Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T01:57:04.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Moral Standing of Animals in Medical Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Tom L. Beauchamp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Major segments of the news media, as well as many scientific journals, have produced innumerable articles and stories that polarize issues about proper protections for animals involved in research. The prevailing exposition of the issues is the following: On the one hand, animal lovers make emotional appeals to the public's attachment to animals and use clever tactics to increase the vulnerability of universities and institutions of research. On the other hand, arrogant scientists refuse to respond to public controversy, have an inherent conflict of interest in reviewing research involving animals, and are out to advance their careers and interests, callously using animals as means to that end. As a result, journalists warn NIH officials that they “can expect continuing criticism from two disparate and opposing groups—animal welfare activists, who consider NIH the fox guarding the chickens … and scientists and administrators from the research community, who regard tighter restrictions as unnecessarily burdensome.”

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 20 , Issue 1-2 , Spring Summer 1992 , pp. 7 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See, for example, Hendu, William R. and Loeb, Jerod M., “By Responding Quickly and Wisely, Universities Can Avoid the Traps Set by Animal-Rights Groups,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 30, 1990, p. B1; Gibson, W. A., “The Animal Rights War on Biomedical Research: A Call To Arms” [editorial], Journal of Dental Research 69(10): 1703–1704, Oct. 1990. Hill, Retha, “Protestors Stalk Research Over Cat Experiments,” The Washington Post, June 23, 1991, pp. C1, C6; Adler, Jerry and Hager, Mary, “Emptying the Cages: Does the Animal Kingdom Need a Bill of Rights?”, Newsweek 61 (21), pp. 59-60 (May 23, 1988); Scott Bernstein, “Animal Rights Activists Distort Issues,” Journal of the American Medical Association 261 (No. 5; Feb. 3, 1989): 784.Google Scholar
Fox, Jeffrey L., “Changes in Animal Care Policy Proposed,” Science 224 (27 April 1984): 364f.Google Scholar
“Animals, Science, and Ethics,” Hastings Center Report 20 (May/June 1990), Special Supplement, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Hastings Center Report 20 (November/December 1990), Letters, p. 43. See also White, R. J., “Animal Rights Versus Human Rights” [editorial], Surgical Neurology 30 (No. 5, Nov. 1988): 410–411.Google Scholar
See, for example, Rowan, Andrew N., Of Mice, Models, and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), Chaps. 3–4.Google Scholar
See Tooley, Michael, “Abortion and Infanticide,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (Fall 1972): 37–65; “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide.” In Feinberg, Joel, , ed., The Problem of Abortion, 2d edition (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1984), pp. 120–134; Warren, Anne Mary, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” The Monist, Vol. 57, No. 1 (January 1973).Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Chap. 17, Sect. 1. See the Bentham selection in Regan, Tom and Singer, Peter (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989), p. 26. This anthology is cited below as “Regan-Singer.”Google Scholar
See, for example, Flemming, A. H., “Animal Suffering: How it Matters,” Laboratory Animal Science 37 (Jan. 1987, Special No.): 140–144; Rowan, Andrew N., “Animal Anxiety and Animal Suffering,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20 (1988, No. 1-2): 135–142; Ryder, Richard, Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research (London: Davis-Poynter, 1975).Google Scholar
Buchanan, and Brock, , Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 197–99.Google Scholar
Buchanan, and Brock, , 261–62.Google Scholar
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988, esp. pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
For an excellent explication of Darwin's views, see Rachels, James, Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
Frey, , “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism,” Between the Species 4 (No. 3, Summer 1988): 191–201; “Autonomy and the Value of Animal Life,” Monist 70 (Jan. 1987): 50-63; “Animals, Science and Morality,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (1990): 22.Google Scholar
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 9, par. 2 (London: Millar, 1772), pp. 121–22.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man; the cited passages arc found in Beauchamp, Tom, Feinberg, Joel and Smith, James M., eds., Philosophy and the Human Condition, 2d edn. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1989), pp. 107–110.Google Scholar
Regan, , The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), Chaps. 7–9, esp. pp. 236–45; See Regan-Singer, p. 111.Google Scholar
“Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism,” p. 192.Google Scholar
Ibid. p. 196.Google Scholar
cf. Whitney, R. A. Jr. “Animal Care and Use Committees: History and Current National Policies in the United States,” Laboratory Animal Science 37 (Spec. No., Jan. 1987): 18–21.Google Scholar