Cuestionamientos éticos a la generación de conocimiento en la investigación biomédica con animales no humanos / Ethical issues in the generation of knowledge in biomedical research using non-human animals / Qüestionaments ètics a la generació de coneixement en la investigació biomèdica amb animals no humans

El uso de animales para obtener conocimiento y desarrollar tratamientos para enfermedades humanas, se justifica argumentando que son similares a nosotros, pero, al mismo tiempo sus intereses se ignoran enfatizando que ellos son diferentes de nosotros, lo que se considera un doble estándar moral en la ciencia. Millones de animales son sometidos a dolor y sufrimiento cuando no siempre hay certeza de que se obtendrá un beneficio real, en ocasiones la extrapolación no es exitosa, los resultados no son aplicables o nunca se publican. ¿Qué tan éticos y válidos son los métodos que utilizamos para alcanzar nuestros objetivos? Los animales deberían ser considerados un grupo vulnerable a los que se extiendan algunos principios éticos establecidos en la Declaración de Helsinki

The use of animals to obtain knowledge and develop treatments for human diseases is justified by arguing that they are like us, yet their interests are ignored by emphasizing that they are not similar to us, which is considered a double moral standard in science. Millions of animals are subjected to pain and suffering, even when there is no certainty that a real benefit will be obtained. Sometimes extrapolation is not successful, results are invalid, not applicable or even never published. Then, how ethical and valid are the methods we use to achieve our goals? We propose animals should be considered as a vulnerable group and to extend them some of the ethical principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki

L'ús d'animals per obtenir coneixement I desenvolupar tractaments per a malalties humanes es justifica argumentant que són similars a nosaltres, però, al mateix temps els seus interessos s'ignoren emfatitzant que ells són diferents de nosaltres, el que es considera un doble estàndard moral en la ciència. Milions d'animals són sotmesos a dolor I sofriment quan no sempre hi ha la certesa de que s'obtindrà un benefici real, de vegades l'extrapolació no és exitosa, els resultats no són aplicables o mai es publiquen. Què tan ètics I vàlids són els mètodes que utilitzem per assolir els nostres objectius? Els animals haurien de ser considerats un grup vulnerable als que afecten alguns principis ètics establerts en la Declaració d'Hèlsinki

[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.

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

El diferente estatuto jurídico de hombres y animales es consecuencia de su diferente estatuto onto-lógico. El ser humano está revestido de dignidad, lo que exige el reconocimiento de unos derechos que aseguren una vida digna. El animal carece de dignidad, pero debe ser objeto de protección por el Derecho, aunque no se le reconozcan derechos. Este estudio se centra en las diferencias ontológicas de mayor relieve entre el hombre y los animales, diferencias susceptibles de ser contrastadas empíricamente en la actualidad y por los datos aportados por la paleoantropología. Los derechos humanos, con su fundamento en la dignidad, constituyen la garantía de que los hombres puedan desarrollar capacidades exclusivas de su modo de ser y de las que carecen los animales

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.

Los derechos de los animales en Colombia: una enmarañada serie de discursos / Animal rights in Colombia: An entangled set of discourses / Els drets dels animals a Colòmbia: una embullada sèrie de discursos

Ante la preocupación por el desarrollo de argumentos que soportan estrategias de protección animal, en este artículo se identifican y analizan distintos discursos sobre derechos de los animales que pronuncian documentos de los poderes ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial de Colombia. Se encontraron discursos tergiversados para promover prácticas de maltrato animal y otros cuya falta de rigor argumentativo no permite que se les pueda caracterizar propiamente como derechos de los animales. Esta situación plantea la necesidad de revisar las herramientas conceptuales en particular de quienes participan activamente en la defensa de los animales no humanos

In light of the development of arguments that support animal protection strategies, in this article we identify and analyse different discourses on animal rights which have been pronounced in documents associated with the executive, legislative and judicial branches of power in Colombia. We found misconstrued discourses that promote animal mistreatment practices and others whose lack of argumentative rigour does not allow them to be properly characterized as animal rights. This situation reveals the need to review the conceptual tools, particularly, of those that actively participate in the defence of non-human animalS

Davant la preocupació pel desenvolupament d'arguments que suporten estratègies de protecció animal, en aquest article s'identifiquen i analitzen diferents discursos sobre drets dels animals que pronuncien documents dels poders executiu, legislatiu i judicial de Colòmbia. Trobem discursos tergiversats per a promoure pràctiques de maltractament animal i uns altres la falta del qual de rigor argumentatiu no permet que se'ls pugui caracteritzar pròpiament com a drets dels animals. Aquesta situació planteja la necessitat de revisar les eines conceptuals en particular dels qui participen activament en la defensa dels animals no humans

¿Máquinas biotecnológicas o seres sintientes? Una aproximación antiespecista a la clonación de animales no humanos / Biotecnological machines or sentient beings? An antispeciesist approach to nonhuman animal cloning / Màquines biotecnològiques o éssers sintients? Una aproximació antiespecista a la clonació d'animals no humns

La clonación y transgénesis animal son prácticas biotecnológicas en auge, para nada exentas de problemáticas éticas en lo que respecta al uso que hacen de los animales no humanos. En este artículo se examinan los diversos ámbitos de aplicación de la clonación animal (médico-farmacéutico, industria alimentaria, recreación de especies extintas, clonación de animales de compañía e industria artística y deportiva) y se revisan los principales argumentos éticos que cuestionan la clonación y la transgénesis animal desde una perspectiva antiespecista. Esta perspectiva sostiene que los animales no humanos son merecedores de consideración moral como sujetos de vidas significativas, y no únicamente como medios para la realización de fines humanos

Animal cloning and animal transgenesis are growing biotechnological practices, not at all exempt from ethical problems regarding the use they make of non-human animals. This article examines the different areas of application of animal cloning (medical-pharmaceutical, food industry, recreating of extinct species, cloning of companion animals and the art and sport industries) and reviews the main ethical arguments that question cloning and animal transgenesis from an antispeciesist perspective. This perspective argues that non-human animals deserve moral consideration as subjects of meaningful lives, and not only as means for the achievement of human ends

La clonació i transgènesi animal són pràctiques biotecnològiques creixents i no exemptes de problemàtiques ètiques pel que fa a l'ús que fan dels animals no humans. En aquest article s'examinen els diversos àmbits d'aplicació de la clonació animal (metge-farmacèutic, indústria alimentària, recreació d'espècies extintes, clonació d'animals de companyia i indústria artística i esportiva) i es revisen els principals arguments ètics que qüestionen la clonació i la transgènesi animal des d'una perspectiva antiespecista. Aquesta perspectiva sosté que els animals no humans són mereixedors de consideració moral com a subjectes de vides significatives, i no únicament com a mitjans per a la realització de finalitats humanes

Los animales no humanos como titulares de derechos legales: la sentencia del Alto Tribunal de Uttarakhand en el caso Narayan Dutt Bhatt contra el Estado de Uttarakhand y otros / Nonhuman animals as legal rights holders: the High Court of Uttarakhand judgement in the case Narayan Dutt Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand and others / Los animales no humanos como titulares de derechos legales: la sentencia del Alto Tribunal de Uttarakhand en el caso Narayan Dutt Bhatt contra el Estado de Uttarakhand y otros

En este artículo se analiza el alcance de la reciente sentencia del Alto Tribunal de Uttarakhand que declara a todos los miembros del reino animal titulares de derechos legales y además establece obligaciones jurídicas positivas hacia los animales callejeros. Además, se defiende que dado que la capacidad de sufrir y disfrutar es el único factor relevante para considerar moralmente a una entidad, tenemos buenas razones para pensar que debemos atribuir derechos legales a los animales no humanos para proteger sus intereses fundamentales y que algunos de estos derechos supondrían que determinados seres humanos tienen, al menos en determinadas circunstancias, obligaciones positivas hacia ellos

This article analyses the argumentation and the scope of the High Court of Uttarakhand’s rulling that declares all members of the animal kingdom to be rights holders and also establishes positive legal obligations towards stray animals. Due to the fact that the capacity for suffering and enjoying is the only relevant fact to morally consider an entity, we have good reasons to think that we must bestow legal rights to nonhuman animals in order to protect their fundamental interests. Those rights shouldn’t be just negative rights, but some of those should entail that certain human beings have, at least in some circunstances, positive obligations towards the other animals

En aquest article s'analitza l'argumentació i l'abast de la recent sentència de l'Alt Tribunal de Uttarakhand que declara a tots els membres del regne animal titulars de drets legals i estableix obligacions jurídiques positives cap als animals del carrer. A més, es defensa que, atès que la capacitat de sofrir i gaudir és l'únic factor rellevant per a considerar moralment a una entitat, existeixen raons per a pensar que hem d'atribuir drets legals als animals no humans per a protegir els seus interessos fonamentals. Tals drets no haurien de ser solament drets negatius, sinó que alguns d'ells haurien de suposar que determinats éssers humans tinguessin, en certes circumstàncies, obligacions positives cap als altres animals

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 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.

Una teoría del derecho para los animales no humanos. Aportes para la perspectiva interna del Derecho / A legal theory for non-human animals. Contributions from an internal legal perspective / Una teoria del dret per als animals no humans. Aportacions per a la perspectiva interna del Dret

En ética animal existe un fenómeno que algunos autores han llamado extensionalismo. Se trata de la extensión de las teorías éticas al caso de los animales no humanos (ANH). En este trabajo se intentará también una extensión de una teoría del derecho a los ANH. Partiré de la distinción entre aspecto interno y externo del derecho (Hart) y luego seguiré las ideas de Nino sobre la fundamentación de los derechos (humanos). Abordaré primero las diferencias entre ambos aspectos, defenderé la importancia del interno para la cuestión de los ANH y, en la segunda sección, trataré conceptos de la teoría de Nino útiles para este caso. Finalmente, presentaré algunas críticas a la aplicación del lenguaje de los derechos a los demás animales provenientes de quienes rechazan el especismo

In animal ethics there is a phenomenon called extensionalism which is the extension of ethical theories to the non-human animal (NHA) case. In this paper I present an extension of a legal theory to NHA too. I will use the distinction between internal and external aspects of the law that Hart established. Then, I will follow some Nino legal concepts useful for this case. I will highlight the importance of the internal perspective for the NHA problem and, in the second section, will address some concepts from Nino theory of law. Finally, I will consider some critics to the language of rights that come from an anti-speciesist approach

En ètica animal existeix un fenomen que alguns autors han anomenat extensionalisme. Es tracta de l'extensió de les teories ètiques al cas dels animals no humans (ANH). En aquest treball s'intentarà també una extensió d'una teoria del dret als ANH. Hom parteix de la distinció entre aspecte intern i extern del dret (Hart) continuant amb les idees de Nino sobre la fonamentació dels drets (humans). Abordaré primer les diferències entre tots dos aspectes, defensaré la importància de laspecte intern per a la qüestió dels ANH i, en la segona secció, tractaré conceptes de la teoria de Nino que són d’utilitat en aquest cas. Finalment, presentaré algunes crítiques a l'aplicació del llenguatge dels drets als altres animals provinents dels qui rebutgen l'especisme

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.

La legitimación del carnismo y el especismo. Una aproximación cualitativa a los discursos del alumnado universitario / The legitimation of carnism and speciesism. A qualitative approach to speeches of university students

El hecho de que el ser humano se haya alimentado con productos de origen animal desde sus inicios ha provocado que esta cuestión alimentaria sea vista como una necesidad y no como una elección. No obstante, las personas que comen productos de origen animal están influenciadas por un sistema de creencias, muchas veces invisible, denominado carnismo. Este trabajo ahonda, mediante una aproximación cualitativa, en tal sistema de creencias y analiza las justificaciones que utilizan los individuos para tratar a unas especies de animales como comida y a otras como mascotas. Concluyendo que, aunque se utilizan múltiples argumentos para respaldar este consumo tales como la necesidad, el gusto, la economía o la comodidad, es la falta de empatía hacia los demás animales lo que perpetúa la ideología carnista

The fact that the human being has been fed animal products since its inception has made people accept this food supply as a necessity rather than a choice. However, people who include animal products in their diet are influenced by a belief system, often invisible, called carnism. This paper explores this belief system through a qualitative approach, as well as analysing the justifications that individuals use for the different treatment given to animals. Some are used as food, as opposed to those considered pets. Concluding that, although many arguments are used to support this consumption such as the need, taste, economy, or comfort, is the lack of empathy for other animals which perpetuates the carnist ideology

Aspectos jurídicos del xenotrasplante / No disponible

A través del presente trabajo se pretende contextualizar el xenotrasplante bajo el marco legislativo aplicable en la actualidad resaltando aquellos aspectos que no pueden regirse mediante la legislación vigente y valorando la necesidad de su actualización ante la aparición de nuevas opciones como el empleo de animales modificados genéticamente como fuente de obtención de órganos

This paper aims to contextualize xenotransplantation under the current legislative framework, thus presenting the base upon which this approach is regulated, emphasizing those aspects that cannot be governed by the applicable law and assessing the need for an update because of the emergence of new options such as the use of genetically modified animals as a source for organ procurement

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.