[Human being and animals: different ontological and legal status]. / Ser humano y animales: Estatuto ontológico y jurídico diferentes.

The different legal status of human being and animals is a consequence of their different ontological status. Human being has dignity, which requires the recognition of rights that ensure a dignified life. The animal lacks dignity, but it must be protected by law, even though it does not have recognized rights. This study focuses on the ontological main differences between human being and animals, differences that nowadays can be tested empirically by the data provided by paleoanthropology. Human rights, based on dignity, are the guarantee that human being can develop exclusive capabilities to their way of being and that animals lack.

Causation, Responsibility, and Harm: How the Discursive Shift from Law and Ethics to Social Justice Sealed the Plight of Nonhuman Animals.

Moral and political philosophers no longer condemn harm inflicted on nonhuman animals as self-evidently as they did when animal welfare and animal rights advocacy was at the forefront in the 1980s, and sentience, suffering, species-typical behavior, and personhood were the basic concepts of the discussion. The article shows this by comparing the determination with which societies seek responsibility for human harm to the relative indifference with which law and morality react to nonhuman harm. When harm is inflicted on humans, policies concerning negligence and duty of care and principles such as the 'but for' rule and the doctrine of double effect are easily introduced. When harm is inflicted on nonhumans, this does not happen, at least not any more. As an explanation for the changed situation, the article offers a shift in discussion and its basic terminology. Simple ethical considerations supported the case for nonhuman animals, but many philosophers moved on to debate different views on political justice instead. This allowed the creation of many conflicting views that are justifiable on their own presuppositions. In the absence of a shared foundation, this fragments the discussion, focuses it on humans, and ignores or marginalizes nonhuman animals.

Animal models in biological and biomedical research - experimental and ethical concerns.

Animal models have been used in experimental research to increase human knowledge and contribute to finding solutions to biological and biomedical questions. However, increased concern for the welfare of the animals used, and a growing awareness of the concept of animal rights, has brought a greater focus on the related ethical issues. In this review, we intend to give examples on how animals are used in the health research related to some major health problems in Brazil, as well as to stimulate discussion about the application of ethics in the use of animals in research and education, highlighting the role of National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation (Conselho Nacional de Controle de Experimentação Animal - CONCEA) in these areas. In 2008, Brazil emerged into a new era of animal research regulation, with the promulgation of Law 11794, previously known as the Arouca Law, resulting in an increased focus, and rapid learning experience, on questions related to all aspects of animal experimentation. The law reinforces the idea that animal experiments must be based on ethical considerations and integrity-based assumptions, and provides a regulatory framework to achieve this. This review describes the health research involving animals and the current Brazilian framework for regulating laboratory animal science, and hopes to help to improve the awareness of the scientific community of these ethical and legal rules.

Animal experimentation: implementation and application of the 3Rs.

Despite the development of powerful molecular biological techniques and technologies, studies involving research animals remain a key component of discovery biology, and in the discovery and development of new medicines. In 1959, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) were developed to provide a framework to ensure animal research was undertaken as humanely as possible. Sixty years since their inception, the extent to which the 3Rs have been adopted and implemented by the global scientific and medical research communities has unfortunately been slow and patchy. However, this situation is changing rapidly as awareness increases, not only of the 3Rs themselves, but of the impact of animal welfare on the reproducibility, reliability and translatability of data from animal studies.

Animal maltreatment law: Evolving efforts to protect animals and their forensic mental health implications.

Animals have long formed an important part of human communities and served various roles in human activities. Some of the earliest human civilizations developed laws that protected animals for assorted reasons, including their economic value, religious beliefs pertaining to animals, and societal concerns about cleanliness. In the 1800s, Western thinkers began to view animals as having rights of their own and proposed legislation that changed the legal landscape regarding animal maltreatment. In the United States today there are widely varying laws designed to address the various forms of animal maltreatment. Each state's laws are different. Some states have modern statutes designed to identify and punish animal maltreatment, and others are relatively lax in their consideration of what constitutes abuse. The purpose of this article is to review the development of animal maltreatment legislation from ancient civilization to the present day in the United States; to identify current legislative reforms designed to assist in investigating and prosecuting animal abusers; to describe the role that forensic mental health experts may play in evaluating abusers for a variety of related concerns, including violence risk, sexual violence risk, and fitness for guardianship of an animal; and to delineate areas requiring further research to improve the forensic evaluation of animal abusers.

Hunting regulation favors slow life histories in a large carnivore.

As an important extrinsic source of mortality, harvest should select for fast reproduction and accelerated life histories. However, if vulnerability to harvest depends upon female reproductive status, patterns of selectivity could diverge and favor alternative reproductive behaviors. Here, using more than 20 years of detailed data on survival and reproduction in a hunted large carnivore population, we show that protecting females with dependent young, a widespread hunting regulation, provides a survival benefit to females providing longer maternal care. This survival gain compensates for the females' reduced reproductive output, especially at high hunting pressure, where the fitness benefit of prolonged periods of maternal care outweighs that of shorter maternal care. Our study shows that hunting regulation can indirectly promote slower life histories by modulating the fitness benefit of maternal care tactics. We provide empirical evidence that harvest regulation can induce artificial selection on female life history traits and affect demographic processes.

Utilização de animais em pesquisas: breve revisão da legislação no Brasil / Use of animals in research: a brief review of legislation in Brazil / Utilización de animales en la investigación: breve revisión de la legislación en Brasil

A utilização de animais para fins científicos configura prática histórica na civilização humana, mas gera polêmica em sociedades preocupadas com proteção dos animais. No Brasil, até 2008, não havia norma ou lei que regulamentasse especificamente a experimentação animal. Este trabalho discute a utilização de animais em experimentos científicos, considerando o delineamento da Lei Arouca, por meio da leitura de artigos científicos que contemplam o histórico da experimentação no contexto mundial e brasileiro, incluindo a regulamentação do uso de animais do filo Chordata, subfilo Vertebrata, em pesquisas no Brasil. A Lei Arouca pode representar avanço na legislação brasileira quanto à utilização de animais para fins científicos, sobretudo pela criação das comissões de ética para uso de animais em instituições de pesquisa e do Conselho Nacional de Controle de Experimentação Animal, que examinam o cumprimento da legislação aplicável em projetos científicos que envolvem a utilização de animais.

The use of animals for scientific purposes is a historical procedure in human civilization, but is controversial for societies concerned with the protection of animals. In Brazil, until 2008, there was no rule or law that specifically regulated animal testing. This paper discusses the use of animals in scientific experiments, considering the Brazilian Arouca Law, through the analysis of scientific articles that consider the history of experimentation in the world and in Brazil, including the regulation of the use of animals of the phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, in Brazilian research. The Arouca Law may represent an advance in Brazilian law regarding the use of animals for scientific purposes, particularly given the creation of the Ethics Committees for Animal Use in research institutions and the National Council for Animal Experimentation Control, which examine the compliance of scientific projects involving the use of such animals to applicable law.

El uso de animales para fines científicos configura una práctica histórica en la civilización humana, pero genera controversia en las sociedades preocupadas por la protección de éstos. En Brasil, hasta 2008, no había una norma o una ley que regulara la experimentación animal. Este trabajo discute acerca del uso de animales en experimentos científicos, teniendo en cuenta los lineamientos de la Ley Arouca, a partir de la lectura de artículos científicos que abordan la historia de la experimentación animal en el mundo y en el contexto brasilero, incluyendo la regulación del uso de animales del filo Cordados, subfilo Vertebrados, en investigaciones en Brasil. La Ley Arouca puede representar un avance en la legislación brasilera con respecto al uso de estos animales para fines científicos, sobre todo por la creación de las comisiones de ética para el uso de animales (Ceua) en instituciones de investigación y del Consejo Nacional de Control de la Experimentación Animal (Concea), que son los responsables de examinar el cumplimiento de la legislación aplicable a proyectos científicos que involucran la utilización de animales.

Beyond Primates: Research Protections and Animal Moral Value.

Should monkeys be used in painful and often deadly infectious disease research that may save many human lives? This is the challenging question that Anne Barnhill, Steven Joffe, and Franklin G. Miller take on in their carefully argued and compelling article "The Ethics of Infection Challenges in Primates." The authors offer a nuanced and even-handed position that takes philosophical worries about nonhuman primate moral status seriously and still appreciates the very real value of such research for human welfare. Overall, they argue for an extension and revision of the recommendations regarding chimpanzee research offered by the Institute of Medicine in 2011; the practical upshot of their argument would allow for infection challenge research for promising interventions for Ebola and Marburg virus diseases but not for smallpox or the common cold. The IOM recommendations regarding chimpanzee research put in motion an exceptionalist policy for this great ape population. Barnhill and colleagues' proposal would enlarge the scope of that exceptionalism to embrace NHPs other than great apes. But is such exceptionalism warranted? It is not obvious to me either that the more sophisticated capacities of a species as a whole give it greater ethical protections or that less intellectually or socially sophisticated animals ought to therefore receive less protection when it comes to painful experimental interventions.

Childhood animal cruelty, bestiality, and the link to adult interpersonal violence.

Animal cruelty has been a concern of the legal and psychiatric communities for many years. Beginning in the early 1800s, state legislatures in the United States established laws to protect the basic safety and security of animals in their jurisdictions. Legislatures have differed in opinion on the animals to receive protection under the law and have instituted differing penalties for infractions of anti-cruelty measures. In the 1960s, the psychiatric community took notice of childhood animal cruelty as a potential risk factor for violent acts against humans. Since that time there has been increasing evidence that children who engage in animal cruelty may be at increased risk of interpersonal offenses in adulthood. Less is known about children and adults who engage in bestiality and the potential risk that these individuals may pose for interpersonal sexual or nonsexual violent acts. We review the legal status of animal cruelty in the United States, summarize the history of psychiatric interest in and research of animal cruelty, describe current knowledge regarding the link between animal cruelty and violence, and propose a novel classification scheme for individuals who engage in bestiality to assist forensic psychiatric examiners in determining the risk that such behavior poses for future interpersonal offending.

Bioethical dilemmas in using animal in medical research. Challenges and opportunities.

PURPOSE: The study aims to present the main ethical dilemmas that research on animals raised for anyone involved in this process, starting from the idea that there are rights of animals to be known and respected. BACKGROUND: The evolution of medicine is inextricably linked to the production of new drugs, the occurrence of surgical techniques; none of these can be possible without the study of experimental animals, in vivo experimentation being part of the process of medical research. CONTENT: The article analyzes the main ethical dilemmas related to the use of animals in medical research, in the current legislative context and historical perspective of achieving such studies. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The use of animals in medical research must be conducted in accordance with clearly established moral rules, which facilitate reducing to the maximum the negative effects on the animals, avoiding unnecessary suffering to them and especially to facilitate progress achievement with the minimum possible animals sacrificed.

Is there a role for assent or dissent in animal research?

Current regulations and widely accepted principles for animal research focus on minimizing the burdens and harms of research on animals. However, these regulations and principles do not consider a possible role for assent or dissent in animal research. Should investigators solicit the assent or respect the dissent of animals who are used in research, and, if so, under what circumstances? In this article we pursue this question and outline the relevant issues that bear on the answer. We distinguish two general reasons for respecting the preferences of research participants regarding whether they participate in research-welfare-based reasons and agency-based reasons. We argue that there are welfare-based reasons for researchers to consider, and in some cases respect, the dissent of all animals used in research. After providing a brief account of the nature of agency-based reasons, we argue that there is good reason to think that these reasons apply to at least chimpanzees. We argue that there is an additional reason for researchers to respect the dissent-and, when possible, solicit the assent-of any animal to whom agency-based reasons apply.