Can Knowledge Itself Justify Harmful Research?


Journal

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees
ISSN: 1469-2147
Titre abrégé: Camb Q Healthc Ethics
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9208482

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2020
Historique:
entrez: 12 3 2020
pubmed: 12 3 2020
medline: 11 8 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In our paper, we argue for three necessary conditions for morally permissible animal research: (1) an assertion (or expectation) of sufficient net benefit, (2) a worthwhile-life condition, and (3) a no-unnecessary-harm/qualified-basic-needs condition.1 We argue that these conditions are necessary, without taking a position on whether they are jointly sufficient. In their excellent commentary on our paper, Matthias Eggel, Carolyn Neuhaus, and Herwig Grimm (hereafter, the authors) argue for a friendly amendment to one of our three conditions.2 In particular, they argue for replacing the first condition-expectation of sufficient net benefit (ESNB)-with an expectation of knowledge production (EKP).3 In this reply, we will explain why we are open to this proposed amendment, but not yet convinced.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32159483
doi: 10.1017/S0963180119001087
pii: S0963180119001087
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Comment

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

302-307

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentOn
Type : CommentOn

Auteurs

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH