BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):29 (2015)

Authors
Nathan Nobis
Morehouse College
Abstract
Health care workers often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research ; therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans
Keywords Animal models  Animal research  Ethics  Methodology
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0024-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,464
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Are Animal Models Predictive for Humans?Niall Shanks, Ray Greek & Jean Greek - 2009 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 4:2.
Causality in Complex Systems.Andreas Wagner - 1999 - Biology and Philosophy 14 (1):83-101.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Standards for Animal Research: Looking at the Middle.Rebecca Dresser - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):123-143.
Animal Rights V Animal Research: A Modest Proposal.J. Bernstein - 1996 - Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (5):300-303.
Animal Care Ethics, ANZCCART, and Public Perceptions of Animal Use Ethics.Fred Gifford - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):249-257.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-05-07

Total views
48 ( #238,076 of 2,520,436 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,718 of 2,520,436 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes