Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics Vol. 31; no. 1; pp. 59 - 72
Main Author Martin, Angela K.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.01.2022
Subjects
Animal Experimentation
Animal human relations
Animal research
Animal Rights
Animal rights movement
Animal welfare
Animals
Civil rights
Ethics
Human rights
Humans
Informed Consent
Medical ethics
Morals
Principles
Research ethics
Research Subjects
animal experimentation
speciesism
animal rights
research ethics
animal research
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary: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 (1) social value, (2) scientific validity, (3) independent review, (4) fair subject selection, (5) favorable risk–benefit ratio, (6) informed consent, and (7) 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 ban animal research altogether, then we would also deprive animals of its potential benefits—which would be ethically problematic.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0963-1801
1469-2147
1469-2147
DOI:10.1017/S0963180121000499