Moral Responses to the Justices and Injustices of Using Humans and Non-Human Animals in Scientific Research and Experiment Respons Tanggapan Moral terhadap Keadilan dan Ketidakadilan dalam Penggunaan Manusia dan Hewan Non-Manusia dalam Penelitian dan Eksperimen Ilmiah
Main Article Content
Abstract
Wacana moral atau etis mengenai penggunaan manusia dan hewan non-manusia dalam penelitian ilmiah merupakan isu yang sangat penting, terutama berkaitan dengan keseimbangan antara kemajuan ilmu pengetahuan dan perlakuan etis terhadap subjek penelitian. Penggunaan hewan non-manusia menimbulkan dilema etis karena hewan tidak memiliki kapasitas untuk memberikan persetujuan, sehingga tindakan yang dilakukan dalam penelitian sering kali mengakibatkan rasa sakit atau penderitaan. Artikel ini menganalisis kemungkinan terjadinya eksploitasi, cedera, dan pelanggaran hak, khususnya terhadap kelompok manusia yang rentan serta hewan non-manusia yang tidak dapat memberikan persetujuan. Penelitian ini menggunakan analisis mendalam terhadap konsep-konsep etika, kasus-kasus historis, dan kerangka hukum untuk mengevaluasi perlindungan terhadap partisipan penelitian. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun telah terdapat kemajuan dalam perlindungan subjek penelitian manusia melalui persetujuan berdasarkan informasi (informed consent) dan pengawasan etis, ketidakadilan masih terus terjadi, terutama ketika kelompok yang kurang beruntung menghadapi pemaksaan dan eksploitasi. Artikel ini merekomendasikan penguatan aturan etika untuk melindungi hak dan martabat subjek penelitian, baik manusia maupun hewan non-manusia. Artikel ini menyimpulkan dengan menyerukan respons moral yang lebih berkeadilan melalui peningkatan pengawasan regulasi, penguatan kesadaran etis di kalangan peneliti, serta eksplorasi metodologi penelitian alternatif.
The moral or ethical discourse about using humans and non-human animals in scientific research is a critical issue, especially concerning the equilibrium between scientific advancement and the ethical treatment of subjects. Non-human animals have ethical dilemmas stemming from their lack of capacity to agree, resulting in actions that often inflict pain or suffering. This article analyzes the possibility of exploitation, injury, and rights violations, especially with vulnerable people and non-consenting animals that are not humans. The research employs an extensive analysis of ethical concepts, historical cases, and legal frameworks to assess the safeguarding of research participants. Findings indicate that while advancements have been achieved in safeguarding human subjects via informed consent as well as ethical supervision, injustices persist as disadvantaged groups face coercion and exploitation. The paper recommends enhanced ethical rules to safeguard the rights and dignity of human and non-human research subjects. It concludes by advocating for a more equitable moral response, emphasizing more regulatory monitoring, increased ethical consciousness among researchers, and exploring alternative research methodologies.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Andersen, M.L. & Rosa, D.S. (2023). The Use of Animals in Basic Biological Research. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume I. Cham: Springer.
Balls, M. (2010). The principles of humane experimental technique: timeless insights and unheeded warnings. ALTEX, 27, 144-148.
Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Bennison R. (13-18 July, 2009). The Qur’ân, Shari‘a law and the exclusion of nonhuman animals; Proceedings of the Minding Animals Conference, Newcastle, Australia.
Bernard, C. (2007). An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. Greene HC, translator. New York: Macmillan.
Birch, J. (2022). Materialism and the Moral Status of Animals. Philosophical Quarterly, 72 (4), 795-815.
Britannica, T. (2015). Ahimsa. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ahimsa
Browning, H. & Birch, J. (2022). Animal Sentience. Philosophy Compass, 17 (5), e12822.
Carson, R. (2022). The 3 R’s of Humane Animal Research. https://www.rockstepsolutions.com/blog/the-3rs-of-humane-animal-research/
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2016). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf
DeGrazia, D. (1996). Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge University Press.
Della, C.Y. (2023). Epistemic Injustice and Nonmaleficence. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 20(3), 447–456.
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711.
Eisenberg, R. L. (2004). The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions. Jewish Publication Society.
European Commission (2023). Research Ethics and Integrity in the EU: Animal and Human Research Standards. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity_horizon_en.pdf
Freedman, B. (1987). Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 317(3), 141-145.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power & the ethics of knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.
https://www.questionpro.com/blog/empirical-research/
Hubrecht, R.C. & Carter, E. (2019). The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change. Animal, 9, 754.
Kiani, A. K., Pheby, D., Henehan, G., Brown, R., Sieving, P., Sykora, P., Marks, R., Falsini, B., Capodicasa, N., Miertus, S., Lorusso, L., Dondossola, D., Tartaglia, G. M., Ergoren, M. C., Dundar, M., Michelini, S., Malacarne, D., Bonetti, G., Dautaj, A., Donato, K. et al. (2022). Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation. Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 63(2 Suppl 3), E255–E266.
Korsgaard, C.M. (2018). Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals. Oxford University Press.
Melis, G. & Monso, S. (2023). Are humans the only rational animals? The Philosophical Quarterly, (3), 844-864.
Monso, S. & Andrews, K. (2022). Animal moral psychologies. In Vargas, M. & John, D. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Nagai, H., Nakazawa, E., & Akabayashi, A. (2022). The creation of the Belmont Report and its effect on ethical principles: a historical study. Monash bioethics review, 40(2), 157–170.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2022). NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Animals. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf
Nobis, N. (2004). Carl Cohen's ‘Kind’ Arguments For Animal Rights and Against Human Rights. Journal Of Applied Philosophy, 21(1), 43-59.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2005). The ethics of research involving animals. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/The-ethics-of-research-involving-animals-full-report.pd
Ottuh, P.O.O. & Idjakpo, O. G. (2021). Imperativeness of ethics in Christianity: Perspectives and praxis. KIU Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 129-135.
Ottuh, P.O.O. & Idjakpo, O.G. (2021). Animal care and ethics in contemporary religious debates. Jurnal Sosialisasi, 8(2), 128-141.
Ottuh, P.O.O. & Ihwighwu, J. (2023). An ethico-theological assessment of in-vitro meat in human society. Ramon Llull journal of applied ethics, (14), 29-50.
Ottuh, P.O.O. (2020). Dialogue concerning life: Abiogenesis, biogenesis or creationism: Religious response. Predestinasi, 13(2), 67-78.
Ottuh, P.O.O. (2020). Religious Approach to Non‐Anthropocentric Ethics in Environmental Philosophy. Cogito-Multidisciplinary research Journal, (1), 7-24.
Ottuh, P.O.O. (2021). A prudential personalist Ethical appraisal of human cloning. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, 7(3), 310-330.
Ottuh, P.O.O. (2022). An Evaluation of Religious Skepticism in Relation to Human Suffering and Pain: Towards a Theodical Synthesis. ICOANA CREDINTEI: International Journal of Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, 8(16), 50-61.
QuestionPro (2024).Empirical Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples
Rahman S.A. (2017). Religion and Animal Welfare-An Islamic Perspective. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 7(2), 11.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
Regan, T. (1986). A case for animal rights. In M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science (pp. 179-189). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.
Ross, A., Pickering, K., Snodgrass, J., Delcore, H. & Sherman, R. (2011). Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and Institutional Conflicts. London: Left Coast Press
Singer, P. & Tse, Y.F. (2023). AI ethics: the case for including animals. AI Ethics, 3, 539–551.
Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. HarperCollins.
Steffen, J.T. (2022). Current and future threats to human health in the Anthropocene, Environment International, 158, 106892 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021005171
Stewart, K. (2024). Nuremberg Code. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nuremberg-Code
Tannenbaum, J. & Jaworska, A. (2018). The Grounds of Moral Status. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 0-0
Zemanova, M. (2021). Making room for the 3Rs principles of animal use in ecology: potential issues identified through a survey. European Journal of Ecology, 7(2), 18-39. https://doi.org/10.17161/eurojecol.v7i2.14683