AMA journal of ethics最新文献

If we assume that nonhuman animals experience pain or distress, then ethically justifying human-centered research with only nonhuman animals as subjects likely requires that the research's benefits to humans must, at least, outweigh harms suffered by the nonhuman animals. Yet this reasoning does not seem to account well for the ethical view that nonhuman animals are morally valuable in their own right. This commentary on a case considers this ethical tension and discusses how clinician-researchers should navigate it. This commentary also suggests why clinician-researchers' reasoning about the nature and scope of their obligations to nonhuman animals extends beyond governing regulations and federal oversight, which is silent on or ambiguous about nonhuman animals as morally valuable in their own right.

Nonhuman animal research has contributed to human health advancements but raises questions about the extent to which humans protect nonhuman animals during such endeavors. This series of drawings explores several ethics and empirical questions from a visual point of view.

Historically, most discussions about nonhuman animal experimentation consider what has become known as the 3 R's: refinement, reduction, and replacement. Refinement and reduction receive the most attention, but recent modeling advances suggest that suitable replacement of nonhuman animal testing would bolster human research and increase translatability to human health outcomes. This article discusses these modeling advances and advocates their use, especially as replacements to nonpredictive nonhuman animal protocols, and discusses growing momentum in biomedical research communities and federal agencies that favors replacement of animal testing.

The American Medical Association (AMA) was a major player in debates about vivisection in the late 1800s to mid-1950s. This article provides an overview of arguments and guidelines the AMA once offered in favor of the practice in 1909.

This article reviews the design of a recently published randomized controlled trial (RCT) on immediate vs delayed access to gender-affirming hormones for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people and outlines key learning points that clinicians should know about how RCTs can and cannot contribute to advancing health equity for TGD people.

This illustration depicts important biomedical advancements generated by nonhuman primate (NHP) research. NHPs' value in human-centered research is their unique evolutionary proximity to humans.

A transition from nonhuman animal models to engineered microphysiological systems (MPS), such as organoids and organ-on-a-chip technologies, would signal a paradigm shift in biomedical research. Despite MPS' potential to more accurately model human physiology, reduce high failure rates of drugs in clinical trials, and limit unnecessary animal use, widespread adoption is hampered by public opinion and lack of scalability, standardization, and current regulatory uptake. This article suggests how 5 key concepts (awareness, access, education, application, and rewards) could help address these barriers. These concepts are part of a framework that underscores a need to integrate MPS into mainstream biomedical research and to better promote ethical responsibility for the means of biomedical innovation.

The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique established what many know today as the "3 R's"-refinement, reduction, and replacement-when it was published in 1959. Since their formulation, these principles have guided decision-making for many about nonhuman animal subjects' uses in laboratory-based research. Discussion about how to amend or replace the 3 R's is ongoing, driven mainly by philosophical ethics approaches to nonhuman animal rights and by scientific advancement. This article explores merits and drawbacks of possible updates to and interpretations of the 3 R's.

This article explores the legal status of nonhuman animals used in biomedical research. While acknowledging that, presently, nonhuman animals in research settings hold no personal legal rights, this article explores what a legal person is and proposes that it is possible for nonhuman animals to become legal persons and receive better protections under the federal Animal Welfare Act.

Nonhuman animals used in biomedical research frequently suffer and are harmed as part of their use as experimental models. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of a given institution is meant to ensure that research protocols follow federal guidelines, but research protocols such as those described in this case can generate unnecessary suffering; this problem suggests limitations of IACUCs' capacity to protect nonhuman animals' welfare. This commentary on the case considers how to more fully protect nonhuman animals used in scientific research and identifies barriers to more comprehensive protection of nonhuman animals' welfare.