Search

ABSTRACT A recent argument in the neuroethics literature has suggested that brain-mental-state identities (one popular expression of what is commonly known as neuroreductionism) promise to settle epistemological uncertainties about nonhuman [...]

I will discuss how animal laboratory research can be ethically analyzed using Donaldson and Kymlicka's political theory of animal rights. To accomplish this, I will not presuppose their strong animal rights framework. Donaldson and Kymlicka's approach revolves around some basic human-animal relationships, reflecting the relational turn in applied ethics writ large. However, they do not discuss laboratory animal research in any detail, and so an extension to that domain of animal use is in order. Donaldson and Kymlicka's emphasis on human-animal relationships is useful for reminding ourselves that in laboratories various staff or personnel can develop bonds with captive animals that make it difficult to follow certain protocols as well as create a deep and lasting negative impression. Though, when suitably modified, Donaldson and Kymlicka's political theory can apply to animal research ethics, it can only do so if we ask more from all members of our society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I will discuss how animal laboratory research can be ethically analyzed using Donaldson and Kymlicka's political theory of animal rights. To accomplish this, I will not presuppose their strong animal rights framework. Donaldson and Kymlicka's approach revolves around some basic human-animal relationships, reflecting the relational turn in applied ethics writ large. However, they do not discuss laboratory animal research in any detail, and so an extension to that domain of animal use is in order. Donaldson and Kymlicka's emphasis on human-animal relationships is useful for reminding ourselves that, in laboratories, various staff or personnel can develop bonds with captive animals that make it difficult to follow certain protocols as well as create a deep and lasting negative impression. Though, when suitably modified, Donaldson and Kymlicka's political theory can apply to animal research ethics, it can only do so if we ask more from all members of our society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though there is a burgeoning interest in applied Buddhist ethics, Buddhist animal research ethics remains an underdeveloped area. In this paper I will explore how some central Buddhist ethical considerations can usefully engage our use of other animals (henceforth, animals) in science. As the scientific use of animals is broad, I will narrow my focus to laboratory science. I will show that, though a Buddhist abolitionism would not be unmotivated, it is possible to reject it. While doing so, it will be important to resist emphasizing elements of Buddhist thought that merely provide reasons to adopt the dominant ethical framework governing laboratory animal research ethics, known as the 3Rs. Though I will suggest how a Buddhist animal research ethics can sometimes permit the use of animals in harmful research, it will also require ethical constraints that resonate with some of the more progressive elements in 'Western' bioethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among the “hard cases” of captive animal research is the continued use of chimpanzees in harmful experimental science. In a recent article I contend that contemporary animal welfare science and chimpanzee behavioral studies permit, if not require, a reappraisal of the moral significance of chimpanzee dissent from participation in certain experiments. In what follows, I outline my earlier argument, provide a brief survey of some central concepts in pediatric research ethics, and use these to enrich an understanding of chimpanzee dissent useful for research ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]