Finsen L
University of Redlands, CA 92374.
J Med Philos. 1988 May;13(2):145-58. doi: 10.1093/jmp/13.2.145.
According to some proponents and critics of research using animals, the greatest hope for improved conditions for laboratory animals is to be found in the system of self-regulation called for by recent legislation and the NIH's revised policy. This article explores advantages and disadvantages of relying on "Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees" to subject research proposals to ethical scrutiny. Among the advantages discussed are: institutional dialogue concerning the ethics of research; inclusion of perspectives of non-scientists in such dialogues; and the possibility of improved research proposals. Despite these advantages, I argue that serious problems with the committee system may limit the degree to which conditions for animals are actually improved. Disadvantages discussed include: limitations in the scope of the review process, and built-in bias in favor of certain philosophical stances in the composition of the committees.
根据一些动物研究的支持者和批评者的观点，改善实验动物生存条件的最大希望在于近期立法所要求的自我监管体系以及美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）修订后的政策。本文探讨了依靠“机构动物护理与使用委员会”对研究提案进行伦理审查的利弊。所讨论的优点包括：关于研究伦理的机构对话；在这类对话中纳入非科学家的观点；以及改进研究提案的可能性。尽管有这些优点，但我认为委员会制度存在的严重问题可能会限制动物生存条件实际得到改善的程度。所讨论的缺点包括：审查过程范围的局限性，以及委员会组成中对某些哲学立场的固有偏袒。
