Why IACUCs Need Ethicists

ILAR Journal 60 (3):324–333 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Some animal research is arguably morally wrong, and some animal research is morally bad but could be improved. Who is most likely to be able to identify wrong or bad animal research and advocate for improvements? I argue that philosophical ethicists have the expertise that makes them the likely best candidates for these tasks. I review the skills, knowledge and perspectives that philosophical ethicists tend to have which makes them ethical experts. I argue that, insofar as IACUCs are expected to ensure that research is ethical, they must have philosophical ethicists as members.



External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Indispensability of Holistic Species Experts for Ethical Animal Research.Julia D. Gibson - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (6):1-18.
The Moderate Veiw on Animal Ethics.Charles K. Fink - 1991 - Between the Species: A Journal of Ethics 7 (4):194-200.
The Utility of Basic Animal Research.Larry Carbone - 2012 - Hastings Center Report 42 (s1):12-15.
Painism: Some Moral Rules for the Civilized Experimenter.Richard D. Ryder - 1999 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8 (1):35-42.
Ethics and the science of animal minds.Colin Allen - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):375-394.
Raising the Bar in the Justification of Animal Research.Elisa Galgut - 2015 - Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (1):5-19,.
Why Kant Animals Have Rights?Alex Howe - 2019 - Journal of Animal Ethics 9 (2):137-142.


Added to PP

394 (#54,927)

6 months
108 (#50,781)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nathan Nobis
Morehouse College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references