Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):549-565 (2016)

Authors
Howard Curzer
Texas Tech University
Abstract
The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee is entrusted with assessing the ethics of proposed projects prior to approval of animal research. The role of the IACUC is detailed in legislation and binding rules, which are in turn inspired by the Three Rs: the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. However, these principles are poorly defined. Although this provides the IACUC leeway in assessing a proposed project, it also affords little guidance. Our goal is to provide procedural and philosophical clarity to the IACUC without mandating a particular outcome. To do this, we analyze the underlying logic of the Three Rs and conclude that the Three Rs accord animals moral standing, though not necessarily “rights” in the philosophical sense. We suggest that the Rs are hierarchical, such that Replacement, which can totally eliminate harm, should be considered prior to Reduction, which decreases the number of animals harmed, with Refinement being considered last. We also identify the need for a hitherto implicit fourth R: Reject, which allows the IACUC to refuse permission for a project which does not promise sufficient benefit to offset the pain and distress likely to be caused by the proposed research
Keywords Ecology  Policy  Research ethics  Philosophy  Wildlife science
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9659-8
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,308
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

On Virtue Ethics.Rosalind Hursthouse - 1999 - Oxford University Press.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
Practical Ethics.Peter Singer - 1979 - Cambridge University Press.
Animal Ethics in Context.Clare Palmer - 2010 - Columbia University Press.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Environmental Research Ethics.Howard J. Curzer, Mark Wallace & Gad Perry - 2013 - Environmental Ethics 35 (1):95-114.
Why Animal Ethics Committees Don't Work.Denise Russell - 2012 - Between the Species 15 (1).
The Ethical Judgment of Animal Research.Shelley L. Gavin & Harold A. Herzog - 1992 - Ethics and Behavior 2 (4):263 – 286.
Protection of Animal Research Subjects.Czesław Radzikowski - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):103-110.
Standards for Animal Research: Looking at the Middle.Rebecca Dresser - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):123-143.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-06-01

Total views
50 ( #184,976 of 2,325,999 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #51,289 of 2,325,999 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes