BMC Medical Ethics 17 (1):1-12 (2016)
AbstractBackgroundTo determine whether the public and scientists consider common arguments in support of animal research convincing.MethodsAfter validation, the survey was sent to samples of public, Amazon Mechanical Turk, a Canadian city festival and children’s hospital), medical students, and scientists. We presented questions about common arguments to justify the moral permissibility of AR. Responses were compared using Chi-square with Bonferonni correction.ResultsThere were 1220 public [SSI, n = 586; AMT, n = 439; Festival, n = 195; Hospital n = 107], 194/331 medical student, and 19/319 scientist [too few to report] responses. Most public respondents were <45 years, had some College/University education, and had never done AR. Most public and medical student respondents considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals are not sentient, or are property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [‘argument from species overlap’], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the ‘kind’ ‘sentient-animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’?]. Medical students were more supportive of AR at the end of the survey.ConclusionsResponses suggest that support for AR may not be based on cogent philosophical rationales, and more open debate is warranted.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement.Peter Singer - 2009 - Ecco Book/Harper Perennial.
The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.Carl Cohen - 1986 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press. pp. 206.
Are Animal Models Predictive for Humans?Niall Shanks, Ray Greek & Jean Greek - 2009 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 4:2.
Contractarianism and Animal Rights.Mark Rowlands - 1997 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 14 (3):235–247.
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.Aysha Akhtar - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (4):407-419.
Citations of this work
Role of Moral Values in Evaluation of the Use of Nonhuman Animals in Research.Maria Botero & Donna Desforges - 2020 - Society and Animals 30 (4):386-403.
Similar books and articles
Expectations for Methodology and Translation of Animal Research: A Survey of Health Care Workers.Ari R. Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton & Nathan Nobis - 2015 - BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):29.
The Ethics of Animal Research: A Survey of Pediatric Health Care Workers.Ari R. Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton & Nathan Nobis - 2014 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 9:20.
Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Animal Research.Jennifer J. Eldridge & John P. Gluck - 1996 - Ethics and Behavior 6 (3):239 – 256.
Is It Acceptable to Use Animals to Model Obese Humans?: A Critical Discussion of Two Arguments Against the Use of Animals in Obesity Research.Thomas Bøker Lund, Thorkild I. A. Sørensen, I. Anna S. Olsson, Axel Kornerup Hansen & Peter Sandøe - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (5):320-324.
Raising the Bar in the Justification of Animal Research.Elisa Galgut - 2015 - Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (1):5-19,.
Confronting Ethical Permissibility in Animal Research: Rejecting a Common Assumption and Extending a Principle of Justice.Chong Un Choe Smith - 2014 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (2):175-185.
Ethics Education in Science and Engineering: The Case of Animal Research. [REVIEW]Dr Andrew N. Rowan - 1995 - Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (2):181-184.
Ethics Committees, Principles and Consequences.M. Hayry - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (2):81-85.
Standards for Animal Research: Looking at the Middle.Rebecca Dresser - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):123-143.
Rethinking the Ethics of Research Involving Nonhuman Animals: Introduction.Tom L. Beauchamp, Hope R. Ferdowsian & John P. Gluck - 2014 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (2):91-96.
Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness.Kelly Oliver - 2010 - Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Justifying a Presumption of Restraint in Animal Biotechnology Research.Autumn Fiester - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (6):36 – 44.
The Foundations of Attitudes About Animal Research.Donald A. Saucier & Mary E. Cain - 2006 - Ethics and Behavior 16 (2):117 – 133.
What Does the British Public Think About Human-Animal Hybrid Embryos?D. A. Jones - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):168-170.