Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement.

IF 3.1 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
David Mawufemor Azilagbetor, Gail Davies, Lester Darryl Geneviève, David Martin Shaw, Bernice Simone Elger
{"title":"Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement.","authors":"David Mawufemor Azilagbetor, Gail Davies, Lester Darryl Geneviève, David Martin Shaw, Bernice Simone Elger","doi":"10.1007/s11019-025-10288-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Doing scientific research with animals is a subject of intense societal debate, often involving polarized and public discussions with stakeholders and groups interested in animal research. Patients, given their medical conditions, have a high stake in biomedical research, including research involving animals. However, their perspectives are rarely heard in policy-related discussions on animal experiments. This essay discusses the positions and stakes of groups involved in public discourse and policy-relevant engagements. It further explores the legitimate interest of patients and the need for an all-inclusive approach to animal research policy. This subject is complex and democratic societies must address societal issues with an all-inclusive approach to reach policy decisions reflecting the interests of all stakeholders. The positions of groups-pro-animal research stakeholders and anti-animal-research advocates-with vested interests involved in animal research discourse considerably shape research policies. Animal research policies arguably affect patients. Through democratic ideals, inclusive approaches that are suitable for resolving science-driven societal issues, and initiatives currently guiding animal research policies, patients need to actively be involved in public discourses and policy-relevant decision-making processes in deciding the place of animal research in biomedical advancement as a society.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-025-10288-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Doing scientific research with animals is a subject of intense societal debate, often involving polarized and public discussions with stakeholders and groups interested in animal research. Patients, given their medical conditions, have a high stake in biomedical research, including research involving animals. However, their perspectives are rarely heard in policy-related discussions on animal experiments. This essay discusses the positions and stakes of groups involved in public discourse and policy-relevant engagements. It further explores the legitimate interest of patients and the need for an all-inclusive approach to animal research policy. This subject is complex and democratic societies must address societal issues with an all-inclusive approach to reach policy decisions reflecting the interests of all stakeholders. The positions of groups-pro-animal research stakeholders and anti-animal-research advocates-with vested interests involved in animal research discourse considerably shape research policies. Animal research policies arguably affect patients. Through democratic ideals, inclusive approaches that are suitable for resolving science-driven societal issues, and initiatives currently guiding animal research policies, patients need to actively be involved in public discourses and policy-relevant decision-making processes in deciding the place of animal research in biomedical advancement as a society.

制定更具包容性的动物研究和患者参与方法。
用动物进行科学研究是一个激烈的社会辩论的主题,经常涉及与对动物研究感兴趣的利益相关者和团体进行两极分化和公开讨论。考虑到病人的医疗状况,他们在生物医学研究,包括涉及动物的研究中有着很高的利害关系。然而,在与动物实验相关的政策讨论中,很少听到他们的观点。本文讨论了参与公共话语和政策相关参与的群体的立场和利害关系。它进一步探讨了患者的合法利益和对动物研究政策采取包罗万象的方法的必要性。这个问题很复杂,民主社会必须以包容各方的方式处理社会问题,以作出反映所有利益攸关方利益的政策决定。支持动物研究的利益相关者和反对动物研究的倡导者的立场在很大程度上影响了动物研究的政策。动物研究政策可能会影响患者。通过民主理想、适用于解决科学驱动的社会问题的包容性方法,以及目前指导动物研究政策的举措,患者需要积极参与公共话语和与政策相关的决策过程,以决定动物研究在社会生物医学进步中的地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信