Experimentación con animalesun examen de los argumentos en su defensa

Referencias bibliográficas

• 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)