Ethics and the Science of Animal Minds

Ethicists have commonly appealed to science to bolster their arguments for elevating the moral status of nonhuman animals. I describe a framework within which I take many ethicists to be making such appeals. I focus on an apparent gap in this framework between those properties of animals that are part of the scientific consensus, and those to which ethicists typically appeal in their arguments. I will describe two different ways of diminishing the appearance of the gap, and argue that both of them present challenges to ethicists seeking a firm scientific basis for their claims about the moral status of animals. I argue that more clarity about the role of appeals to science by applied ethicists leads to questions about the effectiveness of such appeals, and that these questions might best be pursued empirically.     

The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History

The history of the regulation of animal research is essentially the history of the emergence of meaningful social ethics for animals in society. Initially, animal ethics concerned itself solely with cruelty, but this was seen as inadequate to late 20^th-century concerns about animal use. The new social ethic for animals was quite different, and its conceptual bases are explored in this paper. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 represented a very minimal and in many ways incoherent attempt to regulate animal research, and is far from morally adequate. The 1985 amendments did much to render coherent the ethic for laboratory animals, but these standards were still inadequate in many ways, as enumerated here. The philosophy underlying these laws is explained, their main provisions are explored, and future directions that could move the ethic forward and further rationalize the laws are sketched.     

National Human Research Ethics: A Preliminary Comparative Case Study of Germany,Great Britain,Romania, and Sweden

Although international research is increasing in volume and importance, there remains a dearth of knowledge on similarities and differences in “national human research ethics” (NHREs), that is, national ethical guidelines (NEGs), Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and research stakeholder’ ethical attitudes and behaviors (EABs). We begin to address this situation by reporting upon our experiences in conducting a multinational study into the mental health of children who had a parent/carer in prison. The study was conducted in 4 countries: Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden. Data on NHREs were gathered via a questionnaire survey, two ethics-related seminars, and ongoing contact between members of the research consortium. There was correspondence but even more so divergence between countries in the availability of NEGs and IRBs and in researcher’ EABs. Differences in NHREs have implications particularly in terms of harmonization but also for ethical philosophy and practice and for research integrity.     

权利优先、还是义务优先——对涉及人的生物医学研究中受试者权利与义务关系的理性思考

对“权利与义务”从“公正”方面进行了解读,论述了在涉及人的生物医学研究中,受试者权利与义务之间的复杂关系,提出“受试者权利优先”是平衡两者关系的基本原则;确立了“受试者权利优先”的具体策略：首先尊重受试者的权利（首要性）;当受试者的权利与受试者的义务出现一定矛盾时,应该把尊重受试者的权利放在首位（至上性）;在尊重受试者的权利中,化解两者矛盾。     

美国人体研究的监督：科学发展中的伦理与规定

美国保护人体受试者的制度建立在伦理学基础之上,并正式通过相关法律。对人体研究的监督是保护受试者个人的健康和权益,确保研究的有效性,整体性,以及科学与社会更大范围的利益,监督审查机构是联邦卫生部下属的两个机构-食品与药品管理局（FDA）和人体研究保护办公室（OHRP）,大部分人体研究受两机构监督。美国人体受试者保护系统的基础部分是伦理审查委员会（IRB）及知情同意,IRBU电在提供一种机制,以进行客观的审查,同意和研究过程听持续监督;知情同意意在保证个人在了解与实验相关的风险,不适,收益后能自由做出参加与否的决定,美国人体研究保护制度正面临着挑战。美国也为促进人体受试者保护在进行新的努力。     

Protection of Life and Human Dignity: The German Debate between Christian Norms and Secular Expectations

The German debate on bioethics and medical ethics turns on achange in the meaning of human dignity. Such dignity is increasinglyrendered contingent upon a person's empirically assessable qualityof life. In contrast to such dignity-endowed human life, a merelybiological human life is taken to disqualify its bearer fromsuch dignity, depriving his life of the protection "respectfor human dignity" would otherwise guarantee. The idea of a"life not worth living" or "undignified life" evokes categories,which were developed at the beginning of the 20th century, andlater informed the crimes of National Socialist medicine inGermany. Against this secular development, this article analysesthe theological and church-based discussion of basic bioethicalquestions in Germany, especially the controversy among Protestants:once Protestant ethicists abandon an explicitly theologicalbasis for their arguments, their conclusions come to closelyresemble those of the secular participants in the debate. Asa result, such Protestants relativize fundamental ethical norms.They subordinate, along with their secular environment, theprotection of life to respect for autonomy. They thus preparethe ground for a revival of the risky concepts of the past.     

The Institute on Human Values in Medicine: Its Role and Influence in the Conception and Evolution of Bioethics

For ten years, 1971–1981, the Institute onHuman Values in Medicine (IHVM) played a keyrole in the development of Bioethics as afield. We have written this history andanalysis to bring to new generations ofBioethicists information about the developmentof their field within both the humanitiesdisciplines and the health professions. Thepioneers in medical humanities and ethics cametogether with medical professionals in thedecade of the 1960s. By the 1980s Bioethics wasa fully recognized discipline. We show the rolethat IHVM programs played in defining thefield, training faculty and helping schools todevelop programs. We review the beginnings ofthe IHVM in the crucible of social andtechnological change that led to theestablishment of the IHVM's parentorganization, the Society for Health and HumanValues. We then turn to the IHVM programsthrough which Faculty members receivedfellowships to explore new crossovers betweenthe humanities and the health professions. Wehave not only described the Fellows Program asit existed in 1973–1980, but have completed asurvey of the fellows a quarter of a centuryafter they held their fellowships. We describeother IHVM programs designed to facilitate theinitiation and development of new humanitiesprograms, to explore conceptual issues betweenmedicine and five humanities fields, to conductissue driven or educational method conferencesand to advance humanities programs intograduate education through the Directors ofMedical Education.