Skip to main content Accessibility help

Commentary: A Belmont Report for Animals? Rights or Welfare?



  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.



Hide All


1. Ferdowsian, H, Johnson, SM, Johnson, J, Fenton, A, Shriver, A, Gluck, J. A Belmont Report for animals? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29(1):1937.

2. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report 18 April 1979; Washington, DC: US Department of Health, and Human Services; available at (last accessed 18 May 2019).

3. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–2159 (1966), as amended.

4. National Research Council Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

5. Russell, WMS, Burch, RL. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London, UK: Methuen & Co., Ltd; 1959.

6. Marino, L. The Scala Naturae. In: Bekoff, M, ed. Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships: A Global Exploration of Our Connections with Animals, Volume One. Westport, CT: Greenwood; 2007.

7. Marino, L. Ethical gerrymandering in science. Journal of Animal Ethics 2011;1:119–21.

8. Marino, L. Why animal welfarism continues to fail. Animal Sentience: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Animal Feeling 2016;1(7)(5); available at (last accessed 18 May 2019).

9. Wise, S. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books; 2003.

10. See the Nonhuman Rights Project; available at (last accessed 18 May 2019).

11. Wise, S. Entitling non-human animals to fundamental legal rights on the basis of practical autonomy. In: Turner, J, D’Silva, J, eds. Animals, Ethics and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience. New York, NY: Earthscan; 2005. The Nonhuman Rights Project is working to secure legal rights for some animals recognized in common law because common law is based largely on precedent, and if some other animals can be shown to have practical autonomy then there is a logical argument for legal personhood under the common law for them.

12. Andrews, K. The Animal Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Animal Cognition. New York, NY: Routledge; 2015. Also see Donaldson, S, Kymlicka, W. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2011; and Beauchamp, T. The failure of theories of personhood. In: Thomasma, D, Weisstub, D, Hervé, C, eds. Personhood and Health Care. New York, NY: Springer, Dordrecht; 1999.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Commentary: A Belmont Report for Animals? Rights or Welfare?



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.