings of the meeting’. In 1994 the Forum met in Rosemont, Illinois and the subject was Veterinary Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Research. The following seven papers were given and are now published, together with a brief Opening remarks’ by the then President Elect of the AVMA in the February 15th issue of the AVMA journal.

The Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) in the UK not only supports work on the physiology, biochemistry and pathology of farm animals but is also deeply involved in the non-medical biological sciences and, increasingly over recent years, with cell and molecular biology and bio-technology.

Many of the improvements in the welfare of laboratory animals over the last 10 or so years have come about through the application of the principles of the 3 Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement, originally put forward in 1959 by Russell and Burch. More recently the term alternatives is being used to mean, in a precise sense, replacement and less precisely all three of the Rs. Application of these principles has resulted in a decrease in the number of animals used and a lessening of the amount of suffering. These developments have been welcomed by the scientific community and the legislators as well as by animal welfarists.

In August 1995 the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Training (ANZCCART) held a two-day conference in Wellington, New Zealand on Farm Animals in Biomedical and Agricultural Research. The 14 papers together with their edited discussions - see advertisement on page 338 for details - have now been published. The material ranges from a keynote address on farm animals in biomedical and agricultural research, through to an ANZCCART student award paper on in vitro fertilization technologies in animals and humans, to discussions on consciousness and awareness in farm animals and on human accountability regarding animal use.

In 1966, Henry K. Beecher published an article entitled “Ethics and Clinical Research” in the New England Journal of Medicine, which cited examples of ethically problematic human research. His influential paper drew attention to common moral problems such as inadequate attention to informed consent, risks, and efforts to provide ethical justification. Beecher’s paper provoked significant advancements in human research policies and practices. In this paper, we use an approach modeled after Beecher’s 1966 paper to show that moral problems with animal research are similar to the problems Beecher described for human research. We describe cases that illustrate ethical deficiencies in the conduct of animal research, including inattention to the issue of consent or assent, incomplete surveys of the harms caused by specific protocols, inequitable burdens on research subjects in the absence of benefits to them, and insufficient efforts to provide ethical justification. We provide a set of recommendations to begin to address these deficits.

Fifteen of the UK's largest medical charities have banded together to produce two discussion packs aimed at helping teachers to introduce the animal rights/animal welfare/biomedical research controversy to school discussion groups. One pack Animal Rights and Medical Research is directed towards sixth formers and other advanced students, whilst the other entitled Difficult Choices is intended for use with pupils aged 12 or older in their Research and Social Education (PSE) and/or English and Religious Education classes. Both packs are well produced and largely succeed in presenting their material in an interesting, straightforward and balanced manner.

Current regulations and widely accepted principles for animal research focus on minimizing the burdens and harms of research on animals. However, these regulations and principles do not consider a possible role for assent or dissent in animal research. Should investigators solicit the assent or respect the dissent of animals who are used in research, and, if so, under what circumstances? In this article we pursue this question and outline the relevant issues that bear on the answer. We distinguish two general reasons for respecting the preferences of research participants regarding whether they participate in research—welfare-based reasons and agency-based reasons. We argue that there are welfare-based reasons for researchers to consider, and in some cases respect, the dissent of all animals used in research. After providing a brief account of the nature of agency-based reasons, we argue that there is good reason to think that these reasons apply to at least chimpanzees. We argue that there is an additional reason for researchers to respect the dissent—and, when possible, solicit the assent—of any animal to whom agency-based reasons apply.