Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:24:58.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neuroethics and Animals

Methods and Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2014

TUIJA TAKALA  and
MATTI HÄYRY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article provides an overview of the six other contributions in the Neuroethics and Animals special section. In addition, it discusses the methodological and theoretical problems of interdisciplinary fields. The article suggests that interdisciplinary approaches without established methodological and theoretical bases are difficult to assess scientifically. This might cause these fields to expand without actually advancing.

Keywords

neuroethicsmethodsinterdisciplinarityanimal researchbioethicsphilosophyneuroscience
Type
Special Section: Neuroethics and Animals
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 182 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Takala, T, ed. Philosophical issues in neuroethics [special section]. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2010;19:161–229.Google Scholar

2. Buller, T, Shriver, A, Farah, M. Guest editorial: Broadening the focus. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2014;23:124–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See note 2, Buller et al. 2014.

4. Fenton, A. Can a chimp say “no”? Reenvisioning chimpanzee dissent in harmful research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2014;23:130–39.Google Scholar

5. See note 4, Fenton 2014.

6. Rollin, MDH, Rollin, BE. Crazy like a fox: Validity and ethics of animal models of human psychiatric disease. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2014;23:140–51.Google Scholar

7. See note 6, Rollin, Rollin 2014.

8. Shriver, AJ. The asymmetrical contributions of pleasure and pain to animal welfare. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2014;23:152–62.Google Scholar

9. See note 8, Shriver 2014.

10. Loveless, SE, Giordano, J. Neuroethics, painience, and neurocentric criteria for the moral treatment of animals. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2014;23:163–72.Google Scholar

11. See note 10, Loveless, Giordano 2014.

12. Buller, T. Animal minds and neuroimaging: Bridging the gap between science and ethics? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2014;23:173–81.Google Scholar

13. See note 12, Buller 2014.