The Indispensability of Holistic Species Experts for Ethical Animal Research

被引:0
作者
Gibson, Julia D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Antioch Univ New England, Environm Studies Dept, Keene, NH 03431 USA
关键词
Animal testing; Research ethics; IACUCs; Democratic legitimacy; Public accountability; Feminist bioethics; HARM-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FELASA WORKING GROUP; SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES; REGULATIONS; LAWS; GUIDELINES; STANDARDS; CARE; COMMUNITY;
D O I
10.1007/s10806-021-09871-2
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
Committee composition is a recurrent theme within the literature on Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). The ability of IACUCs to ensure the ethical treatment of nonhuman research subjects depends upon who makes up these committees. Non-scientists and those not affiliated with the research institution have been deemed indispensable for the democratic, objective review of protocols and, thus, for ethical treatment. IACUCs' critics and partners alike have persistently offered suggestions for how to further optimize committee composition towards these ends. This paper contributes to the ongoing conversation by advocating for the addition of holistic species experts to IACUCs, arguing that holistic species experts are as indispensable for the political and epistemic viability of protocol reviews as non-scientists and non-affiliates. Holistic species experts are defined here as members of the larger community who have extensive firsthand experience with animals living and dying under relatively ideal conditions. If we accept that non-scientists and non-affiliates are crucial for IACUCs' ethical treatment of animals, then we have every reason to embrace holistic species experts. The values, welfare expertise, and productive epistemic dissonance that these experts bring to the table would prove invaluable.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
AAALAC International, 2020, ACCR PROGR FAQS
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2015, US GOV PRINC UT CAR
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2015, PUBL HLTH SERV POL H
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1999, Animal Welfare Act
[5]   Current concepts of Harm-Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments - Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis - Part 1 [J].
Bronstad, Aurora ;
Newcomer, Christian E. ;
Decelle, Thierry ;
Everitt, Jeffrey I. ;
Guillen, Javier ;
Laber, Kathy .
LABORATORY ANIMALS, 2016, 50 :1-20
[6]  
Building inclusive communities, 2019, INCL INT IN 2019
[7]  
Carbone L., 2014, THE IACUC HDB, V3, P211
[8]  
Carbone L, 2004, What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy, P291, DOI [10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195161960.001.0001, DOI 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195161960.001.0001]
[9]  
CCAC (Council on Animal Care), 2006, CCAC POL STAT TERMS
[10]  
Commonwealth of Australia, 2013, AUSTR COD CAR US AN