Reevaluating Benefits in the Moral Justification of Animal Research: A Comment on “Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research”

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):131-143 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

:In a recent paper in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics on the necessary conditions for morally responsible animal research David DeGrazia and Jeff Sebo claim that the key requirements for morally responsible animal research are an assertion of sufficient net benefit, a worthwhile-life condition, and a no-unnecessary-harm condition. With regards to the assertion of sufficient net benefit, the authors claim that morally responsible research offers unique benefits to humans that outweigh the costs and harms to humans and animals. In this commentary we will raise epistemic, practical, and ethical challenges to DeGrazia and Sebo’s emphasis on benefits in the prospective assessment of research studies involving animals. We do not disagree with DeGrazia and Sebo that, at the theoretical level, the benefits of research justify our using animals. Our contribution intends to clarify, at the practical level, how we should understand benefits in the prospective assessment and moral justification of animal research. We argue that ASNB should be understood as an assessment of Expectation of Knowledge Production in the prospective assessment and justification of animal research. EKP breaks down into two further claims: that morally responsible research generates knowledge worth having and that morally responsible research is designed and executed to produce generalizable knowledge. We understand the condition called knowledge worth having as scientists’ testing a hypothesis that, whether verified or falsified, advances an important interest, and production of generalizable knowledge in terms of scientific integrity. Generalizable knowledge refers to experimental results that generalize to a larger population beyond the animals studied. Generalizable scientific knowledge is reliable, replicable, and accurately descriptive. In sum, morally responsible research will be designed and carefully executed to successfully test a hypothesis that, whether verified or falsified, advances important interests. Our formulation of EKP, crucially, does not require further showing that an experiment involving animals will produce societal benefits.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,347

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research.David Degrazia & Jeff Sebo - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (4):420-430.
Util‐izing Animals.Niall Shanks Hugh Lafollette - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (1):13-25.
Util-izing animals.Hugh Lafollette & Niall Shanks - 1995 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (1):13-25.
On justifying the exploitation of animals in research.S. F. Sapontzis - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):177-196.
Nonhuman Animals Are Morally Responsible.Asia Ferrin - 2019 - American Philosophical Quarterly 56 (2):135-154.
Raising the Bar in the Justification of Animal Research.Elisa Galgut - 2015 - Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (1):5-19,.
Does a Fish Need a Bicycle? Animals and Evolution in the Age of Biotechnology.Sarah Chan & John Harris - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (3):484-492.
A compassionate autonomy alternative to speciesism.Constance K. Perry - 2001 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (3):237-246.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-12-21

Downloads
40 (#401,088)

6 months
16 (#161,844)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

References found in this work

Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research.David Degrazia & Jeff Sebo - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (4):420-430.
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.Aysha Akhtar - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (4):407-419.

Add more references