Animal rights, animal research, and the need to reimagine science

References

• American Veterinary Medical Association. n.d. Use of animals in research, testing, and education. Available from: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/use-animals-research-testing-and-eeducation. [Accessed 15 December 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Association of American Medical Colleges. 2022. Animals in medical education and research. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/mission-areas/medical-research/animals [Accessed 15 December 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Babos, M.B., et al., 2021. Animal-derived medications: cultural considerations and available alternatives. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 121 (4), 361–370.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Balcombe, J., 2000. The use of animals in higher education: problems, alternatives, & recommendations. Washington DC: Humane Society Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balkwill, F., et al., 2011. Safety of medicines and the use of animals in research. The lancet, 378 (9786), 127–128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergmeister, K.D., et al., 2020. Simulating surgical skills in animals: systematic review, costs & acceptance analyses. Frontiers in veterinary science, 7, 570852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochrane, A., 2012. Animal rights without liberation: applied ethics and human obligations. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, D.K., 2021. Genetically engineered pig kidney transplantation in a brain-dead human subject. Xenotransplantation, 28 (6), e12718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council for International Organizations for Medical Science and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science. 2012. International guiding principles for biomedical research involving animals. Available from: https://olaw.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Guiding_Principles_2012.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ditto, P.H., et al., 2001. Advance directives as acts of communication: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of internal medicine, 161 (3), 421–430.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• European Commission. 2019. Report on the statistics on the use of animals for scientific purposes in the Member States of the European Union in 2015–2017. EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Ferdowsian, H., et al., 2020. A Belmont report for animals? Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 29 (1), 19–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdowsian, H., et al., 2022. Toward an anti-maleficent research agenda. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 31 (1), 54–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francione, G.L., 2008. Animals as persons: essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuentes, A., 2020. Commentary: other animals as kin and persons worthy of increased ethical consideration. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 29 (1), 38–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukai, K., et al., 2022. Risk of transmission of foot-and-mouth disease by wild animals: infection dynamics in Japanese wild boar following direct inoculation or contact exposure. Veterinary research, 53 (1), 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garattini, S., and Grignaschi, G., 2017. Animal testing is still the best way to find new treatments for patients. European journal of internal medicine, 39, 32–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golriz, M., et al., 2013. Do we need animal hands-on courses for transplantation surgery? Clinical transplantation, 27, 6–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hao, H.N., et al., 2022. A novel C-type lectin from trichinella spiralis mediates larval invasion of host intestinal epithelial cells. Veterinary research, 53 (1), 1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, R., 2017. Rigor mortis: how sloppy science creates worthless cures, crushes hope, and wastes billions. New York: Hachette UK.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, L.A., Wood, M.W., and Hart, B.L., 2008. Why dissection? Animal use in education. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, R., and Pepper, A., 2021. Interspecies justice: agency, self-determination, and assent. Philosophical studies, 178, 1223–1243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J., 2013. Vulnerable subjects? The case of nonhuman animals in experimentation. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 10, 497–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J., and Barnard, N.D., 2014. Chimpanzees as vulnerable subjects in research. Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 35, 133–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantin, H., and Wendler, D., 2015. Is there a role for assent or dissent in animal research? Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 24 (4), 459–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khorramizadeh, M.R. and Saadat, F., 2020. Animal models for human disease. In: A.S. Verma and A. Singh, eds. Animal biotechnology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 153–171.
   Google Scholar
• Locke, J.E. 2022. Porcine kidney xenotransplantation in patients with end-stage kidney disease. clinicaltrials.gov. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05340426.
   Google Scholar
• Lohse, S., 2021. Scientific inertia in animal-based research in biomedicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 89, 41–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A.K., 2021. Animal vulnerability and its ethical implications: an exploration. Journal of applied philosophy, 38 (2), 196–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A.K., 2022. Animal research that respects animal rights: extending requirements for research with humans to animals. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 31 (1), 59–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery, R.A., et al., 2022. Results of two cases of pig-to-human kidney xenotransplantation. New England journal of medicine, 386 (20), 1889–1898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murillo-Cuesta, S., et al., 2020. The value of mouse models of rare diseases: a Spanish experience. Frontiers in genetics, 11, 583932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Namdari, R., et al., 2021. Species selection for nonclinical safety assessment of drug candidates: examples of current industry practice. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 126, 105029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Association for Bioemedical Research. 2020. The importance of animal research. Available from: https://www.nabr.org/biomedical-research/importance-biomedical-research [Accessed 19 December 2022].
   Google Scholar
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont Report. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Humane Education Society. 2023. Animals in research and education. Available from: https://www.nhes.org/animals-in-research-and-education [Accessed 9 December 2022].
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council, 2004. Committee to update science, medicine, and animals. science, medicine, and animals. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Porrett, P.M., et al., 2022. First clinical-grade porcine kidney xenotransplant using a human decedent model. American journal of transplantation, 22 (4), 1037–1053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raj, G.M. and Priyadarshini, R., 2022. Ethical issues in animal research. In: M. Lakshmanan, D.G. Shewade, and G.M. Raj, eds. Introduction to basics of pharmacology and toxicology: volume 3: experimental pharmacology: research methodology and biostatistics. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 649–684.
   Google Scholar
• Regelsberger, J., et al., 2015. In vivo porcine training model for cranial neurosurgery. Neurosurgical review, 38, 157–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanford Medicine. 2023. Why animal research? Available from: https://med.stanford.edu/animalresearch/why-animal-research.html [Accessed 9 December 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, K., 2019. Recent developments in alternatives to animal testing. In: K. Herrmann and K. Jayne, eds. Animal experimentation: working towards a paradigm change. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 585–609.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, K., and Alvarez, L.R., 2019. An estimate of the number of animals used for scientific purposes worldwide in 2015. Alternatives to laboratory animals, 47 (5-6), 196–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torke, A.M., Alexander, G.C., and Lantos, J., 2008. Substituted judgment: the limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. Journal of general internal medicine, 23, 1514–1517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Patter, L.E., and Blattner, C., 2020. Advancing ethical principles for non-invasive, respectful research with nonhuman animal participants. Society & animals, 28 (2), 171–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendler, D., 2014. Should protections for research with humans who cannot consent apply to research with nonhuman primates? Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 35, 157–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendler, D., 2022. Suffering in animal research: The need for limits and the possibility of compensation. Kennedy institute of ethics journal, 32 (3), 297–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. 2022. WMA statement on animal use in biomedical research. Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-statement-on-animal-use-in-biomedical-research/.
   Google Scholar
• Zemanova, M.A., Knight, A., and Lybæk, S., 2021. Educational use of animals in Europe indicates reluctance to implement alternatives. ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation, 38 (3), 490–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar