Experimentación con animales: un examen de los argumentos en su defensa

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Oscar Horta
Angeles Cancino Rodezno

Resumen

Este artículo examina de qué formas pueden defenderse conjuntamente los métodos de investigación con animales no humanos, el rechazo de los métodos que no impliquen el uso de animales, y la oposición a la experimentación con humanos. El artículo argumenta que la apelación a un salto axiológico o normativo entre el peso de los intereses humanos y de los animales no humanos tiene consecuencias inaceptables. A continuación, presenta otra serie de problemas implicados por las demás posiciones antropocéntricas. Finalmente, argumenta que, aun si se acepta el antropocentrismo, el peso agregado de los intereses de los animales acaba superando al del interés humano en utilizarlos.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Cómo citar
Horta, O., & Cancino Rodezno, A. (2022). Experimentación con animales: un examen de los argumentos en su defensa. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana De Filosofía, 54(161), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2022.1349
Sección
Artículos

Citas

Akhtar, A., 2015, “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation”, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 407–419. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079)

Almiron, N. y N. Khazaal, 2016, “Lobbying against Compassion: Speciesist Discourse in the Vivisection Industrial Complex”, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 256–275. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215613402)

Asociación Médica Mundial, 2001, “Declaración de Helsinki de la Asociación Médica Mundial”, Gaceta Médica de México, vol. 137, no. 4, pp. 387-390.

Basketter, D.A., H. Clewell, I. Kimber, A. Rossi, B. Blaauboer, R. Burrier, M. Daneshian, C. Eskes, A. Goldberg, N. Hasiwa, S. Hoffmann, J. Jaworska, T.B. Knudsen, R. Landsiedel, M. Leist, P. Locke, G. Maxwell, J. McKim, E.A. McVey, G. Ouédraogo, G. Patlewicz, O. Pelkonen, E. Roggen, C. Rovida, I. Ruhdel, M. Schwarz, A. Schepky, G. Schoeters, N. Skinner, K. Trentz, M. Turner, P. Vanparys, J. Yager, J. Zurlo, y T. Hartung, 2012, “A Roadmap for the Development of Alternative (Non-Animal) Methods for Systemic Toxicity Testing”, Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 3-91. (https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2012.1.003)

Beauchamp, T.L., 1999, “Problems in Justifying Research on Animals”, en T.L. Beauchamp y L. Walters (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, Wadsworth, Belmont, pp. 465–473.

Bernstein, M.H., 2002, “Marginal Cases and Moral Relevance”, Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 523-539. (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9833.00155)

Bernstein, M.H., 2015, The Moral Equality of Humans and Animals, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.

Brink, D.O., 1992, “Mill’s Deliberative Utilitarianism”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 67–103.

Busquet, F., T. Hartung, G. Pallocca, C. Rovida, y M. Leist, 2020, “Harnessing the Power of Novel Animal-Free Test Methods for the Development of COVID-19 Drugs and Vaccines”, Archives of Toxicology, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 2263-2272.
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02787-2)

Cancino Rodezno, A., 2020, “La relevancia de la bioética en la educación universitaria en ciencias biológicas”, Devenires, vol. 21, no. 42, pp. 63-82.

Carruthers, P., 1992, The Animal Issue: Moral Theory in Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cavalieri, P., 2009, The Death of the Animal: A Dialogue, Columbia University Press, Nueva York.

Corporate Europe Observatory, 2012, “Divide and Conquer: A Look behind the Scenes of the EU Pharmaceutical Industry Lobby”, Health Action International, Corporate Europe Observatory, descargado de https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/28_march_2012_divideconquer.pdf
[fecha de última consulta: 09/06/2022].

Cunha, L.C., 2021, Uma breve introdução à ética animal: desde as questões clássicas até o que vem sendo discutido atualmente, Appris, Curitiba.

Deb, B., H. Shah, y S. Goel, 2020, “Current Global Vaccine and Drug Efforts against COVID-19: Pros and Cons of Bypassing Animal Trials”, Journal of Biosciences, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1-10. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-020-00053-2)

DeGrazia, D. y J. Sebo, 2015, “Necessary Conditions for Morally Responsible Animal Research”, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 420–430. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000080)

Dorado, D., 2010, “La consideración moral de los animales no humanos en los últimos cuarenta años: una bibliografía anotada”, Télos, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 47–63, descargado de
https://revistas.usc.gal/index.php/telos/article/view/282 [fecha de última consulta:
09/06/2022].

EMA (European Medical Authority), 2020, “COVID-19: How EMA Fast-Tracks Development Support and Approval of Medicines and Vaccines”, European Medical Authority, descargado de https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-how-ema-fast-tracks-developmentsupport-approval-medicines-vaccines

Ética Animal, 2016, “Experimentación animal”, Ética Animal, descargado de https://www.animal-ethics.org/experimentacion-animal [fecha de última consulta: 09/06/2022].

Faria, C. y O. Horta, 2019, “Ética animal”, Enciclopedia de la Sociedad Española
de Filosofía Analítica, descargado de http://www.sefaweb.es/eticaanimal
[fecha de última consulta: 09/06/2022].

Ferdowsian, H., L.S.M. Johnson, J. Johnson, A. Fenton, A. Shriver, y J. Gluck, 2020, “A Belmont Report for Animals?”, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 19-37. (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000732)

Fernández-Creuhet Navajas, J., 1996, “Antropología al servicio de la bioética: el humanismo metafísico”, Cuadernos de Bioética, vol. 7, no. 28, pp. 462-469.

Ferry, L., 1992, Le nouvel ordre écologique: l’arbre, l’animal et l’homme, Grasset, París.

Forrest, J., 2021, “Big Pharma still Largest Lobbying Spender as Biden Signs Crackdown Executive Order, House Seeks to Pass Bill Lowering Drug Prices”, OpenSecrets, descargado de https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/07/big-pharma-largest-lobbying-spenderbiden-crackdown [fecha de última consulta: 09/06/2022]

Francione, G.L., 1996, Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, Temple University Press, Filadelfia.

Gaita, R., 2003, The Philosopher’s Dog: Friendships with Animals, Routledge, Londres.

Godlee F., 2014, “How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research?”, BMJ, 348, g3719. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3719)

Goldman, M.A., 2001, “A Transcendental Defense of Speciesism”, Journal of Value Inquiry, vol. 35, pp. 59–69. (https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010387423499)

Greek, J.S. y R. Greek, 2006, What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment on Animals? Medical Research for the Twenty-First Century, Trafford, Victoria.

Greek, R. y N. Shanks, 2011, “Complex Systems, Evolution, and Animal Models”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 542–544. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.001)

Haynes, R.P., 2008, Animal Welfare: Competing Conceptions and their Ethical Implications, Springer, Dordrecht.

Horta, O., 2010, “La desconsideración de los animales no humanos en la bioética”, Isegoría: Revista de Filosofía Moral y Política, no. 43, pp. 671-686, descargado de
https://isegoria.revistas.csic.es/index.php/isegoria/article/view/716/718 [fecha de
última consulta: 09/06/2022].

Horta, O. y F. Albersmeier, 2020, “Defining Speciesism”, Philosophy Compass, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1–9. (https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12708)

Ingber, D.E., 2020, “Is It Time for Reviewer 3 to Request Human Organ Chip Experiments instead of Animal Validation Studies?”, Advanced Science, vol. 7, no. 22, a. 2002030.
(https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202002030)

Knight, A., 2007, “Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Human Clinical and Toxicological Utility”, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 641–659. (https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290703500610)

Knudsen, L.E., 2013, “Animal-Free Toxicology: The Use of Human Tissue to Replace the Use of Animals —Examples from Human Biomonitoring and Human Placental Transport Studies”, ATLA: Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 443–447.
(https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291304100606)

LaFollette, H. y N. Shanks, 2020 [1997], Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation, Routledge, Nueva York.

Langley, G., C.P. Austin, A.K. Balapure, L.S. Birnbaum, J.R. Bucher, J. Fentem, S.C. Fitzpatrick, J.R. Fowle III, R.J. Kavlock, H. Kitano, y B.A. Lidbury, 2015, “Lessons from Toxicology: Developing a 21st-Century Paradigm for Medical Research”, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 123, no. 11, pp. A268-A272. (https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510345)

Leahy, M., 1991, Against Liberation: Putting Animals in Perspective, Routledge, Londres.

Leyton, F., 2018, “Ciencia y ética: acerca de la situación de los animales no humanos en la investigación”, en M.J. Chible Villadangos, y J. Gallego Saade (eds.), Derecho animal: teoría y práctica, Thomson-Reuters, Santiago de Chile, pp. 289–311.

Leyton, F., 2019, Los animales en la bioética: tensión en las fronteras del antropocentrismo, Herder, Barcelona.

Madden, J.C., S.J. Enoch, A. Paini, y M.T. Cronin, 2020, “A Review of In Silico Tools as Alternatives to Animal Testing: Principles, Resources and Applications”, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 146–172. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0261192920965977)

McMahan, J., 2002, The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mill, J.S., 1969a, Utilitarianism, en Collected works, vol. X, Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Londres, pp. 203–259.

Mill, J.S., 1969b, Whewell on Moral Philosophy, en Collected Works, vol. X, Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Londres, pp. 165–201.

Movia, D., S. Bruni-Favier, y A. Prina-Mello, 2020, “In vitro Alternatives to Acute Inhalation Toxicity Studies in Animal Models —A Perspective”, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, vol. 8, a. 549. (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00549)

Næss, A., 2005, The Selected Works of Arne Næss, vol. X: Deep Ecology of Wisdom, Springer, Dordrecht.

Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basil Backwell, Nueva York.

Pardo Caballos, A., 2005, “Ética de la experimentación animal: directrices legales y éticas contemporáneas”, Cuadernos de bioética, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 393–417.

Pluhar, E.B., 1995, Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals, Duke University Press, Durham.

Posner, R.A., 2004, “Animal Rights: Legal, Philosophical and Pragmatic Perspectives”, en C. Sunstein, y M.C. Nussbaum (eds.), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 51-77.

Ranganatha, N. e I.J. Kuppast, 2012, “A Review on Alternatives to Animal Testing Methods in Drug Development”, International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 28-32, descargado de https://innovareacademics.in/journal/ijpps/Vol4Suppl5/5081.pdf [fecha de última consulta: 09/06/2022]

Reichmann, J., 2000, Evolution, Animal ‘Rights’ and the Environment, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.

Riley, J., 2002, “Interpreting Mill’s Qualitative Hedonism”, Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 212, pp. 410-418. (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9213.00321)

Rozas, M., A. Cancino Rodezno, y O. Horta, 2021, “Las éticas centradas en el sufrimiento y sus implicaciones para el cuestionamiento del uso de los animales”, Revista de Filosofia, Univ. Zulia, vol. 38, no. 99, pp. 81-97. (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5639795)

Ryder, R.D., 1975, Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research, Davis-Poynter, Londres.

Sapontzis, S.F., 1987, Morals, Reason, and Animals, Temple University Press, Filadelfia.

Scanlon, T.M., 1998, What We Owe to Each Other, Belknap, Cambridge.

Schmidt-Petri, C., 2003, “Mill on Quality and Quantity”, Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 210, pp. 102–104. (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9213.00301)

Sharpe, R., 1994, Science on Trial: The Human Cost of Animal Experiments, Awareness, Sheffield.

Steenhuysen, J., 2020, “As Pressure for Coronavirus Vaccine Mounts, Scientists Debate Risks of Accelerated Testing”, Reuters, descargado de https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-insight-iduskbn20y1gz [fecha de última consulta: 09/06/2022].

Sztybel, D., 2006, “A Living Will Clause for Supporters of Animal Experimentation”, Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 173–189. (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00338.x)

Taylor, K., 2014, “EU Member State Government Contribution to Alternative Methods”, ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 215–218. (https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1401061)

Taylor, K., N. Gordon, G. Langley, y W. Higgins, 2008, “Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005”, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 327–342. (https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290803600310)

Taylor, K. y L.R. Alvarez, 2019, “An Estimate of the Number of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes Worldwide in 2015”, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, vol. 47, no. 5–6, pp. 196–213. (https://doi.org/10.1177/0261192919899853)

UPF–Center for Animal Ethics, 2018, UPF-CAE Recomendaciones: Recursos sobre métodos alternativos a la vivisección, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, descargado de https://www.upf.edu/web/cae-center-foranimal-ethics/on-vivisection [fecha de última consulta: 09/06/2022].

Van Norman, G.A., 2019, “Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials: Is It Time to Rethink our Current Approach?”, JACC: Basic to Translational Science, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 845-854. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008)

Winkler, M.S., T. Skirecki, F.M. Brunkhorst, S. Cajander, J.M. Cavaillon, R. Ferrer, S.B. Flohé, A. García-Salido, E.J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, M. Girardis, y M. Kox, 2021, “Bridging Animal and Clinical Research during SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A New-Old Challenge”, EBioMedicine, vol. 66, p. 103291. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103291)

Wu, Q., R. Achebouche, y K. Audouze, 2020, “Computational Systems Biology as an Animal-Free Approach to Characterize Toxicological Effects of Persistent Organic Pollutants”, Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 287-299. (https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1910161)

Zemanova, M.A., 2017, “More Training in Animal Ethics Needed for European Biologists”, Bioscience, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 301-305. (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw177)