PhilArchive
open access
Why IACUCs Need Ethicists
Some animal research is arguably morally wrong, and some animal research is morally bad but could be improved. Who is most likely to be able to identify wrong or bad animal research and advocate for improvements? I argue that philosophical ethicists have the expertise that makes them the likely best candidates for these tasks. I review the skills, knowledge and perspectives that philosophical ethicists tend to have which makes them ethical experts. I argue that, insofar as IACUCs are expected to ensure that research is ethical, they must have philosophical ethicists as members.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Ethics of Invertebrate Animal Research from a Buddhist Philosophical Perspective#732470
- Interdisciplinary animal research ethics – Challenges, opportunities, and perspectives#98318
- Lives in the Balance: Utilitarianism and Animal Research#104751
- Animals, Misanthropy, and Humanity#744676
- Rezoning the Moral Landscape: How Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas Can Fix Sam Harris’s Attempt to Ground Ethics in the Sciences#103849
Record · ID 757197
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive