Search

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]

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. [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]

Simple Summary: In this paper we argue that the current oversight system for animal-based science in Canada needs major reform to keep pace with progressive legislation in other nations and to prioritize the replacement of animals as best scientific practice. Canada's current non-legislated oversight system for animal-based science not only fails to adequately incentivize the replacement of sentient animals as best scientific practice in any meaningful way, but also fails to adequately protect those animals bred, harmed, and killed in the name of science. In this paper, we outline the various shortcomings of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and we highlight the need for Canada to move towards national legislation akin to that seen in other jurisdictions like the U.K. We conclude that while legislation alone cannot ensure the replacement of sentient animals in science, it appears to be a precondition for significant progress in animal protection and for the development and adoption of non-animal methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]