Animal Ethics (See Animal Welfare; Animal Rights; Animal Research; Vegetarianism; Zoocentrism)

2021 ◽  
pp. 115-116
Author(s):  
Henk ten Have ◽  
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Animal Research

Ethics and Australian mammalogy: reflections on 15 years (1991 - 2006) on an Animal Ethics Committee

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Lunney
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
South Wales

This essay on field mammalogy and research ethics presents my reflections on 15 years as a researcher sitting on an Animal Ethics Committee in New South Wales. It outlines the community debate on animal welfare and the ethics of research on animals, how government has responded, and how wildlife researchers can move forward in this arena. Three schools are identified within the animal protection movement: ‘animal welfare’ holds that it is legitimate to use animals as a resource, so long as that use is ‘necessary’ and the animal’s suffering ‘minimised’; ‘animal liberationists’ are likely to oppose most animal research; the ‘animal rights’ position is firmly abolitionist. The instruments that regulate research involving animals are examined, in particular the New South Wales Animal Research Act 1985, the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, and Animal Ethics Committees. Examples of ethical dilemmas involving both native and non-native animals are discussed. The debate over animals in research will continue, and it is clear that far more can be gained by engaging in the debate than avoiding it. It is in researchers’ interests to publicly defend the essential role of science in conserving our native fauna, and to conduct our work within a well managed welfare framework.

Animal Research (See Animal Ethics; Animal Welfare; Animal Cloning)

2021 ◽  
pp. 117-118
Author(s):  
Henk ten Have ◽  
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Cloning

scholarly journals Ethics and animal experimentation: what is debated?

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. S99-S110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita Leal Paixão ◽  
Fermin Roland Schramm
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Animal Experimentation ◽  
Contemporary Debate ◽  
Scientific Experiments

The purpose of this article is to raise some points for an understanding of the contemporary debate over the ethics of using animals in scientific experiments. We present the various positions from scientific and moral perspectives establishing different ways of viewing animals, as well as several concepts like 'animal ethics', 'animal rights', and 'animal welfare'. The paper thus aims to analyze the importance and growth of this debate, while proposing to expand the academic approach to this theme in the field of health.

scholarly journals Moral Convictions and Meat Consumption—A Comparative Study of the Animal Ethics Orientations of Consumers of Pork in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 329
Author(s):  
Thomas B. Lund ◽  
Sigrid Denver ◽  
Jonas Nordström ◽  
Tove Christensen ◽  
Peter Sandøe
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Latent Profile Analysis ◽  
Profile Analysis ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Animal Protection

Background: The relationship between animal ethics orientations and consumer demand for meat with high standards of animal welfare, and the way this relationship plays out in different countries, is not well understood. Using pork as a case study, this comparative study aims to identify the animal ethics orientations that drive purchases of welfare meat in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. Methods: Cross-sectional questionnaire data from representative samples of approximately 1600 consumers in each country were collected. A segmentation of pork consumers (using latent profile analysis) was carried out. Results: In all three countries, two subgroups were concerned about farm animal welfare: the first subgroup was driven by animal rights values; the second subgroup by animal protection values, where the main principle was that “it is all right to use animals as long as they are treated well”. Other consumer groups are less concerned about farm animal welfare and display little or no preference for welfare pork. Conclusions: In all three countries, dual demand for welfare pork exists. The findings of this study can be used, among others, to understand the marketability of enhanced welfare animal products and the potential for market-driven animal welfare improvements.

Ethical Considerations for Common Mouse Models of Cancer (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Mohammad Kazem Aghamir Sr ◽  
Fatemeh Khatami ◽  
Mahan Asadian Sr ◽  
Rahil Mashhadi ◽  
Behta Pakseresht Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Mouse Models ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Complete Analysis ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Animal Ethics Committees ◽  
Mouse Models Of Cancer

BACKGROUND Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) are concerning possibilities for public participation in the regulation of animal research. AECs are accountable for approving and monitoring research within Accredited Animal Research Establishments (AARE) (https://www.animalethics.org.au/animal-ethics-committees). In the way of making mouse models of cancer, several new considerations should be mentioned before the study design. OBJECTIVE To consider both personnel and animal welfare decisions at each stage of making mouse models of cancer, it is essential to have comprehensive information on the animal models. METHODS Three main cancer models are including; chemically induced mouse models, genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), xenograft nude mice, and Avatar. Some genetic changes in GEMMs are passing through next generations and not only do they have pain and suffering but also, they impose some environmental changes on mice. RESULTS Several phenotypes are required regarding the target of tumor model that expressed research are typically wisely investigated, but those that have an influence on the animal's welfare but have little or no effect on the disease procedure are often less carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS Complete analysis and regulations of animal welfare can offer beneficial information for researchers. This information is similarly essential to allow members of the institutional animal care and use committee to make necessary cost: benefit ethical review of animal studies. CLINICALTRIAL Not Applicable

The Contemporary Debate in Animal Ethics

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Garner
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Virtue Ethics ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Care Ethic ◽  
Contemporary Debate ◽  
Standing Humans

This final chapter explores the range of ideas current in the contemporary animal ethics debate. Much of the chapter is devoted to documenting the critique of the animal welfare ethic, which holds that, while animals have moral standing, humans, being persons, have a superior moral status. Three different strands of this critique—based on utilitarian, rights, and contractarian approaches—are identified and explored. The final part of the chapter documents the fragmentation of the animal ethics debate in recent years. This has included a more nuanced position which seeks to decouple animal rights from abolitionism, accounts of animal ethics from virtue ethics and capabilities perspectives, and a relational turn associated with the feminist care ethic tradition and, more recently, the utilization of citizenship theory by Donaldson and Kymlicka.

Animal Rights

2015 ◽  
pp. 24-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary L. Francione ◽  
Anna E. Charlton
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Moral Value ◽  
Animal Liberation ◽  
Animal Products ◽  
The Law ◽  
Oxford Group

The term “animal rights” is used broadly and often inconsistently in discussions of animal ethics. This chapter focuses on seven topics: (1) the pre-nineteenth-century view of animals as things and the emergence of the animal welfare position; (2) the work of Lewis Gompertz and of Henry Salt; (3) the Vegan Society, the Oxford Group, and Peter Singer’s animal liberation theory; (4) Tom Regan’s animal rights theory; (5) the abolitionist animal rights theory; (6) animal rights and the law; and (7) animal rights as a social movement. Herein, “rights” describes the protection of interests irrespective of consequences. The chapter’s position that veganism (not consuming any animal products), is a moral baseline follows from the widely-shared recognition that animals have moral value and are not merely things; veganism is the only rational response to that recognition.

Consequences

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-112
Author(s):  
Marian Stamp Dawkins
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
Ethical Decisions ◽  
Sustainable Future ◽  
The Difference ◽  
To Come ◽  
Scientific Facts

Scientific facts about animal welfare are distinct from ethical decisions about what ought to be done about those facts. This final chapter covers some of the ideas that readers are likely to come across in thinking about the connection between animal welfare and animal ethics and provides a map or guide through the main areas of controversy. These include the difference between animal welfare and animal rights, speciesism and the conflicts that can arise between animal welfare and conservation. The chapter ends with a look at how humans can benefit in many different ways from improving animal welfare and that, far from devaluing animals as important in their own right, human benefits are likely to strengthen the case for making improved animal welfare part of a sustainable future for the whole planet.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document