The Numbers of Animals Used in Mexico for Scientific and Educational Purposes.

In Mexico, there are no official public and reliably reported data on the total number and species of non-human animals used for scientific purposes. The aim of the current study was to calculate the total numbers of animals used for scientific and educational purposes in Mexico, from January 2015 to October 2021, based on data requested from the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (INAI, in Spanish). In this period, authorised laboratory animal facilities reported the use of 5,437,263 animals for scientific and educational purposes. However, these data should be viewed with caution, since there is no official register of all Mexican institutions that use animals for these purposes. The use of various species of different taxonomic groups was reported, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. The main scientific purposes of this animal use were: technological development; innovation; laboratory testing; production of biologicals; quality control; diagnostic purposes; basic and applied research; and education. A robust system for the licensing and approval of animal use, as well as a means to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations, are both urgently required. In addition, in order to regulate animal use, monitor animal care and protect their welfare, the creation of a publicly accessible national database that records the number and species of the animals used is imperative.

¿Sienten los animales? / Do animals feel?

Resumen: La visión antropocéntrica del ser humano ha llevado a la explotación de animales para satisfacer sus necesidades, tanto primarias (como la alimentación) como secundarias (como el entretenimiento), sin preocuparse por su sufrimiento o bienestar. Sin embargo, las teorías de la evolución de Lamarck y Darwin borraron la dicotomía humano-animal y colocaron al primero como una especie más dentro de toda la diversidad biológica. Hans Jonas afirmó que las diferencias entre los humanos y los otros animales estaban en el grado de complejidad y no en las capacidades, contribuyendo a la idea de una continuidad biológica desde un origen común. La similitud anatomofisiológica, la presencia de mediadores químicos de dolor, los cambios bioquímicos y fisiológicos ante situaciones dolorosas, además de la respuesta favorable al uso de medicamentos analgésicos, demuestran que los demás animales sienten dolor y padecen sufrimiento. La Declaración de Cambridge sobre la consciencia destaca que no es necesario poseer neocórtex para ser considerado como sintiente, lo que ha llevado a analizar esta capacidad, inclusive, en muchos invertebrados. ¿Los animales sienten? Invariablemente la respuesta es sí. Es importante tener consideración de ello para evitar su sufrimiento, tal y como se propone en la teoría sensocéntrica de Peter Singer, en caso contrario, podríamos ser señalados de discriminación, que, por estar asociada a la pertenencia a una especie biológica, se denomina especismo.

Abstract: The anthropocentric view of life has led to the exploitation of animals to satisfy the human needs, primary (such as food) and secondary (such as entertainment), without regard for their suffering or well-being. However, Lamarck's and Darwin's theories of evolution erased the dichotomy between human and animal, placing the former as just another species within the entire biological diversity of life. Hans Jonas asserted that the differences between humans and other animals lie in the degree of complexity and not in capabilities, contributing to the idea of biological continuity from a common origin. The anatomic and physiological similarities, the presence of chemical pain mediators, the biochemical and physiological changes in painful situations, as well as the positive response to the use of analgesic medications, demonstrate that other animals feel pain and suffer. The Cambridge Declaration on consciousness emphasizes that it is not necessary to possess a neocortex to be considered sentient, which has led to the analysis of this capacity even in many invertebrates. Do animals feel? Invariably the answer is yes. It is important to consider this to avoid their suffering, as proposed in Peter Singer's sensocentrism theory. Otherwise, we could be accused of discrimination, which, based on species membership, is called speciesism.

The new Japanese regulation on human/non-human chimeras: should we worry?

In March 2019 Japan modified its norms regarding research with human/non-human chimeras. The amended rules allow the creation of chimeras with human brain cells, and the subsequent transfer of the resulting creature to an uterus, where it can develop for more than 14 days, eventually until term. At this moment, the real consequences of this new regulation in actual research are still uncertain. However, many concerning issues have already been identified. This paper will start by addressing traditional topics involving this practice: the use of non-human animals in research, the use of human stem cells in scientific experimentation and the creation of human/non-human chimeras. Subsequently, it will analyze the new concerning issues brought on by the 2019 amendment: the use of human brain cells, the transfer of the chimera to an uterus and its development for more than 14 days, and the possibility of using animals which present close similarities with humans. In the end, the paper will conclude that in spite of the legal and ethical hazards that this new regulation might carry, it should be allowed under strict scrutiny.