The main goal of this ethical research project is to provide a gradualist and coherentist approach to weigh conflicting ethical positions on NHP research. Therefore, the ethical background for enabling non-arbitrary decisions in a situation of fundamental conflict has to be examined, in terms of theoretical issues, practical issues, and empirical evaluation. The theoretical issues focus on the theoretical commitments implied by the gradualist-coherentist approach, and the arguments within moral theory that may threaten them. The practical issues concern the proper framework and parameters for coherent decision-making, and the nature of burdens and benefits in NHP research. At the core of the project is an empirical investigation of stakeholder and public views on the ranked order of various research options with regard to burdens and benefits. These results will provide the empirical basis to examine whether or to what extend our coherentist rankings are acceptable despite different ethical backgrounds. Research activities will be evaluated and ranked with regard to harm caused to NHPs and the benefits of the research. For any given set of research activities, one can identify and reasonably evaluate relative harms and benefits and determine whether the burden constitutes a fair trade-off in view of the benefits. The relation of benefit and harm can be determined and evaluated according to similar, well-founded decisions in relevant areas. We hope to get at least a partial consensus here despite different ethical backgrounds. The project also maintains, in open access, a collection of information about laws and regulations related to NHP research. Finally, ethics consultation is made available to NHP researchers, and project participants will engage in impact activities in order to disseminate results and engage stakeholders and other interested parties.

For information on decision, laws and regulations with respect to non-human primate research see

neuroprimate.wordpress.com/legal

neuroprimate.wordpress.com/ethical

Arnason G (2017) Animal Research and the Political Theory of Animal Rights. In: Gabriel Garmendia da Trindade and Andrew Woodhall (eds.) Ethical and Political Approaches to Nonhuman Animal Issues (Palgrave Macmillan).

Arnason G (2017) Synthetic Biology Between Self-Regulation and Public Discourse. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 26(2):246-256, doi:10.1017/S0963180116000840

Arnason G (2017) The Role and Obligations of Ethicists as Members of Ethics Committees in Professional Organizations. AJOB Neuroscience 8(1):18-20, doi:10.1080/21507740.2017.1285827

Arnason G, Clausen J (2016) On balance: Weighing harms and benefits in fundamental neurological research using nonhuman primates. Med Health Care Philos 19(2): 229-237, doi: 10.1007/s11019-015-9663-4.