做或不做:以动物和人类为实验对象的价值和道德维度。

J.D. Keehn
{"title":"做或不做:以动物和人类为实验对象的价值和道德维度。","authors":"J.D. Keehn","doi":"10.1016/0271-5392(81)90030-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A questionnaire about ethical considerations in experiments involving animals or human subject populations consisting of students, mental patients or prison inmates was administered to 73 undergraduate students enrolled in several psychology classes. For the most part the questionnaire was completed without difficulty, and the results were that most subjects did not differentiate among the human populations, and that human and animal experiments were judged by different ethical standards. For humans, the principal considerations were for the protection and safety of the subjects while for animals they pertained to the design and conduct of the experiment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79378,"journal":{"name":"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics","volume":"15 1","pages":"Pages 81-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1981-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0271-5392(81)90030-7","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To do or not to do: Dimensions of value and morality in experiments with animal and human subjects\",\"authors\":\"J.D. Keehn\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0271-5392(81)90030-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A questionnaire about ethical considerations in experiments involving animals or human subject populations consisting of students, mental patients or prison inmates was administered to 73 undergraduate students enrolled in several psychology classes. For the most part the questionnaire was completed without difficulty, and the results were that most subjects did not differentiate among the human populations, and that human and animal experiments were judged by different ethical standards. For humans, the principal considerations were for the protection and safety of the subjects while for animals they pertained to the design and conduct of the experiment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 81-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1981-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0271-5392(81)90030-7\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0271539281900307\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0271539281900307","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

研究人员对参加心理学课程的73名本科生进行了一份问卷调查,调查对象包括学生、精神病人或监狱囚犯,涉及动物或人类实验时的伦理考虑。问卷的大部分都很容易完成,结果是大多数受试者在人群中没有区别,人类和动物的实验是由不同的道德标准来判断的。对人类来说,主要考虑的是受试者的保护和安全,而对动物来说,主要考虑的是实验的设计和实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
To do or not to do: Dimensions of value and morality in experiments with animal and human subjects

A questionnaire about ethical considerations in experiments involving animals or human subject populations consisting of students, mental patients or prison inmates was administered to 73 undergraduate students enrolled in several psychology classes. For the most part the questionnaire was completed without difficulty, and the results were that most subjects did not differentiate among the human populations, and that human and animal experiments were judged by different ethical standards. For humans, the principal considerations were for the protection and safety of the subjects while for animals they pertained to the design and conduct of the experiment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Justice and a universal right to basic health care. What is the obligation of the medical profession in the distribution of health care? Triage in medical practices: an unacceptable model? The involuntary commitment and treatment of mentally ill persons. The right of public access to cadaver organs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1