Experimentation on humans and nonhumans

Pluhar, Evelyn B.

doi:10.1007/s11017-006-9009-6

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…"why animals matter" (Donnelley, 1999;Gluck & Bell, 2003;Goodman, 2006); studies of animal cognition (Cunningham & Janson, 2007;Watanabe & Huber, 2006); studies of pain in man, vertebrate animals (Keefe, Fillingim, & Williams, 1991), and invertebrate animals (Smith, 1991); and philosophical analyses of the moral status of animals (Magnotti, 2006;Man's Mirror: History of Animal Rights, 1991;McCarthy, 1999;Pluhar, 2006;Rollin, 2007aRollin, , 2007bRussow, 1999;Sideris, McCarthy, & Smith, 1999).…”

Section: Animal Welfare Versus Animal Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Ethics I: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)—Historical and Contemporary Issues Pertaining to Human and Animal Experimentation

Horner

Minifie

2011

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Animal Welfare Versus Animal Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Ethics I: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)—Historical and Contemporary Issues Pertaining to Human and Animal Experimentation

Horner

Minifie

2011

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(3) Ethicists remain divided on the moral status of animals and animal research (e.g., Cohen 1986;Diamond 2004;Donovan 1996;Frey 2005;Pluhar 2006;Regan 2005;Steiner 2007). Traits or properties, favoured in dominant normative ethical theories (e.g., autonomy, empathy, happiness, pain, pleasure, selfreflection, suffering), remain difficult to apply to animals (Allen 2006;Allen and Bekoff 2007).…”

Section: Situating Considerations and A Cautionary Notementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second and third questions, though representative of how some animal advocates write about the issue (see Wise 2004or Pluhar 2006, remains politically offensive to many of those advocating change in animal research. For example, even if mass killing of rodents can be morally problematic, it is not genocidal (or relevantly similar to acts of genocide in human history).…”

Section: Situating Considerations and A Cautionary Notementioning

confidence: 99%

On the need to redress an inadequacy in animal welfare science: toward an internally coherent framework

Fenton

2011

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The time is ripe for a greater interrogation of assumptions and commitments underlying an emerging common ground on the ethics of animal research as well on the 3 R (replacement, refinement, reduction) approach that parallels, and perhaps even further shapes, it. Recurring pressures to re-evaluate the moral status of some animals in research comes as much from within the relevant sciences as without. It seems incredible, in the light of what we now know of such animals as chimpanzees, to deny that these animals are properly accorded high moral status. Barring the requirement that they be human, it is difficult to see what more animals such as chimpanzees would have to possess to acquire it. If the grounds for ascribing high moral status are to be non-arbitrary and responsive to our best knowledge of those individuals who possess the relevant features, we should expect that a sound ethical experimental science will periodically reassess the moral status of their research subjects as the relevant knowledge demands. We already can observe this reassessment as scientists committed to humane experimental science incorporate discoveries of enrichment tools and techniques into their housing and use of captive research animals. No less should this reassessment include a critical reflection on the possible elevation of moral status of certain research animals in light of what is discovered regarding their morally significant properties, characteristics or capacities, or so I will argue. To do anything short of this threatens the social and moral legitimacy of animal research.

show abstract

“…Keywords: Clinical trial; Drug discoveries; Drug testing; Preclinical animals morally [20,21]. This concerns to the reduced protection or care that an animal would receive and also the lack of certain characteristics that animals lack, appeals to their application for human requirements [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preclinical Research: A Rise or Dawn

Manjunath¹

2018

PPIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionComplex processes are involved in developing a new drug along with its time and costs consumption. Prior to launching, it requires variety of evidences to show its potential activity [1]. Key step in drug discovery is considered to be the target discovery which ranges from molecular entities to biological phenomenon [2]. As there are urges in translating scientific discoveries into practical importance, preclinical studies using animal models play an important role in evaluating the efficacy and safety under clinical scenario [3]. After enormous debates, it is concluded that the benefits of animal research is worth to manage public health and medical research [4]. Subsequently, animal studies are justifiable if done in a way to minimize pain in animal models and wherever applicable alternative methods are explored and avoiding unnecessary cruel treatment to animals [5]. However, various reports have enforced on the failures of trails that has never capitalized after thorough observation of safety and efficacy in animal models which mainly portraits the requirement of robustness in preclinical studies [6][7][8][9][10]. For instance, reports say that, almost 95% of drugs that enter clinical trials related to stroke or septic shock do not get launched in the market though enormous expenditures have been dealt with the basic studies and drug discoveries [11] and similarly, the average success rate in clinical cancer trials is less than 8% after preclinical estimation [10].Still it is recommended to circumvent preclinical studies because of the scientific, practical and ethical reasons, to conduct studies in humans [6], and thus prior to this attempt, preclinical drug combination studies in vitro and/or in animals has to be carried out to obtain the base for studies in human [12]. Though the debate over use of the animals in medical experiments has a long and unpleasant history, eminent researches along with Nobel Prize winners have signed a declaration provided by the Research Defense Society has made claim that experiments on animals have made important contribution to advances in medicine and surgery [13]. Research focused on pain research has shown enormous rate of failures and increased costs of drug development this is because of phenotypic differences and complexity in behavioral alterations along with the changes in daily activities and psychological disturbances [14,15]. Moreover, the test and models of nociception has been questioned in the aspect of appropriateness between tests, models and procedures [16]. Thus in order to develop robustness in pain management and to effectively gather required evidences, it is better to evaluate pain states in higher order preclinical species where we can predict whether biological mechanisms and specific compounds have relevance for clinical pain better than rodent species. The pain models in non-rodent species may enhance the speed, and in addition reduce costs along with the increased probable results for a successful analgesic development [17]. Hiccups in...

show abstract

Experimentation on humans and nonhumans

Cited by 12 publications

References 16 publications

Research Ethics I: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)—Historical and Contemporary Issues Pertaining to Human and Animal Experimentation

Research Ethics I: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)—Historical and Contemporary Issues Pertaining to Human and Animal Experimentation

On the need to redress an inadequacy in animal welfare science: toward an internally coherent framework

Preclinical Research: A Rise or Dawn

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About