matthias eggel | University of Zurich, Switzerland (original) (raw)

Papers by matthias eggel

Forthcoming in: Ethics, Policy & Environment, 2022

Human-wildlife interactions frequently lead to conflicts – about the fair use of natural resource... more Human-wildlife interactions frequently lead to conflicts – about the fair use of natural resources, for example. Various principled accounts have been proposed to resolve such interspecies conflicts. However, the existing frameworks are often inadequate to the complexities of real-life scenarios. In particular, they frequently fail because they do not adequately take account of the qualitative importance of individual interests, their relative importance, and the number of individuals affected. This article presents a limited aggregation account designed to overcome these shortcomings and thus to facilitate decision-making in real-world human-wildlife conflicts.

Ethics, Policy & Environment

Berliner Und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, 2020

Meeting the professional responsibilities of veterinarians in animal research has been described ... more Meeting the professional responsibilities of veterinarians in animal research has been described by the German Federal Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons (Bundestierarztekammer, BTK) as a “special ethical challenge”. Veterinarians are involved in animal research, not only as researcher and animal welfare officers, but also as members of ethical review committees and as such require a unique set of skills to provide a wide range of services and practices. Animal research in Europe is strictly regulated. The harm-benefit analysis (HBA) is one of the legal corner stones in project authorization and as such has to be carried out within a specific legal framework. Hence, veterinarians (and other members of ethical review committees) require an understanding of the normative foundation of animal research legislation in order to fulfill their role and responsibilities. Against this background, it is the goal of this article (1) to introduce the rationale and role of the harm concept and the HB...

Directive 2010/63/EU regulates the use of animals for scientific purposes in EU member states and... more Directive 2010/63/EU regulates the use of animals for scientific purposes in EU member states and mandates that every project proposal involving procedures on living non-human vertebrates and cephalopods has to be approved in a review process that includes a Harm-Benefit-Analysis, to assess "whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and distress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical consideration and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or the environment (EU Directive 2010/63, Art 38d). The aim of this paper is 1) to summarize recent criticism on the epistemic and practical limitations of the prospective benefit assessment in the HBA in its current form and on the focus on tangible societal benefits in project evaluation and 2) as a proof of principle, demonstrate the argumentation of these papers on 2 concrete examples, namely the insulin inhalator Exubera and the cancer drug Ipilimumab. First, we show that the HBA suffers from a logical and methodological flaw. The outcome of an experiment is per definition uncertain. If it wasn't, the experiment would not generate new knowledge and would therefore be illegal. Moreover, as long as animals are used as models for humans there will always be uncertainty regarding the translatability of knowledge from model to target species. Second, we show that practical flaws further complicate prospective benefit assessment. There are non-scientific factors, such as market potential, lobbying, patient compliance, etc., that are impossible to predict and yet, are important parameters in prospective benefit assessment. Together, these uncertainties make a prospective benefit assessment implausible. Also, the requirement to demonstrate societal benefits might incentivize researchers to overstate the tangible benefits of their research in project proposals, thereby making prospective benefit assessment in project evaluation more difficult for committees. Overstating potential societal benefits that are eventually not realized might also be detrimental to the credibility of science. In light of these flaws we think it necessary to develop an alternative model for project evaluation that focuses on potential knowledge gains as outcome of a project rather than prospective assessment of potential societal benefits.

North Carolina Law Review, especially Robby Lucas, for helpful comments and suggestions leading t... more North Carolina Law Review, especially Robby Lucas, for helpful comments and suggestions leading to improvements in this Article, as well as collaborators in the UNC Center for Genomics and Society for background discussions about ethical and policy issues related to genome editing.

North Carolina Law Review, 2019

Since William Bateson’s 1906 coinage of the term “genetics,” the rise of mice as a model organism... more Since William Bateson’s 1906 coinage of the term “genetics,” the rise of mice as a model organism for biomedical research has gone hand in hand with genomic developments. In today’s research environment, mice and rats make up the vast majority of all research subjects. While the advent of gene-editing tools such as CRISPR has made genetic manipulation of mice easier, these tools also signal a new trend toward an increased use of large animal models such as dogs, pigs, and nonhuman primates. Especially for neurological impairments, CRISPR gene editing offers the potential to generate large-animal models that better mimic human diseases. What are the ethical and regulatory implications of this trend? The professional and ethical framework for responsible conduct of animal research is widely recognized as the “three Rs”: Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement. This Article points to the tension between reduction (decreasing the overall numbers of animals used) and relative replacement ...

Sustainable governance and management of food systems, Sep 10, 2019

Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (henceforth "the D... more Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (henceforth "the Directive") mandates that every project proposal in EU member states involving procedures on living non-human vertebrates and cephalopods must be approved in a project evaluation which includes a harm-benefit-analysis assessing "whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and distress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical considerations and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or the environment". This project evaluation is carried out by competent authorities, with the advice of committees whose composition varies across Europe. The committees usually include scientific and veterinary/animal welfare expertise. They also often have experts in legal and ethical issues, advisors on alternatives to animal experiments, and sometimes also lay people. This invites the question: How do committee members understand "ethical considerations", and how does this influence their evaluation and their advice to competent authorities? This is important, for decision-making in project evaluation is restricted and must fall within the boundaries of the applicable legal regulation. We argue that committee members are not always aware of this restriction. Genetic enhancement (e.g. for better modelling of human diseases in larger animals) and disenhancement (e.g. genetically reducing research animals' ability to suffer) are controversial procedures in animal research. Where these two procedures are concerned, the mainly consequentialist and pathocentric legal framework of the Directive will potentially contradict the personal beliefs of some committee members, and indeed some members of the public, about what is morally permissible in animal research. Both genetic enhancement and genetic disenhancement could be classified as a valid benefit by the Directive, but some committee members might consider them morally unacceptable as a result of their personal beliefs. We use this potential conflict to address the question of what happens when committee members are of different opinions; we explain how, under these circumstances, a standardised understanding of "ethical consideration" can be achieved. We argue that, since project evaluation must comply with the normative framework of the Directive, the law always trumps objections based on personal and public beliefs that are in turn based on non-pathocentric and non-consequentialist moral theory. Our argument and its implications can be summarised as follows: First, the authorising committee's benefit evaluation, "taking ethical considerations into account", is restricted to by limits given in the regulation. However, second, it is far from clear that committee members understand what this means. Third, genetic disenhancement and genetic enhancement are arguably two paradigmatic cases where the personal beliefs of committee members will potentially contradict the Directive, and thus where there is real risk of illegal project evaluation. To minimise this risk, committee members should be trained and educated about their role and responsibilities in project evaluation. Only then will it be safe to assume that they are carrying out their authorising role appropriately.

BMC Medical Ethics, 2019

BackgroundRecent scientific advances in the field of gene editing have led to a renewed discussio... more BackgroundRecent scientific advances in the field of gene editing have led to a renewed discussion on the moral acceptability of human germline modifications. Gene editing methods can be used on human embryos and gametes in order to change DNA sequences that are associated with diseases. Modifying the human germline, however, is currently illegal in many countries but has been suggested as a ‘last resort’ option in some reports. In contrast, preimplantation genetic (PGD) diagnosis is now a well-established practice within reproductive medicine. Both methods can be used to prevent children from being born with severe genetic diseases.Main textThis paper focuses on four moral concerns raised in the debate about germline gene editing (GGE) and applies them to the practice of PGD for comparison: Violation of human dignity, disrespect of the autonomy and the physical integrity of the future child, discrimination of people living with a disability and the fear of slippery slope towards im...

Food Ethics, 2019

In recent years, a growing ethical awareness of food production and consumption can be observed. ... more In recent years, a growing ethical awareness of food production and consumption can be observed. While people appreciate increased food safety and low food prices (Boogaard et al. 2008, 2011), they are increasingly concerned about social and ecological aspects (Luhmann and Theuvsen 2016) and in particular about animal welfare issues (e.g. Bergstra et al. 2017; Clark et al. 2016; Krystallis et al. 2009). In other words, the corresponding debates are not only concerned with sufficient nutrition and quality of products, but also deal with responsibilities towards animals, future generations and the environment. Since food has always been a very emotional topic, it is not surprising that the ongoing debates are often controversial, passionate and sometimes even escalating; furthermore, these debates are exacerbated by the complexity of modern food systems. At the same time, global challenges through climate change, population growth and unsustainable practices have become urgent issues. Against this background, various disciplines are working in a new emerging field that can be labelled with the name of this journal: Food ethics. How we produce our food and what we consume has consequences of high moral importance and pose questions at the intersection of philosophy, law, politics, economics, sociology, veterinary medicine, agricultural science, etc. (see e.g. also Olsson et al. 2016; Springer and Grimm 2018). Despite (and/or independent of) the widely discussed "attitude-behaviour"-gap (e.g., Bray et al. 2011; Carrington et al. 2010), it is often argued that the key to meeting current ethical challenges is changing consumer behaviour: Reports indicate a shift of market power towards the consumer (Murphy and Bendell 2001), understanding consumption as voting (Shaw et al. 2006), since an increasing number of people follow a concept of consumer citizenship (Lang and Gabriel 2005), trying to act beyond their own immediate interests and considering the Food Ethics

Animals, 2019

Every year, around 12 million animals are used for the purpose of scientific research in the Euro... more Every year, around 12 million animals are used for the purpose of scientific research in the European Union alone. The procedures performed on them often cause significant pain and suffering. Despite regulations aimed at reducing this suffering, we can expect millions of research animals to continue to suffer in the near to mid-term future. Given this reality, we propose the use of gene editing to create research animals with a reduced capacity for suffering, in particular, from pain. We argue that our proposal would be in line with moral principles embedded in European regulations regarding animal research, and that it would facilitate compliance with these regulations. We also respond to the strongest argument against our proposal—the ‘no pain no gain’ argument.

Animals, 2018

According to Directive 2010/63/EU, project proposals involving experiments on animals have to be ... more According to Directive 2010/63/EU, project proposals involving experiments on animals have to be approved in a harm-benefit-analysis (HBA) that weighs the potential benefits of the experiment against the harm inflicted on animals. Only if the benefit outweighs the harm, will the project be approved. However, it is unclear what counts as a valid benefit. In this paper, we analyze the underlying premises of the HBA and its consequences for the project evaluation process. We come to the conclusion that knowledge, as such, is considered a low benefit and that only knowledge applied to benefit society, e.g., new cancer treatment or potent vaccine, etc., is considered to be a high benefit. However, we demonstrate that benefit of this kind cannot be assessed prospectively for research proposals due to the inherent uncertainties of research and the difficulty of determining extra-scientific factors that are crucial for the generation of societal benefit. As a consequence, we advocate a reevaluation of current project evaluation and propose to develop an alternative model for project evaluation.

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 2017

Animals, 2017

The European legislation on project evaluation of animal research has recently changed. Every pro... more The European legislation on project evaluation of animal research has recently changed. Every procedure on live non-human vertebrates and cephalopods has to be approved in a project evaluation (harm-benefit analysis (HBA)) that weighs the inflicted harms on animals against potential prospective benefits. Recent publications on the HBA prioritise "societal benefits" that have a foreseeable, positive impact on humans, animals, or the environment over gaining knowledge (e.g., basic research). However, we argue that whether potential prospective societal benefits are realized is (a) impossible to predict and (b) exceeds the scope and responsibility of researchers. Furthermore, the emphasis on practical benefits has the drawback of driving researchers into speculation on the practical benefit of their research and, therefore, into promising too much. Repeated failure to deliver proclaimed practical benefits will lead to a loss of trust and credibility in research. The concepts of benefit and benefit assessment in the HBA, as well as the HBA itself, require re-evaluation in a spirit that embraces the value of knowledge in our society. Research projects should be measured by the quality of the research they perform and by the contributions they make to a specific field of research or research program. Only then can promises regarding benefits (in terms of knowledge) be kept and continued public trust ensured. Time and again, scientific knowledge has been utilized to great benefit for humans, animals, and the environment. The HBA, as it currently stands, tends to turn this idea upside down and implies that research is of value only if the resulting findings bring about direct practical benefits, which science itself can neither provide nor guarantee. The road to hell is, as the saying goes, paved with good intentions.

Radiation Oncology, 2013

Background Ionizing radiation (IR) in combination with microtubule stabilizing agents (MSA) is a ... more Background Ionizing radiation (IR) in combination with microtubule stabilizing agents (MSA) is a promising combined treatment modality. Supra-additive treatment responses might result from direct tumor cell killing and cooperative indirect, tumor cell-mediated effects on the tumor microenvironment. Here we investigated deregulation of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) activity, as an important component of the tumor microenvironment, by the combined treatment modality of IR with the clinically relevant MSA patupilone. Methods Expression, secretion and activity of MMPs and related tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) were determined in cell extracts and conditioned media derived from human fibrosarcoma HT1080 and human glioblastoma U251 tumor cells in response to treatment with IR and the MSA patupilone. Treatment-dependent changes of the invasive capacities of these tumor cell lines were analysed using a Transwell invasion assay. Control experiments were performed using TIMP...

Animals

Recent developments in genome editing tools, along with limits in the translational potential of ... more Recent developments in genome editing tools, along with limits in the translational potential of rodent models of human disease, have spurred renewed biomedical research interest in large mammals like nonhuman primates, pigs, and dogs. Such scientific developments raise ethical issues about the use of these animals in comparison with smaller mammals, such as mice and rats. To examine these ethical questions, we first consider standard (or “orthodox”) approaches, including ethics oversight within biomedical research communities, and critical theoretical reflections on animal research, including rights-based and utilitarian approaches. We argue that oversight of biomedical research offers guidance on the profession’s permitted uses of animals within a research setting and orthodox approaches to animal ethics questions when and whether animals should be used in biomedicine; however, neither approach sufficiently investigates the nuances of ethical practices within the research setting....

Laboratory Animals

Using animals for research raises ethical concerns that are addressed in project evaluation by we... more Using animals for research raises ethical concerns that are addressed in project evaluation by weighing expected harm to animals against expected benefit to society. A harm–benefit analysis (HBA) relies on two preconditions: (a) the study protocol is scientifically suitable and (b) the use of (sentient) animals and harm imposed on them are necessary for achieving the study’s aims. The 3Rs (Replace, Reduce and Refine) provide a guiding principle for evaluating whether the use of animals, their number and the harm imposed on them are necessary. A similar guiding principle for evaluating whether a study protocol is scientifically suitable has recently been proposed: the 3Vs principle referring to the three main aspects of scientific validity in animal research (construct, internal and external validity). Here, we analyse the internal consistency and compatibility of these two principles, address conflicts within and between the 3Rs and 3Vs principles and discuss their implications for ...

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

:In a recent paper in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics on the necessary conditions for mo... more :In a recent paper in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics on the necessary conditions for morally responsible animal research David DeGrazia and Jeff Sebo claim that the key requirements for morally responsible animal research are (1) an assertion of sufficient net benefit, (2) a worthwhile-life condition, and (3) a no-unnecessary-harm condition. With regards to the assertion (or expectation) of sufficient net benefit (ASNB), the authors claim that morally responsible research offers unique benefits to humans that outweigh the costs and harms to humans and animals. In this commentary we will raise epistemic, practical, and ethical challenges to DeGrazia and Sebo’s emphasis on benefits in the prospective assessment of research studies involving animals. We do not disagree with DeGrazia and Sebo that, at the theoretical level, the benefits of research justify our using animals. Our contribution intends to clarify, at the practical level, how we should understand benefits in the prospective assessment and moral justification of animal research. We argue that ASNB should be understood as an assessment of Expectation of Knowledge Production (EKP) in the prospective assessment and justification of animal research. EKP breaks down into two further claims: (1) that morally responsible research generates knowledge worth having and (2) that morally responsible research is designed and executed to produce generalizable knowledge. We understand the condition called knowledge worth having as scientists’ testing a hypothesis that, whether verified or falsified, advances an important interest, and production of generalizable knowledge in terms of scientific integrity. Generalizable knowledge refers to experimental results that generalize to a larger population beyond the animals studied. Generalizable scientific knowledge is reliable, replicable, and accurately descriptive. In sum, morally responsible research will be designed and carefully executed to successfully test a hypothesis that, whether verified or falsified, advances important interests. Our formulation of EKP, crucially, does not require further showing that an experiment involving animals will produce societal benefits.