Ethical Review of Animal Research and the Standards of Procedural Justice: A European Perspective

被引:0
作者
Tomasz Pietrzykowski
机构
[1] University of Silesia in Katowice,Research Centre for Public Policy and Regulatory Governance
来源
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | 2021年 / 18卷
关键词
Law; Ethics; Animal welfare; Procedural justice; Animal experimentation; Research ethics; Ethical committees;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Committees established for the ethical review of research involving animals have become a widespread legal standard around the world. Despite many differences in their composition, powers, and institutional settings, they share many common problems related to the well-established standards of procedural justice in administrative practice. The paper adapts the general theory of procedural justice to the specific context of ethical review committees. From this perspective, the main concerns over the procedural aspects of the ethical evaluation of research projects are identified and examined. They include in particular the standards of the committees’ composition, impartiality, fair hearing, appeal, transparency, and benevolence. Their proper reflection in the regulatory regimes of animal ethics committees is necessary to secure the standards of fairness of the ethical review itself. This, in turn, is a condition of the moral and social legitimacy of all administrative and quasi-administrative procedures, including the committees’ operations (irrespective of whether they are legally entrusted with the task of authorizing or only evaluating research projects).
引用
收藏
页码:525 / 534
页数:9
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] Ceva E(2008)Impure procedural justice and the management of conflicts about values Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 5-22
  • [2] Hansen LA(2012)Analysis of animal research ethics committee membership at American institutions Animals 2 68-75
  • [3] Goodman JR(2012)Secrets and lies: “Selective openness” in the apparatus of animal experimentation Public Understanding of Science. 21 354-368
  • [4] Chanda A(2013)Vulnerable subjects? The case of non-human animals in experimentation Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 497-504
  • [5] Holmberg T(2016)Opening-up animal research and science-society relations? A thematic analysis of transparency discourses in the United Kingdom Public Understanding of Science 25 791-806
  • [6] Ideland M(2016)Protecting animals and enabling research in the European Union: An overview of development and implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU ILAR Journal 57 347-357
  • [7] Johnson J(2012)Ethical review of the use of animals in research: A reflection on the journey ALTEX Proceedings 1 281-288
  • [8] MacLeod D(2012)Why animal ethics committees don’t work Between the Species 15 127-145
  • [9] Hobson-West P(2007)Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees Journal of Medical Ethics 33 294-301
  • [10] Olsson A(2017)Factors influencing IACUC decision making: Who leads the discussions? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 12 209-216