Current ethical issues in animal research

2012 ◽  
pp. 18-22
Author(s):  
Dominic Wells
1992 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-94
Author(s):  
Linda Compton ◽  
Cathy Taylor

ILAR Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam J Shriver ◽  
Tyler M John

Abstract Growing awareness of the ethical implications of neuroscience in the early years of the 21st century led to the emergence of the new academic field of “neuroethics,” which studies the ethical implications of developments in the neurosciences. However, despite the acceleration and evolution of neuroscience research on nonhuman animals, the unique ethical issues connected with neuroscience research involving nonhuman animals remain underdiscussed. This is a significant oversight given the central place of animal models in neuroscience. To respond to these concerns, the Center for Neuroscience and Society and the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society at the University of Pennsylvania hosted a workshop on the “Neuroethics of Animal Research” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At the workshop, expert speakers and attendees discussed ethical issues arising from neuroscience research involving nonhuman animals, including the use of animal models in the study of pain and psychiatric conditions, animal brain-machine interfaces, animal–animal chimeras, cerebral organoids, and the relevance of neuroscience to debates about personhood. This paper highlights important emerging ethical issues based on the discussions at the workshop. This paper includes recommendations for research in the United States from the authors based on the discussions at the workshop, loosely following the format of the 2 Gray Matters reports on neuroethics published by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.


ILAR Journal ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. C. T. Nisbet ◽  
E. Paul

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
HOPE FERDOWSIAN ◽  
L. SYD M JOHNSON ◽  
JANE JOHNSON ◽  
ANDREW FENTON ◽  
ADAM SHRIVER ◽  
...  

Abstract:Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.


ILAR Journal ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.-M. Russow ◽  
P. Theran

Author(s):  
David DeGrazia ◽  
Franklin G Miller

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated massive investment in biomedical research with the aims of understanding the disease and developing effective vaccine and therapeutic interventions. What role should animal research play in this scientific endeavor? Both the urgency to evaluate candidate interventions for human use and growing societal concern about ethical treatment of (nonhuman) animals put into question the justifiability of animal research as a precursor to clinical trials. Yet forgoing animal research in the rush to undertake human testing might expose human research participants to unacceptable risks. In this article, we apply a recently developed framework of principles for animal research ethics in exploring ethical questions raised by a SARS-CoV-2 infection challenge experiment involving rhesus macaques, which evaluated the protective efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine that was recently approved for emergency use. Our aim is to illuminate the ethical issues while introducing, and illustrating the use of, the framework.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Zemanova

Research on animals is one of the most controversial ethical issues in our society. It is imperative that animal welfare is being considered and the harm and distress to animals used in research is minimized. This could be achieved through implementation of the so-called 3Rs principles for animal research, which are now implemented in many legislations worldwide. These principles serve as a basis for research without the use of animals (Replacement), with as few animals as possible (Reduction), and in which the animal’s welfare is as good as possible (Refinement). While there has been a lot of focus on implementation of these principles, only a few studies have documented the knowledge and adoption of the 3Rs among researchers. One field that has been particularly neglected is ecological research, which can involve many practices that affect animal welfare. Moreover, the knowledge, experience, and attitudes about animal use in ecological research and education has never been examined before. In order to close this gap, I conducted a survey among European ecologists. Responses from 107 respondents from 23 countries revealed that lethal and invasive research methods are prevalent, and that more than half of the respondents have never heard of the 3Rs principles for animal research. Major concerns are also the lack of calculation of the minimum sample size and widespread of dissection classes as part of education. Additionally, most respondents experienced ethical doubts about their research, and did not receive any training in animal welfare or ethics. These findings revealed that it is necessary to implement rigorous standards for ecological research and enforce the implementation of the 3Rs principles. Furthermore, the evaluation of current educational practices in ecology is urgently needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document