David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):145-158 (1988)
According to some proponents and critics of research using animals, the greatest hope for improved conditions for laboratory animals is to be found in the system of self-regulation called for by recent legislation and the NIH's revised policy. This article explores advantages and disadvantages of relying on "Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees" to subject research proposals to ethical scrutiny. Among the advantages discussed are: institutional dialogue concerning the ethics of research; inclusion of perspectives of nonscientists in such dialogues; and the possibility of improved research proposals. Despite these advantages, I argue that serious problems with the committee system may limit the degree to which conditions for animals are actually improved. Disadvantages discussed include: limitations in the scope of the review process, and built-in bias in favor of certain philosophical stances in the composition of the committees. Keywords: laboratory animals, ethics review committees, self-regulation, NIH policy, Animal Welfare Act CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Wendell Stephenson (1993). Deficiencies in the National Institute of Health's Guidelines for the Care and Protection of Laboratory Animals. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (4):375-388.
Czesław Radzikowski (2006). Protection of Animal Research Subjects. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):103-110.
James Parker (1994). The Protection of Laboratory Animals: A Response to Stephenson. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (4):389-394.
Rebecca Dresser (1988). Standards for Animal Research: Looking at the Middle. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):123-143.
Mark Rice (2011). The Institutional Review Board is an Impediment to Human Research: The Result is More Animal-Based Research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 6 (1):12-.
Tim Allen & Michael D. Kreger (eds.) (2000). Information Resources for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees: [1985-1999]. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Agricultural Library, Animal Welfare Information Center.
F. Barbara Orlans (1997). Ethical Decision Making About Animal Experiments. Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):163 – 171.
Farol N. Tomson (1989). Approving the Use of Animals in Medical Education. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 10 (1).
John P. Gluck & F. Barbara Orlans (1997). Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees: A Flawed Paradigm or Work in Progress? Ethics and Behavior 7 (4):329 – 336.
Nicholas H. Steneck (1997). Role of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee in Monitoring Research. Ethics and Behavior 7 (2):173 – 184.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-19
Total downloads5 ( #230,794 of 1,102,629 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #62,325 of 1,102,629 )
How can I increase my downloads?