Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement

Bibliographic Data

ID7177587
AuthorsDavid Mawufemor Azilagbetor (0000-0003-1294-639X, corresponding author), Gail Davies (0000-0002-6811-0885, University of Exeter), Lester Darryl Geneviève (0000-0001-5834-2220, University of Basel), David Shaw (0000-0001-8180-6927, University of Basel), Bernice S Elger (0000-0002-4249-7399)
Year2025
Volume28
Issue4
Pages735-750
Publication date2025-08-13
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueMedicine Health Care and Philosophy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1386-7423 • E-ISSN: 1572-8633
PublisherSpringer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1007/s11019-025-10288-1
PMID40802203
OpenAlexW4413113283
LanguageEN
References cited88

Doing scientific research with animals is a subject of intense societal debate, often involving polarized and public discussions with stakeholders and groups interested in animal research. Patients, given their medical conditions, have a high stake in biomedical research, including research involving animals. However, their perspectives are rarely heard in policy-related discussions on animal experiments. This essay discusses the positions and stakes of groups involved in public discourse and policy-relevant engagements. It further explores the legitimate interest of patients and the need for an all-inclusive approach to animal research policy. This subject is complex and democratic societies must address societal issues with an all-inclusive approach to reach policy decisions reflecting the interests of all stakeholders. The positions of groups—pro-animal research stakeholders and anti-animal-research advocates—with vested interests involved in animal research discourse considerably shape research policies. Animal research policies arguably affect patients. Through democratic ideals, inclusive approaches that are suitable for resolving science-driven societal issues, and initiatives currently guiding animal research policies, patients need to actively be involved in public discourses and policy-relevant decision-making processes in deciding the place of animal research in biomedical advancement as a society

Alternative medicine · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Medical law · Pathology · Philosophy of biology · Philosophy of medicine · Philosophy of science · Psychiatry · Engineering · Health Policy Implementation Science · Health Sciences Research and Education · Medicine · Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare · Philosophy · Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access