1. Biol Res 41: 119-123, 2008
LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123
BR
119
Bioethics and animal research. A personal perspective
and a note on the contribution of Fritz Jahr1
FERNANDO LOLAS
Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics, University of Chile (Collaborating Center of the World Health
Organization) 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 Pan
American Health Organization, this paper draws attention to the work of a forgotten pioneer- Fritz Jahr- who
coined the term bioethics in 1927 and anticipated many of the arguments and discussions now current in
biological research involving animals-
Key terms: Bioethics, Biological research, Pan American Health Organization, Fritz Jahr.
RESEARCH: INVENTION, INNOVATION AND sometimes does not produce new data or
TRANSFORMATION new applications but new ways of
interpreting reality and human works.
Research is the core activity of modern All three processes may be involved in
science and technology and can be defined research but usual practice tends to separate
as the production and dissemination of them and produce independent communities.
valid, reliable and generalizable knowledge. Teams involved in invention (or basic
Knowledge is not simply information, but research) may or may not engage in
information organized according to a innovation (applied research). Nevertheless,
legitimate social interest (utility, beauty, transformation is a result of research at
education, profit) (Lolas, 1998, 2000). institutional and personal levels. Institutions
Three social processes comprise research. not engaged in research are different from
Invention is the creation of new concepts or those having this activity as one of their
ways of constructing observational realities. missions or objectives.
It increases intellectual input and may be Since research (and not erudition) is the
considered the type of research that core of science as social practice, it
professional scientists value most, usually necessarily involves risks, benefits, and
calling it “fundamental” or “basic”. harms that may affect the lives of persons,
Innovation is the creation of new ways of groups, or societies. From the moral
applying or modifying realities uncovered by standpoint, all research has consequences, as
invention. It increases practical output. historical lessons show. This means that
Hence, the term “applied” usually used in every human action, even no action, has
connection with medicine and engineering, moral consequences, irrespective of the way
for example. Transformation is the in which people choose to analyze it
modification of persons and institutions as a (religious, philosophical, etc.). All human
result of knowledge production. It is usually activities are subject to ethical scrutiny,
the intellectual impact of the humanities and since ethics is the rational reflection about
the social sciences, whose contribution moral life and its effects on humanity. The
1 During the preparation of this paper, the author received support from the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation at the University of Heidelberg, Germany
Received: March 7, 2008. In Revised form: April 7, 2008. Accepted: April 7, 2008

2. 120 LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123
two most common ethical traditions of medical experimentation and legislations
Western thought –deontology, or the theory later considered discriminatory and
of duties, and teleology, the theory of inhuman, not only in Germany but in other
consequences- have become associated in countries as well. At the time of the
the discourse of current bioethics, which can Republic of Weimar, when Jahr writes,
be conceived of as social process, Julius Moses had been able to pass
disciplinary matrix or procedure for legislation on proper human experimentation
reaching conclusions, and academic product. (1931) that some doctors during the Nazi
regime did not comply with, as demonstrated
by the Nuremberg trial of doctors and its
BIOETHICS: THE WORD AND ITS MEANING impact on research practice (Weizsäcker,
1947; Eckart, 2008).
The first documented use of the word This is not the place to trace the origins
bioethics dates back to 1927, when Fritz and evolution of Jahr’s concept of bioethics
Jahr, a protestant pastor and theologian and the developments it accompanied or
from Halle, gave the title “Bio-Ethik: Eine anticipated at a time characterized by a
Umschau über die ethischen Beziehungen complex mixture of nationalist sentiments,
des Menschen zu Tier und Pflanze” to an heroic nihilism, and political turmoil.
article published in the journal Kosmos. Suffice only to say that its relevance for
(Jahr, 1927). biological research employing animals is
The main idea behind Jahr’s article was still open for discussion.
to anticipate what he later called “the In the decade of the seventies of the XXth
bioethical imperative” (Jahr, 1934). century Van Rensselaer Potter also used the
Paraphrasing Immanuel Kant with the term meaning a wide consideration of
categorical imperative, Jahr suggested that solidarity in the biosphere. He later insisted
all living beings were entitled to respect and on his proposal of a “global ethics”, a
should be treated not as means but as ends in science of survival for the human and other
themselves (Engel, 2004; Sass, 2007a, b). animal species (Potter, 1970, 1971).
Distancing himself from the teachings of During the last decades of the XXth
Hindu scholars whose viewpoints could be century the term was employed in a variety
confused with his own, Jahr addressed the of contexts. Two main streams can be
biblical Fifth commandment (prohibition to discerned: an application of ethical
kill) in its implications for the welfare of reasoning to medicine and the health
animals and plants and examining, mostly sciences and a general ethical standpoint for
from a theological point of view, what can the analysis of science and technology.
be considered a “humane” treatment of Initiatives linking the humanities and the
living beings. In his1934 paper, he asserts natural sciences and the coalescence of
that the bioethical imperative is self evident “cultures” have been in the Zeitgeist of the
in relation to animals, in the sense that it XXth century (Lolas, 1998, 2002)
appeals to conscience not to torture or Different meanings of the word
otherwise inflict damage on animals “bioethics” make it difficult to formulate a
(referring mostly to mammals) but that definite set of principles constituting a
plants should be accorded similar treatment. consolidated discipline. Resistance to its
And concludes “Als Umschreibung des use has been observed in some European
fünften Gebotes ergigt sich der bio-ethische countries. In the developing world, some
Imperativ: “Achte jades Lebewesen have used the term with political intention
grundsätzlich als einen Selbstzweck und to question developments in industrialized
behandle es nach Möglichkeit als countries. Resource-poor settings have
solchen!”(Jahr, 1934). accepted bioethical concepts inspired by
It should be recalled that the Zeitgeist of European and North American institutions.
the first decades of the XXth century Currently, bioethics is an umbrella term
produced in Europe a curious fusion between covering different attempts to humanize the
laws and regulations placing limits on scientific enterprise, the practice of the

3. LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123 121
health professions, and the respect for bioethics practiced to-day is principialism.
human rights in economics, politics, and The most widespread form of reasoning is
social research based on so-called intermediate principles,
between higher order values and rules of
conduct. The principles outlined in several
VARIETIES OF BIOETHICS documents like the Belmont Report,
Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS Ethical
It is no wonder that with such diverse Guidelines and others are autonomy
origins and usages, many forms of bioethics (respect for persons), beneficence, non-
can be discerned. Topics addressed by maleficence and justice. Some authors add
bioethics have a long past but a short trustworthiness, reciprocity, solidarity,
history (Lolas 2002a). truthfulness, relevant to the pursuit of
One aspect relates to basic and applied scientific research including project
research with human and animal subjects. planning, data collection, sampling, and
Medical consequences of advances in publication (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001;
genomics, organ transplantation, stem cell CIEB, 2008).
research and biotechnology along with their The essential thrust of bioethics is the
ethical, legal, and social implications dialogical nature of decision making, based
constitute an expanding area of bioethical on deliberation. All stakeholders and
reflection. beneficiaries of research and innovation
Bioethics has also analyzed the interface should partake of the ideas, risks, benefits,
between scientific communities and lay and outcome of research. This includes
people. Politicians, legislators, entrepreneurs, sponsors, researchers, administrators, service
without formal scientific training need to be providers, research subjects and public at
informed about science and technology in large.
order to make informed decisions on resource One implication of bioethics for the
allocation, public policy and regulatory conduct of research is the need to share
practices. Cases contributing to the visibility information, decision, and outcome beyond
of bioethics have been violations of moral the scientific community to those who may
codes disseminated through public media. use or apply scientific knowledge. A code
Without such exposure, important documents of ethics for scientists should include
such as the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration provisions for obtaining and maintaining
of Helsinki, the Belmont Report or the public trust on the self-regulation of science
CIOMS Guidelines would not have received and technology. Most of the classical
attention (Lolas, 2001) documents elaborated so far derive from
Delivery of services, priority setting in situations in which rights of persons or
national or international contexts, respect for animals were violated or not adequately
human rights and solidarity or reciprocity in respected in the name of scientific progress.
dealing with vulnerable populations or
ethnic minorities belong also to the
bioethical enterprise (Lolas et al, 2007) INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOETHICS
Considering these different domains,
bioethics is clinical, research-oriented, The dialogical nature of bioethics has
regulatory, cultural and commonsense. Its created new social institutions or reshaped
practice is influenced by religious, gender old ones. For research, research ethics
(feminist bioethics) and political committees, called Institutional (or
considerations. Independent) Review Boards in the US and
Data Safety and Monitoring Boards to
review, approve, and follow up projects.
THE PRACTICE OF BIOETHICS Experience suggests that research ethics
committees should be close to the
In many regions of the world, Latin institutions, be integrated by members
America included, the common form of without conflicts of interest related to the

4. 122 LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123
projects under evaluation and by lay people, Salud Oral-Bioética (ISSN 0718-2392) and a
lawyers, priests and other experts. series of books on research ethics, social
There exist also committees charged bioethics, and clinical ethics, all freely
with oversight of clinical practice (hospital available at the websites (Cf. PAHO BIO,
ethics committees) or associated with 2008; CIEB, 2008)
professional organizations. At the level of
states, provinces, or nations, some countries
have higher-level commissions for THE CONTRIBUTION OF FRITZ JAHR TO THE
addressing conflicts or clarifications arising BIOETHICS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
from ethical oversight or for formulating
long term and long range public policies. As a theologian and educator, Fritz Jahr did
A growing body of literature is not explicitly address scientific research with
concerned with characteristics and animals when he coined the term bioethics.
operation of these different types of Most of what has later been said, however, is
bioethical institutions (Cf. CIEB website) anticipated in his writings. Beyond the
“humane” conduct of research indicated by
the famous “three Rs” (replacement,
USES AND ABUSES OF BIOETHICS reduction, refinement) and the appropriate
treatment of animals (Russell & Burch,
Bioethics is not simply application of 1959; Cardozo et al., 2007), what is most
philosophical notions to scientific problems remarkable is his notion of the “bioethical
or a new formulation of classical imperative”. It summarizes without
professional deontology. It is a dialogic fanaticism or fundamentalism what is owed
form of deliberation considering social to animals as living beings, what can be
interests and the cultural or religious norms reasonably expected from advances in the
about what is proper, what is good and what regulation of research and what the training
is just. The institution of the committee or of investigators should consider.
the consultative group stresses the social
character of the bioethical enterprise.
Bioethics can be misused as a political tool REFERENCES
or as a means of exercising power. The
potential usefulness of bioethical BEAUCHAMP T L & CHILDRESS J F (2001) Principles
of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University
deliberation can be downgraded to Press, 5 th ed. (First edition 1979)
antiscientific discourses and superficial CARDOZO, C, MRAD A, MARTÍNEZ C, RODRÍGUEZ
admonitions against “ethical imperialism”. E, LOLAS F, editors (2007) El animal como sujeto
experimental. Aspectos técnicos y éticos. Santiago de
The program established by the Pan Chile: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética
American Health Organization (PAHO) in Universidad de Chile. (available at www.uchile.cl/
association with the University of Chile and bioetica)
CIEB (Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética,
the Chilean government in 1994 aims to Universidad de Chile) http: //www.uchile.cl/bioetica
exercise ethical oversight over research with ECKART W (2008) Personal communication
human subjects, evaluate health policies ENGEL E M (2004) O desafio das biotécnicas para a ética
e a antropología. Veritas 5: 205-228
from an ethical point of view, and extend JAHR F (1927) Bio-Ethik. Eine Umschau über die ethischen
research and publication to ecological ethics, Beziehungen des Menschen zu Tier und Pflanze.
food ethics and animal research (Lolas, Kosmos.Handweiser für Naturfreunde 24(1): 2-4
JAHR F (1934) Drei Studien zum 5. Gebot. Ethik. Sexual-
2004, 2006 a,b, 2007). The commitment und Gesellschaftsethik 11: 183-187
extends to ecological, biological, clinical, LOLAS F (1998) Bioética. El diálogo moral en las ciencias
and social issues and is reflected in the de la vida. Santiago de Chile: Universitaria (2ª edición
Santiago: Mediterráneo, 2001)
flagship publication‘Acta Bioethica (ISSN LOLAS F (2000) Bioética y antropología médica. Santiago
0717-5906). It also maintains a virtual de Chile: Mediterráneo
library on bioethics with the support of LOLAS F (2001) Aspectos éticos de la investigación
biomédica. Conceptos frecuentes en las normas
BIREME (http: //bioetica.bvsalud.org/htmal/ escritas. Rev Méd Chile 129: 680-684
es/home.html) , publishes the newsletters LOLAS F (2002a) Temas de bioética. Santiago de Chile:
Bioética Informa (ISSN 0717-6112) and Universitaria

5. LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123 123
LOLAS F (2002b) Bioética y Medicina. Santiago de Chile: Prioridades en salud y salud intercultural. Santiago de
Biblioteca Americana Chile: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética
LOLAS F, editor (2004) Diálogo y cooperación en salud. Diez Universidad de Chile
años de bioética en la OPS. Santiago de Chile: Unidad de PAHO BIO (Pan American Health Organization Bioethics
Bioética OPS/OMS, Organización Panamericana de la Program) http: //www.paho.org/bioetica
Salud. (available at www.paho.org/bioetica) PESSINI L, DE BARCHIFONTAINE C & LOLAS F
LOLAS F (2006a) Bioethics at the Pan American Health (2007) Perspectivas de la bioética en Iberoamérica. São
Organization: origins, developments, and challenges. Paulo & Santiago de Chile: São Camilo / OPS
Acta Bioethica 12: 113-119 POTTER V R (1970) Bioethics, the science of survival.
LOLAS F, editor (2006b) Ética e innovación tecnológica. Perspect Biol Med 14: 127-153
Santiago de Chile: Centro Interdisciplinario de POTTER V R (1971) Bioethics: Bridge to the Future.
Estudios en Bioética Universidad de Chile. (available Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall
at www.uchile.cl/bioetica) RUSSEL W M & BURCH R L (1959) The principles of
LOLAS F (2007) El animal como sujeto experimental: una Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen
bioética para la ciencia de fronteras. In Cardozo, C. et SASS H M (2007a) Fritz Jahr’s bioethischer Imperativ. 80
al. (editors) El animal como sujeto experimental. Jahre Bioethick in Deutschland von 1927 bis 2007.
Santiago de Chile: Centro Interdisciplinario de Bochum: Zentrum für medizinische Ethik,
Estudios en Bioética U. de Chile, pp. 13-19 Medizinethische Materialien Heft 175
LOLAS F & DE FREITAS DRUMOND G (2007) SASS H M (2007b) Fritz Jahr’s concept of bioethics.
Fundamentos de uma antropología bioetica. São Paulo: Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17: 279-295
Loyola / Centro Universitario São Camilo VON WEIZSÄCKER V (1947) “Euthanasie” und
LOLAS F, MARTIN D K & QUEZADA A (2007) Menschenversuche . Psyche 1: 68-102

6. 124 LOLAS ET AL. Biol Res 41, 2008, 119-123