In her reply to my critical assessment of objections to the Weatherall report’s justification of non-human primate (NHP) research, Catia Faria focuses on three objections which she entitles ‘the disanalogy’, ‘the utilitarian calculus’ and ‘species overlap’. Faria finds my assessment unconvincing, butI argue that the objections still fail.
- research ethics
- animal experimentation
- moral status
- non-human primates
- weatherall report
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) research unit grant FOR1847.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The ethical justification for the use of non-human primates in research: the Weatherall report revisited
- A flimsy case for the use of non-human primates in research: a reply to Arnason
- Non-human primates: the appropriate subjects of biomedical research?
- Ethical issues when modelling brain disorders innon-human primates
- The biomedical enhancement of moral status
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Is there a place for animal experiments?
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Persons, post-persons and thresholds
- Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock