Organisms Commons^™

Use Morality As Basis For Animal Treatment, Kenneth J. Shapiro

Kenneth J. Shapiro, PhD

No abstract provided.

Psychology And Its Animal Subjects, Kenneth J. Shapiro

Kenneth J. Shapiro, PhD

By way of introducing Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PsyETA) to readers of the journal, I have been asked to make some comments about the organization and, from a personal point of view, to suggest some of my own positions and views.

Rational Engagement, Emotional Response, And The Prospects For Moral Progress In Animal Use “Debates”, Nathan Nobis

Nathan M. Nobis, PhD

This chapter is designed to help people rationally engage moral issues regarding the treatment of animals, specifically in experimentation, research, product testing, and education. Little “new” philosophy is offered here, strictly speaking. New arguments are unnecessary to help make progress in how people think about these issues. What is needed are improved abilities to engage the arguments already on the table, for example, stronger skills at identifying and evaluating the existing reasons given for and against conclusions on the morality of various uses of animals. To help improve these abilities, this chapter sets forth a set of basic but powerful …

The Harmful, Nontherapeutic Use Of Animals In Research Is Morally Wrong, Nathan Nobis

Nathan M. Nobis, PhD

It is argued that using animals in research is morally wrong when the research is nontherapeutic and harmful to the animals. This article discusses methods of moral reasoning and discusses how arguments on this and other bioethical issues might be defended and critiqued. A basic method of moral argument analysis is presented and used to show that common objections to the view that “animal research is morally wrong” fail: ie, common arguments for the view that “animal research is morally permissible” are demonstrably unsound or in need of defense. It is argued that the best explanations why harmful, nontherapeutic research …

Interests And Harms In Primate Research, Nathan Nobis

Nathan M. Nobis, PhD

The article discusses the moral issues on primate research in reference to the moral defenses by Sughrue and colleagues. It states that Sughrue and colleagues have claimed to provide equal examination of the primate stroke research's ethics. It mentions that the promise to straighten out a number of ethical arguments in favor and against primate research was not fulfilled. Several moral arguments are presented in response to Sughrue and colleagues' moral defense for animal experimentation.

The Ethics Of Animal Research: A Survey Of Pediatric Health Care Workers, Ari Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton, Nathan Nobis

Nathan M. Nobis, PhD

Introduction: Pediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing. Design: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were …

The Class B Dealer: Down And Out?, Bernard Unti

Bernard Unti, PhD

The supply of dogs and cats to laboratories by Class B animal dealers has been a contentious matter for decades. The subject engenders heated debate whenever it surfaces, most recently in September 2005 when Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) proposed an amendment to the FY 2006 agriculture funding bill to withhold federal monies to research institutions that purchase animals from Class B dealers.

Resolving Animal Distress And Pain: Principles And Examples Of Good Practice In Various Fields Of Research, Alicia Karas, Matthew C. Leach, Karl A. Andrutis, Kathleen Conlee, John P. Gluck, Andrew N. Rowan, Martin L. Stephens

Andrew N. Rowan, DPhil

Pain and distress are central topics in legislation, regulations, and standards regarding the use of animals in research. However, in practice, pain has received greatly increased attention in recent years, while attention to distress has lagged far behind, especially for distress that is not induced by pain. A contributing factor is that there is less information readily available on distress, including practical information on its recognition, assessment and alleviation.

This chapter attempts to help fill that void by reversing the usual pattern and giving greater attention to distress than to pain. In addition, we also bypass the pain versus distress …

Addressing Distress And Pain In Animal Research: The Veterinary, Research, Societal, Regulatory And Ethical Contexts For Moving Forward, Kathleen Conlee, Martin Stephens, Andrew N. Rowan

Andrew N. Rowan, DPhil

While most people recognize that biomedical scientists are searching for knowledge that will improve the health of humans and animals, the image of someone deliberately causing harm to an animal in order to produce data that may lead to some future benefit has always prompted an uncomfortable reaction outside the laboratory. However, proponents of animal research have usually justified the practice by reference to greater benefits (new knowledge and medical treatments) over lesser costs (in animal suffering and death). Given that one of the costs of animal research is the suffering experienced by the animals, the goal of eliminating distress …