A compassionate autonomy alternative to speciesism

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 2014

In the relatively short time since 2006-when Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics published an issue on moral issues relevant to the use of nonhuman animals in research [1]-significant changes have occurred for nonhuman animals in many quarters. Public sentiment, new policy initiatives, and scientific studies of nonhuman animals' capacities have all influenced the ways in which nonhuman animals are perceived and treated in research. Today, a large body of information is available for use in decision making about the acceptability of using nonhuman animals in research. The articles in this issue assess how moral argument and empirical studies stand to guide animal research policies and practices in future years. Many in bioethics have come to regard issues of animal research as a subfield of research ethics, bringing it closer to human research ethics. Animal ethics, like public health ethics, has struggled for recognition in bioethics. As the contributions to this issue show, some in bioethics who initially focused on human research ethics have now devoted significant time to animal research ethics, and some who started

The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 2011

Opposition to the use of animals in biomedical research rests on diverse scientific and ethical arguments. Here I offer a response to key objections and argue that the responsible use of animals in biomedical research with the goal of advancing medical knowledge, science and human health, is scientifically and morally justified. My views are unlikely to be shared uniformly across the scientific community. Thus, I hope this personal perspective persuades other scientists, public health officials, scientific organizations and our academic leadership to join the debate and invites opponents of animal research to create an atmosphere where civil discourse can take place, free of threats and intimidation. The public deserves an open and honest debate on this important topic.

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2013

Journal of Moral Theology, 2014

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 2006

Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals' lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is true. Without explicit justification, it is not clear why or whether this should be the case. Ethics regulations guiding human subject research include principles such as respect for persons-and related duties-that are required as a matter of justice while regulations guiding animal subject research attend only to highly circumscribed considerations of welfare. Further, the regulations guiding research on animals discount any consideration of animal welfare relative to comparable human welfare. This paper explores two of the most promising justifications for these differences between the two sets of regulations. The first potential justification points to lesser moral status for animals on the basis of their lesser capacities. The second potential justification relies on a claim about the permissibility of moral partiality as found in common morality. While neither potential justification is sufficient to justify the regulatory difference as it stands, there is possible common ground between supporters of some regulatory difference and those rejecting the current difference.

The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy, 2012

In the long history of moral theory, non-human animals—hereafter, just animals—have often been neglected entirely or have been relegated to some secondary status. Since its emergence in the early 19th century, utilitarianism has made a difference in that respect by focusing upon happiness or well-being (and their contraries) rather than upon the beings who suffer or enjoy. Inevitably, that has meant that human relations to and use of other animals have appeared in a different light. Some cases have seemed easy: once admit that the interests of animals matter and there can be little hesitation in condemning their cruel treatment. Among the more difficult cases has been the bearing of utilitarianism upon the use of animals in various kinds of research where, though the animals might suffer, there were believed to be prospects of great human benefit and where no cruel or malicious motives need be involved. What I shall provide in the current paper is an extended discussion of the bearing of utilitarianism upon practices of animal research. Since such practices have attracted both utilitarian criticism and defense, this will require the examination of arguments on both sides, including consideration of the human benefits, the animal costs, and the ways in which the one can be weighed against the other.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 2022

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 animal research. These requirements are i) social value, ii) scientific validity, iii) independent review, iv) fair subject selection, v) favorable risk-benefit ratio, vi) informed consent, and vii) respect for research subjects. In practice, this means that we must reform the practice of animal research to make it more similar to research with humans, rather than completely abolish the former. Indeed, if we banned animal research altogether, then we would also deprive animals of its potential benefits-which would be ethically problematic.

Relations, 2013

The use of animals in laboratories is a controversial issue involving much dispute between the researchers who support animal experimentation and those who are in favor of its abolishment. The former, whilst criticizing the emotional behavior of those who oppose it, consider experimentation on animals unavoidable, whereas the latter criticize animal experiments and the underlying logic as erroneous considering its methods unscientific and therefore misleading. This paper stems from the idea of researching into possible ways of developing or improving new alternative strategies for animal experimentation by finding adequate solutions beyond dogmatic opposition in the context of the current European Directive 2010/63/EU (the main reference point for the experimentation on animals) for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. More specifically the paper aims at offering the readers a working proposal, while duly respecting the protocol for the post mortem donation of their own corpses for the purposes of study and research. As we believe diseases need to be cured and not only treated, we are advocating post mortem studies on organs which could lead to the discovery of the causes of unknown etiological pathologies. The commitment to the implementation of constantly new and innovative alternatives concerning animal experimentation is right and proper, especially in the light of the 'enormous debt' which the Italian National Bioethics Committee stated that mankind has towards nonhuman living beings.

Journal of Animal Ethics, 2018

Animals are used in biomedical research to study disease, develop new medicines, and test them for safety. As the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics’ review Normalising the Unthinkable acknowledges, many great strides in medicine have involved animals. However, their contribution has not always been positive. Decades of attempts to develop treatments for diseases including asthma, cancer, stroke, and Alzheimer’s using animals have failed to translate to humans, leaving patients with inadequate treatments or without treatments at all. As Normalising the Unthinkable points out, we have to confront the fact that animal research may have hindered progress, at least in some respects. For example, animal tests have been shown to have very little ability to predict the safety of medicines for human patients. A dramatic illustration of this failing is TGN1412, which almost killed 6 clinical trial volunteers in 2006, after crab-eating macaques showed the drug to be safe, even at massive doses. ...

EMBO reports, 2007