A Belmont Report for animals?

Hope Ferdowsian, L. Syd M. Johnson, Jane Johnson, Andrew Fenton, Adam Shriver, John Gluck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.

LanguageEnglish
Pages19-37
Number of pages19
JournalCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Volume29
Issue number1
Early online date4 Oct 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2020

Fingerprint

animal
Beneficence
Social Justice
Research
Research Subjects
Behavioral Research
obligation
respect
autonomy
justice
Vulnerable Populations
Ethics
behavioral research
Biomedical Research
Guidelines
vulnerability
criticism
abuse
lack

Bibliographical note

An erratum exists for this publication and can be found at DOI: 10.1017/S0963180119000732

Cite this

Ferdowsian, H., Johnson, L. S. M., Johnson, J., Fenton, A., Shriver, A., & Gluck, J. (2020). A Belmont Report for animals? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 29(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000732
Ferdowsian, Hope ; Johnson, L. Syd M. ; Johnson, Jane ; Fenton, Andrew ; Shriver, Adam ; Gluck, John. / A Belmont Report for animals?. In: Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2020 ; Vol. 29, No. 1. pp. 19-37.
@article{1ce85f79f43d47e485c9f27331d44f3b,
title = "A Belmont Report for animals?",
abstract = "Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.",
author = "Hope Ferdowsian and Johnson, {L. Syd M.} and Jane Johnson and Andrew Fenton and Adam Shriver and John Gluck",
note = "An erratum exists for this publication and can be found at DOI: 10.1017/S0963180119000732",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0963180119000732",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "19--37",
journal = "Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics",
issn = "0963-1801",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

Ferdowsian, H, Johnson, LSM, Johnson, J, Fenton, A, Shriver, A & Gluck, J 2020, 'A Belmont Report for animals?', Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000732

A Belmont Report for animals? / Ferdowsian, Hope; Johnson, L. Syd M.; Johnson, Jane; Fenton, Andrew; Shriver, Adam; Gluck, John.

In: Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Vol. 29, No. 1, 01.2020, p. 19-37.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Belmont Report for animals?

AU - Ferdowsian, Hope

AU - Johnson, L. Syd M.

AU - Johnson, Jane

AU - Fenton, Andrew

AU - Shriver, Adam

AU - Gluck, John

N1 - An erratum exists for this publication and can be found at DOI: 10.1017/S0963180119000732

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.

AB - Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073098918&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000732

U2 - 10.1017/S0963180119000732

DO - 10.1017/S0963180119000732

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 19

EP - 37

JO - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

T2 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

JF - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

SN - 0963-1801

IS - 1

ER -

Ferdowsian H, Johnson LSM, Johnson J, Fenton A, Shriver A, Gluck J. A Belmont Report for animals? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2020 Jan;29(1):19-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000732