Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:42:51.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Should the Belmont Report Be Extended to Animal Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2019

BERNARDO AGUILERA  and
DAVID WENDLER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special Section: Open Forum
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 58 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: Thanks to David DeGrazia and Will Schupmann for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Source of funding: This work was funded by the Intramural Research Program at the NIH Clinical Center.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are the authors’ own. They do not represent the position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, the US Public Health Service, or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

References

Notes

1. Ferdowsian, H, Johnson, SM, Johnson, J, Fenton, A, Shriver, A, Gluck, J. A Belmont Report for animals? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29(1):19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Throughout this paper, we use ‘animals’ to denote non-human animal species.

2. Russell, WMS, Burch, RL. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . London: Methuen; 1959.Google Scholar Replacement refers to methods that avoid or replace the use of at least some animals in an area where those animals would otherwise have been used. Reduction refers to any strategy that will result in fewer animals being used. Refinement refers to the modification of procedures to minimize pain and distress.

3. See LaFollette, H. Animal experimentation in biomedical research. In: Beauchamp, TL, Frey, RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011:797–825.Google Scholar

4. Beauchamp, TL. The Belmont Report. In: Emanuel, E, Grady, C, Crouch, RA, Lie, R, Miller, FG, Wendler, D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:149–55, at 152.Google Scholar

5. Georgetown University. The Archival Collection of the National Commission of the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Box #4, Meeting #15. February, 1976:13–6, at 6.

6. The authors also use the term “impaired,” which denotes the same idea of something that is unable to function according to a relevant standard.

7. Hereafter, we refer to “experiential welfare interests” just as “interests.”

8. DeGrazia, D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1996, at 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Some animals may experience considerable harms as a consequence of being captive. Great apes and dolphins, for example, may have the cognitive sophistication to have some of their desires frustrated by otherwise comfortable captivity.

10. Seth, AK, Baars, BJ, Edelman, DB. Criteria for consciousness in humans and other mammals. Consciousness and Cognition 2005;14:119–39. See alsoCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Boly, M, Seth, A, Wilke, M, Ingmundson, P, Baars, B, Laureys, S, Edelman, DB, Tsuchiya, N. Consciousness in humans and non-human animals: Recent advances and future directions. Frontiers in psychology 2013;4:625; andCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Panksepp, J, Lane, RD, Solms, M, Smith, R. Reconciling cognitive and affective neuroscience perspectives on the brain basis of emotional experience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2017;76:187–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Regan, T. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2004.Google Scholar

12. Beauchamp, TL. Rights theory and animal rights. In: Beauchamp, TL, Frey, RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011:198–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Cavalieri, P. The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar

14. Cochrane, A. Animal rights and animal experiments: An interest-based approach. Res Publica 2007;13:293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar