In his chapter, Gardar Arnason argues that if we accept the citizenship framework of nonhuman animal rights, as it is presented by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka in Zoopolis (2011), then we cannot be abolitionist about nonhuman animal research. To show this, Arnason outlines three further implications of the citizenship framework: (1) the interests of nonhuman citizens must be taken into account in our science policy, (2) the moral constraints on the use of nonhuman animals for research must be on par with the moral constraints on the use of humans for research, and (3) in so far as there is a duty to participate in research, that duty will apply, perhaps indirectly, to nonhuman citizens as well.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Cochrane, A., 2007. Animal Rights and Animal Experiments: An Interest-Based Approach. Res Publica, 13(3), pp. 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Waal, F., 1997. Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, S. & Kymlicka, W., 2011. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fenton, A., 2014. Can a Chimp Say “No”? Reenvisioning Chimpanzee Dissent in Harmful Research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 23(2), pp. 130–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francione, G., 2008. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, J., 2005. Scientific Research is a Moral Duty. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(4), pp. 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., 2013. Vulnerable Subjects? The Case of Nonhuman Animals in Experimentation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 10(4), pp. 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. & Barnard, N. D., 2014. Chimpanzees as Vulnerable Subjects in Research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 35(2), pp. 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantin, H. & Wendler, D., 2015. Is There a Role for Assent or Dissent in Animal Research? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), pp. 459–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar