Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research: The Case of Iran

Despite growing interest in Islamic bioethics, little work has been done on research ethics in Islam, and even less on animal research ethics. This essay explores religious and scientific insights into the lives of animals used as research subjects, particularly in Iran. The inner lives of animals and their relationship to their Creator as relayed by the Qur'an, ethological research on animal minds, and neuroethical reflection on painience (the ability to feel and process pain as noxious [injurious] and explicitly hurtful) are brought together to question the current, relatively unrestricted use of research animals in Iran. The essay concludes that Islamic sources and the desire of Iranian clinicians to treat laboratory animals in line with them could poise Muslims to take the lead in developing alternatives to animal research. Further, recent suggestions that human and animal research guidelines and protections should be brought closer together are examined in light of these findings.     

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.     

Transcultural discussion in bioethics drawn from research experience in China: building up a theoretical and methodological framework for further research cooperation

My article discusses bioethics in transcultural context and builds on an experience of conducting research in China in partnership with Chinese scholars and institutions. Key points are about the creation of ethical committees and their prerogatives, the regulation of experimenting in human and animal, and of donating and transplanting organs. Ethical issues are approached according to an anthropological reading. Three transversal lines for further research are suggested: global/local ethical governance applied to research ethics; implications of transnationalizing and delocalizing research practices with regards to governance; theoretical positioning--conceptual pluralism versus pragmatic pluralism--following actual confrontation to transcultural variations in research ethics. Moreover, this work claims for conceptualizing and implementing an ethics in context while assessing intangible (non-relative) principles based on knowledge production and a global patrimony.     

Confronting ethical permissibility in animal research: rejecting a common assumption and extending a principle of justice

A common assumption in the selection of nonhuman animal subjects for research and the approval of research is that, if the risks of a procedure are too great for humans, and if there is a so-called scientific necessity, then it is permissible to use nonhuman animal subjects. I reject the common assumption as neglecting the central ethical issue of the permissibility of using nonhuman animal subjects and as being inconsistent with the principle of justice used in human subjects research ethics. This principle requires that certain classes of individuals not be subjected to a disproportionate share of the burdens or risks of research. I argue for an extension of this principle to nonhuman animal research and show that a prima facie violation of the principle occurs because nonhuman animals bear an overwhelmingly disproportionate share of the risks of research without sufficient justification or reciprocal benefit.     

Six domains of research ethics. A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research

The purpose of this paper is to provide a simple yet comprehensive organizing scheme for the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The heuristic offered here should prove helpful in research ethics education, where the many and heterogeneous elements of RCR can be bewildering, as well as research into research integrity and efforts to form RCR policy and regulations. The six domains are scientific integrity, collegiality, protection of human subjects, animal welfare, institutional integrity, and social responsibility.     

Ethics of field research: Do journals set the standard?

To determine whether ethical issues concerned with field research are addressed in the peer-review process, instructions to authors and reviewers of 141 (mainly natural science) journals were examined to ascertain how often ethical issues were mentioned. Only one-third (n=41) of responding journals addressed ethical issues in their instructions to authors or reviewers. When ethical issues were considered, most of the journals limited their concerns to ethical issues associated with animal and general human experimentation. No journal mentioned ethical practices in working with indigenous peoples or on traditional lands. Only two journals addressed the ethics of research in sensitive areas in their instructions to authors, only one in its instructions to reviewers. We suggest that peer-reviewed journals respond to an emerging issue in ecological research by formally incorporating research ethics into their instructions to authors and reviewers. Furthermore, these instructions should address the ethical issues associated with field research and in working with indigenous peoples and on traditional lands.     

Role of Hindsight Bias,Ethics, and Self-Other Judgments in Students’ Evaluation of an Animal Experiment

Does hindsight knowledge make research seem more ethical and predictable? In line with the notion of hindsight bias, students in 3 experiments knowing the outcome of an animal experiment judged the results as more foreseeable and ethical relative to students who did not know the outcome. Via self to other comparisons, students evaluate themselves more favorably compared to a peer but exhibited hindsight bias in doing so. Uniquely, the findings reveal the possibility that students deem themselves to be more skeptical and objective than their peers. Implications for teaching animal ethics and for Institutional Review Boards are discussed.     

From Environmental to Ecological Ethics: Toward a Practical Ethics for Ecologists and Conservationists

Ecological research and conservation practice frequently raise difficult and varied ethical questions for scientific investigators and managers, including duties to public welfare, nonhuman individuals (i.e., animals and plants), populations, and ecosystems. The field of environmental ethics has contributed much to the understanding of general duties and values to nature, but it has not developed the resources to address the diverse and often unique practical concerns of ecological researchers and managers in the field, lab, and conservation facility. The emerging field of “ecological ethics” is a practical or scientific ethics that offers a superior approach to the ethical dilemmas of the ecologist and conservation manager. Even though ecological ethics necessarily draws from the principles and commitments of mainstream environmental ethics, it is normatively pluralistic, including as well the frameworks of animal, research, and professional ethics. It is also methodologically pragmatic, focused on the practical problems of researchers and managers and informed by these problems in turn. The ecological ethics model offers environmental scientists and practitioners a useful analytical tool for identifying, clarifying, and harmonizing values and positions in challenging ecological research and management situations. Just as bioethics provides a critical intellectual and problem-solving service to the biomedical community, ecological ethics can help inform and improve ethical decision making in the ecology and conservation communities.

法律的道德审视:当代中国卫生法伦理学研究的使命

卫生法伦理学是由医学、法学和伦理学三大学科相互交融、渗透而结合的产物。卫生法伦理学作为一门独立的学科有着独特的研究对象。法律的道德审视,不仅是法伦理学研究的基础途径,更是当代中国卫生法伦理学研究的使命。     

Dependence on Wrongdoing in the Consumption of Meat: A Kantian Analysis

Kant's ethics is used by some as a defence of the exploitation of animals and is criticised by others for not recognising any moral relevance of the plight of animals. These appeals overlook the broad applicability of Kant's principles. In this article, I argue that Kant's ethics implies a duty to abstain from most meat and some other animal products derived from farming. I argue that there is a Kantian principle not to choose goods that have been derived from wrongdoing, with certain qualifications. This principle isolates the wrong of using others to commit wrongdoing on one's behalf. As has been argued by others, Kant's ethics implies that animal farming as we know it in our society almost universally involves wrongdoing and the slaughter of animals is especially tied to wrongdoing. I argue for a broad sense in which these ideas together imply that choosing farmed meat, and probably other animal products, is treating animal industry workers as mere means. Thus, we have a Kantian duty to abstain from these products.     

Survival skills and ethics training for graduate students: A graduate student perspective

Graduate students in the sciences must develop practical skills geared toward scientific survival and success. This is particularly true now, given the paucity of research funds and jobs. Along with more elementary skills, research ethics should be an integral part of students’ scientific training. Survival skills include research skills, communication skills, general efficiency, and preparation for post-graduate work. Ethics training covers guidelines for use of animal and human subjects, data treatment, disclosure, credit issues, conflicts of interest, and response to misconduct. The objective of this paper is to describe, from a graduate student’s perspective, the need for survival and ethics training in graduate programs and to raise both faculty and student awareness of the possibilities for explicit instruction of these skills. Many survival skills and ethical practices will be learned without explicit direction and some are already part of standard training; but, this is not the case for all students or for all skills, so specific instruction is a necessity. Research faculty can use their own experience to help students to develop the proficiencies they will need to succeed.     

Reasonable Partiality and Animal Ethics

Moral psychology is often ignored in ethical theory, making applied ethics difficult to achieve in practice. This is particularly true in the new field of animal ethics. One key feature of moral psychology is recognition of the moral primacy of those with whom we enjoy relationships of love and friendship – philia in Aristotles term. Although a radically new ethic for animal treatment is emerging in society, its full expression is severely limited by our exploitative uses of animals. At this historical moment, only the animals with whom we enjoy philia – companion animals – can be treated with unrestricted moral concern. This ought to be accomplished, both for its own sake and as an ideal model for the future evolution of animal ethics.     

To do no harm: A Buddhist view on animal use in research

The issue of using animals for research raises many concerns for Buddhists. Buddhism recognizes that all sentient life shares the same fundamental consciousness but also recognizes a difference in the ability of a species to express that basic, underlying consciousness.Ahimsa or no-harm has been a guiding principle of Buddhist ethics which applies to nonhuman species as well as humans. Conflict arises when available methods for removing some forms of human suffering are dependent upon inflicting suffering on animals. This paper explores several resolutions to the conflict, with the resulting opinion that Buddhism will condone some forms of animal research.     

Reporting Ethics Committee Approval in Public Administration Research

While public administration research is thriving because of increased attention to social scientific rigor, lingering problems of methods and ethics remain. This article investigates the reporting of ethics approval within public administration publications. Beginning with an overview of ethics requirements regarding research with human participants, I turn to an examination of human participants protections for public administration research. Next, I present the findings of my analysis of articles published in the top five public administration journals over the period from 2000 to 2012, noting the incidences of ethics approval reporting as well as funding reporting. In explicating the importance of ethics reporting for public administration research, as it relates to replication, reputation, and vulnerable populations, I conclude with recommendations for increasing ethics approval reporting in public administration research.     

Sex, Aggression, and Pain: Sociobiological Implicatios for Theological Anthropology

Theological anthropology can be enriched by paying attention to insights into human behavior taken from sociobiology. The capacity for reflective self-consciousness enables the human animal to respond to basic instincts and drives in unprecedented ways. Humans follow gender-specific sexual strategies, display aggressive behavior, and respond to physical pain as do other animals. Yet human beings have the intellectual ability to express these tendencies uniquely in either destructive or constructive ways. The human being, unlike any other animal, must reckon with sexual ethics, the problem of violence, and the meaning of suffering. In developing the basic concepts of theological anthropology—good creation, natural evil, fall, sin, and image of God—sociobiological research can lead to more adequate understanding of the human.     

Looking from the Outside/In: Re-thinking Research Ethics Review

This paper shares my reflections on the research ethics review process, from the point of view of both a qualitative researcher and a member of an institutional research ethics review board. By considering research ethics review, first as practice, then as policy, as a relationship and, finally, as a performance, I attempt to outline a new vision of research ethics, one that engages seriously with the relationship between receiving ethics approval, and conducting ethical research.     

石峻先生和伦理学研究

石峻先生对伦理学研究有很深的造诣,他认为,伦理道德问题必须提高到哲学的高度来解决,在中国传统的人性学说中包含着深厚的伦理意蕴。石先生对中国伦理思想的批判继承抱有十分强烈的自信心．认为学术研究应以过去为起点才能进步,反对对外国文化和伦理的移植,强调马克思主义哲学的指导是伦理学研究的根本。     

作为一种规范学科的信息伦理学

在信息伦理学领域 ,存在着两种不同的研究取向 :有些学者将信息伦理学作为一门非规范的伦理学来研究 ,而另一些学者则偏重于信息伦理学的规范性质。信息伦理学作为一门规范学科 ,应当研究不同类型的信息活动中已经存在或可能发生的伦理问题 ,而不能成为计算机伦理学、媒体伦理学、生物信息伦理学、网络伦理学的集装箱。规范的信息伦理学可以参考义务论、美德论、效果论的分析框架 ,而且要综合运用多种学科的方法。各国的信息伦理学有本土化的问题 ,但在全球性的信息沟通中 ,应当实现不同的信息伦理学的整合。     

The Pakistan Experience

This article featuring Pakistan constitutes one of five articles in a collection of essays on local capacity-building in research ethics by graduates from the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics MHSc in Bioethics, International Stream programme funded by the Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences (FIC). Research ethics in Pakistan is an emerging field seeking to articulate best ethical standards for research practices. It is best understood as the initiation of a dialogue. Still, there are weak mechanisms for research ethics and there is an absence of mechanisms for monitoring ongoing research, particularly for assessing compliance with the recommendations of ethics review committees. Further, there are few qualified individuals in research ethics in both the private and public sectors. There are multiple challenges associated with research ethics, many of them stemming from issues around development and democratization, which cannot be addressed by guidelines and regulatory processes alone.