Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Can Knowledge Itself Justify Harmful Research?Jeff Sebo & David Degrazia - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (2):302-307.
    In our paper, we argue for three necessary conditions for morally permissible animal research: (1) an assertion (or expectation) of sufficient net benefit, (2) a worthwhile-life condition, and (3) a no-unnecessary-harm/qualified-basic-needs condition. We argue that these conditions are necessary, without taking a position on whether they are jointly sufficient. In their excellent commentary on our paper, Matthias Eggel, Carolyn Neuhaus, and Herwig Grimm (hereafter, the authors) argue for a friendly amendment to one of our three conditions. In particular, they argue (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Animal Experimentation in Oncology and Radiobiology: Arguments for and Against Following a Critical Literature Review.William-Philippe Girard, Antony Bertrand-Grenier & Marie-Josée Drolet - 2022 - Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique 5 (2).
    Despite the international 3Rs principles that recommends replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in medical experimentation, it remains difficult to obtain funding in Canada for medical research that respects these principles, particularly with regard to replacement. This observation led our team to review the literature on the arguments for and against animal experimentation in the fields of oncology and radiobiology. This article presents a synthesis of these arguments. Using the method created by McCullough and colleagues to conduct critical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals.Angela K. Martin - 2022 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31 (1):59-72.
    The purpose of this article is to show that animal rights are not necessarily at odds with the use of animals for research. If animals hold basic moral rights similar to those of humans, then we should consequently extend the ethical requirements guiding research with humans to research with animals. The article spells out how this can be done in practice by applying the seven requirements for ethical research with humans proposed by Ezekiel Emanuel, David Wendler and Christine Grady to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Chimeras intended for human gamete production: an ethical alternative?César Palacios-González - 2017 - Reproductive Biomedicine Online 35 (4):387-390.
    Human eggs for basic, fertility and stem-cell research are in short supply. Many experiments that require their use cannot be carried out at present, and, therefore, the benefits that could emerge from these are either delayed or never materialise. This state of affairs is problematic for scientists and patients worldwide, and it is a matter that needs our attention. Recent advances in chimera research have opened the possibility of creating human/non-human animal chimeras intended for human gamete production (chimeras-IHGP). In this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Animal Sentience and the Precautionary Principle.Jonathan Birch - 2017 - Animal Sentience 2:16(1).
    In debates about animal sentience, the precautionary principle is often invoked. The idea is that when the evidence of sentience is inconclusive, we should “give the animal the benefit of the doubt” or “err on the side of caution” in formulating animal protection legislation. Yet there remains confusion as to whether it is appropriate to apply the precautionary principle in this context, and, if so, what “applying the precautionary principle” means in practice regarding the burden of proof for animal sentience. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   49 citations  
  • Threats to Benefits: Assessing Knowledge Production in Nonhuman Models of Human Neuropsychiatric Disorders.Carolyn P. Neuhaus - 2022 - Hastings Center Report 52 (S2):34-40.
    Recent reports and papers on chimeric research highlight the promise of chimeric models of human neuropsychiatric disorders to ameliorate human suffering due to autism spectrum disorders, depression, and schizophrenia. These calls, however, typically do not acknowledge, much less address, criticisms of model creation and validation, or concerns about scientific conduct more generally. The ethical justification for the use of nonhuman animals in research depends on the production of benefits to humans based on such research. But the assessment and production of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Ethical issues when modelling brain disorders innon-human primates.Carolyn P. Neuhaus - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (5):323-327.
    Non-human animal models of human diseases advance our knowledge of the genetic underpinnings of disease and lead to the development of novel therapies for humans. While mice are the most common model organisms, their usefulness is limited. Larger animals may provide more accurate and valuable disease models, but it has, until recently, been challenging to create large animal disease models. Genome editors, such as Clustered Randomised Interspersed Palindromic Repeat, meet some of these challenges and bring routine genome engineering of larger (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Reevaluating Benefits in the Moral Justification of Animal Research: A Comment on “Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research”.Matthias Eggel, Carolyn P. Neuhaus & Herwig Grimm - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):131-143.
    :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 an assertion of sufficient net benefit, a worthwhile-life condition, and a no-unnecessary-harm condition. With regards to the assertion of sufficient net benefit, the authors claim that morally responsible research offers unique benefits to humans that outweigh the costs and harms to humans and animals. In this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Animal Models in Forensic Science Research: Justified Use or Ethical Exploitation?Calvin Gerald Mole & Marise Heyns - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (4):1095-1110.
    A moral dilemma exists in biomedical research relating to the use of animal or human tissue when conducting scientific research. In human ethics, researchers need to justify why the use of humans is necessary should suitable models exist. Conversely, in animal ethics, a researcher must justify why research cannot be carried out on suitable alternatives. In the case of medical procedures or therapeutics testing, the use of animal models is often justified. However, in forensic research, the justification may be less (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Can nonhuman animals commit suicide?David M. Pena-Guzman - 2017 - Animal Sentience 1 (20).
    Many people believe that only humans have the cognitive and behavioral capacities needed for suicidal behavior, such as reflexive subjectivity, free will, intentionality, or awareness of death. Three counterarguments — based on (i) negative emotions and psychopathologies among nonhuman animals, (ii) the nature of self-destructive behavior, and (iii) the problem of model fidelity in suicide research — suggest that self-destructive and self-injurious behaviors among human and nonhuman animals vary along a continuum.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Role of Moral Values in Evaluation of the Use of Nonhuman Animals in Research.Maria Botero & Donna Desforges - 2020 - Society and Animals 30 (4):386-403.
    One requirement for the formation of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee is that they include a community member who embodies the values of the general population. This study’s aim is to investigate whether community members use moral arguments when deliberating a case of nonhuman animals used in experimentation. To this end, we tested the responses of community members in a situation similar to those confronting members of IACUC. The participants’ evaluation of the protocol was consistent with the mandates (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Gene Doping—in Animals? Ethical Issues at the Intersection of Animal Use, Gene Editing, and Sports Ethics.Carolyn P. Neuhaus & Brendan Parent - 2019 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (1):26-39.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation