Scholarlink

<p>This paper considers the epistemic and ethical shortcomings of harm-benefit analyses of animal research, using xenotransplantation research as an example. Harm-benefit analyses fail to account for the uncertainty of human benefits from research, and frequently fail to predict the actual harm experienced by experimental animals. As a&#xa0;method for evaluating research, it is flawed both as a&#xa0;method, and as it is actually carried out. I&#xa0;argue for an alternative to the harm-benefit analysis. The concept of inductive risk can be utilized to evaluate the justification for research using animals and humans, resulting in more rigorous ethical and scientific evaluation of proposed research. In the case of xenotransplantation research, I&#xa0;conclude that taking more seriously the ethical and epistemic risks argues against pursuing this research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Harms, benefits, and inductive risk in xenotransplantation research

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月3日

查看全文
  • L. Syd M Johnson

摘要

This paper considers the epistemic and ethical shortcomings of harm-benefit analyses of animal research, using xenotransplantation research as an example. Harm-benefit analyses fail to account for the uncertainty of human benefits from research, and frequently fail to predict the actual harm experienced by experimental animals. As a method for evaluating research, it is flawed both as a method, and as it is actually carried out. I argue for an alternative to the harm-benefit analysis. The concept of inductive risk can be utilized to evaluate the justification for research using animals and humans, resulting in more rigorous ethical and scientific evaluation of proposed research. In the case of xenotransplantation research, I conclude that taking more seriously the ethical and epistemic risks argues against pursuing this research.