非此即彼--以实验生物伦理学方法解决动物研究中的 3R 困境。

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-17 DOI:10.1007/s11019-024-10221-y
Christian Rodriguez Perez, David M Shaw, Brian D Earp, Bernice S Elger, Kirsten Persson
{"title":"非此即彼--以实验生物伦理学方法解决动物研究中的 3R 困境。","authors":"Christian Rodriguez Perez, David M Shaw, Brian D Earp, Bernice S Elger, Kirsten Persson","doi":"10.1007/s11019-024-10221-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sacrificial dilemmas such as the trolley problem play an important role in experimental philosophy (x-phi). But it is increasingly argued that, since we are not likely to encounter runaway trolleys in our daily life, the usefulness of such thought experiments for understanding moral judgments in more ecologically valid contexts may be limited. However, similar sacrificial dilemmas are experienced in real life by animal research decision makers. As part of their job, they must make decisions about the suffering, and often the death, of many non-human animals. For this reason, a context-specific investigation of so-called \"3R dilemmas\" (i.e., dilemmas where there is a conflict between the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research) is essential to improve the situation of both non-human animals and human stakeholders. An approach well suited for such investigation is experimental philosophical bioethics (\"bioxphi\"), which draws on methods similar to x-phi to probe more realistic, practical scenarios with an eye to informing normative debates and ethical policy. In this article, we argue for a need to investigate 3R dilemmas among professional decision-makers using the tools of bioxphi. In a first step, we define 3R dilemmas and discuss previous investigations of professionals' attitudes in such cases. In a second step, we show how bioxphi is a promising method to investigate the whys and hows of professional decision-making in 3R dilemmas. In a last step, we provide a bioxphi template for 3R dilemmas, give recommendations on its use, explore the normative relevance of data collected by such means, and discuss important limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":"497-512"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11519301/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One R or the other - an experimental bioethics approach to 3R dilemmas in animal research.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Rodriguez Perez, David M Shaw, Brian D Earp, Bernice S Elger, Kirsten Persson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11019-024-10221-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sacrificial dilemmas such as the trolley problem play an important role in experimental philosophy (x-phi). But it is increasingly argued that, since we are not likely to encounter runaway trolleys in our daily life, the usefulness of such thought experiments for understanding moral judgments in more ecologically valid contexts may be limited. However, similar sacrificial dilemmas are experienced in real life by animal research decision makers. As part of their job, they must make decisions about the suffering, and often the death, of many non-human animals. For this reason, a context-specific investigation of so-called \\\"3R dilemmas\\\" (i.e., dilemmas where there is a conflict between the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research) is essential to improve the situation of both non-human animals and human stakeholders. An approach well suited for such investigation is experimental philosophical bioethics (\\\"bioxphi\\\"), which draws on methods similar to x-phi to probe more realistic, practical scenarios with an eye to informing normative debates and ethical policy. In this article, we argue for a need to investigate 3R dilemmas among professional decision-makers using the tools of bioxphi. In a first step, we define 3R dilemmas and discuss previous investigations of professionals' attitudes in such cases. In a second step, we show how bioxphi is a promising method to investigate the whys and hows of professional decision-making in 3R dilemmas. In a last step, we provide a bioxphi template for 3R dilemmas, give recommendations on its use, explore the normative relevance of data collected by such means, and discuss important limitations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"497-512\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11519301/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-024-10221-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-024-10221-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在实验哲学(x-phi)中,电车问题等牺牲性两难问题发挥着重要作用。但越来越多的人认为,由于我们在日常生活中不可能遇到失控的手推车,因此这种思想实验对于理解更生态化的道德判断的作用可能有限。然而,动物研究决策者在现实生活中也会遇到类似的牺牲困境。作为工作的一部分,他们必须对许多非人类动物的痛苦,甚至死亡做出决定。因此,针对具体情况调查所谓的 "3R 困境"(即在研究中使用动物的替代、减少和完善原则之间存在冲突的困境)对于改善非人类动物和人类利益相关者的处境至关重要。实验哲学生物伦理学("bioxphi")是一种非常适合此类研究的方法,它利用与 x-phi 类似的方法来探究更现实、更实际的情景,以期为规范性辩论和伦理政策提供信息。在本文中,我们认为有必要利用 bioxphi 工具调查专业决策者的 3R 困境。首先,我们定义了 3R 困境,并讨论了以往对专业人员在此类情况下的态度所做的调查。第二步,我们将展示 bioxphi 如何成为研究 3R 困境中专业决策的原因和方法的一种有前途的方法。最后,我们为 3R 困境提供了一个 bioxphi 模板,就其使用提出了建议,探讨了通过这种方法收集的数据的规范相关性,并讨论了重要的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

One R or the other - an experimental bioethics approach to 3R dilemmas in animal research.

One R or the other - an experimental bioethics approach to 3R dilemmas in animal research.

Sacrificial dilemmas such as the trolley problem play an important role in experimental philosophy (x-phi). But it is increasingly argued that, since we are not likely to encounter runaway trolleys in our daily life, the usefulness of such thought experiments for understanding moral judgments in more ecologically valid contexts may be limited. However, similar sacrificial dilemmas are experienced in real life by animal research decision makers. As part of their job, they must make decisions about the suffering, and often the death, of many non-human animals. For this reason, a context-specific investigation of so-called "3R dilemmas" (i.e., dilemmas where there is a conflict between the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research) is essential to improve the situation of both non-human animals and human stakeholders. An approach well suited for such investigation is experimental philosophical bioethics ("bioxphi"), which draws on methods similar to x-phi to probe more realistic, practical scenarios with an eye to informing normative debates and ethical policy. In this article, we argue for a need to investigate 3R dilemmas among professional decision-makers using the tools of bioxphi. In a first step, we define 3R dilemmas and discuss previous investigations of professionals' attitudes in such cases. In a second step, we show how bioxphi is a promising method to investigate the whys and hows of professional decision-making in 3R dilemmas. In a last step, we provide a bioxphi template for 3R dilemmas, give recommendations on its use, explore the normative relevance of data collected by such means, and discuss important limitations.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信