Human and animal subjects of research: The moral significance of respect versus welfare

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):305-331 (2006)
Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals’ lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is true. Without explicit justification, it is not clear why or whether this should be the case. Ethics regulations guiding human subject research include principles such as respect for persons—and related duties—that are required as a matter of justice while regulations guiding animal subject research attend only to highly circumscribed considerations of welfare. Further, the regulations guiding research on animals discount any consideration of animal welfare relative to comparable human welfare. This paper explores two of the most promising justifications for these differences␣between the two sets of regulations. The first potential justification points to lesser moral status for animals on the basis of their lesser capacities. The second potential justification relies on a claim about the permissibility of moral partiality as␣found in common morality. While neither potential justification is sufficient to justify the regulatory difference as it stands, there is possible common ground between supporters of some regulatory difference and those rejecting the current difference.
Keywords human subjects  animals  animal subjects  ethics guidelines  moral status  autonomy  research protections  respect for persons  welfare  justice  capacities
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11017-006-9008-7
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,658
External links
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
Peter Singer (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3):229-243.
Mary Anne Warren (2009). On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), The Monist. Oxford University Press 43-61.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Bette Anton (1999). CQ Sources/Bibliography. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8 (04):348-350.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

47 ( #72,136 of 1,725,989 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

8 ( #80,670 of 1,725,989 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.