Search

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]

The public purse is responsible for funding almost all autism spectrum disorders (ASD) research in Canada (as per Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR]) and for providing some of the existing services and supports for this population. In this article, we consider various reasons why Canada should be concerned to ensure a more equitable distribution of relevant public funding for ASD research than is currently the case to meet the express needs and interests of the diversity of autism stakeholders. As such, we report data to show that CIHR-supported ASD research from the period of 2000–2010 demonstrates a bias focussed on the aetiology of the condition revealing a disproportionate emphasis on only two (Biomedical and Clinical) out of the four research pillars avowed by CIHR, with a comparative lack of fiscal resources committed to Health Systems and Services and Population and Public Health research. We advance certain normative and prudential reasons for funding more Health Systems and Services and Population and Public Health ASD research in Canada. In our view, this would seem to follow from CIHR’s official mandate ‘as a flexible mechanism that will continually align health research funding with changes in the manner in which health problems and opportunities are identified, understood and addressed’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Autism, typically described as a spectrum neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impairments in verbal ability and social reciprocity as well as obsessive or repetitious behaviours, is currently thought to markedly affect more males than females. Not surprisingly, this encourages a gendered understanding of the Autism Spectrum. Simon Baron-Cohen, a prominent authority in the field of autism research, characterizes the male brain type as biased toward systemizing. In contrast, the female brain type is understood to be biased toward empathizing. Since persons with autism are characterized as hyper-systemizers and hypo-empathizers, Baron-Cohen suggests that, whether they are male or female, most possess an 'extreme male brain profile.' We argue that Baron-Cohen is misled by an unpersuasive gendering of certain capacities or aptitudes in the human population. Moreover, we suggest that this may inadvertently favour boys in diagnosing children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. If this is correct, it could also have rather serious consequences for treatment and services for girls (and women) on the Autism Spectrum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]