VET 797 Palestra “Ética no Uso de Animais em Atividades de Ensino e Pesquisa”: Bibliografia Selecionada

Palestra ministrada na disciplina VET 797 sobre Ética no Uso de Animais em Atividades de Ensino e Pesquisa em 14 de abril de 2023.

Ética e pesquisa

BARTNECK, C.; LÜTGE, C.; WAGNER, A.; WELSH, S. What Is Ethics? An Introduction to Ethics in Robotics and AI, SpringerBriefs in Ethics. p.17–26, 2021. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Disponível em: <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4_3>. Acesso em: 28/2/2023.

BEGLEY, C. G.; IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research. Circulation Research, v. 116, n. 1, p. 116–126, 2015. Disponível em: <https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

BOBBIO, N. Ética e política. Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, , n. 25, p. 131–140, 1992. Disponível em: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-64451992000100006&lng=pt&tlng=pt>. Acesso em: 11/3/2023.

CHANG, H. Who cares about the history of science? Notes and Records: the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, v. 71, n. 1, p. 91–107, 2017. Disponível em: <https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0042>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

COLSON, Y. L. Commentary: When “cutting edge” is “over the line”. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, v. 159, n. 6, p. 2541–2542, 2020. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022522319323670>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

CORREIA, M. I. T. D. Ethics in research. Clinical Nutrition Open Science, v. 47, p. 121–130, 2023. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2667268522000705>. Acesso em: 28/2/2023.

DILLON, J. Utilitarian vs deontological ethics in medicine and dentistry. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, v. 132, n. 6, p. 617–618, 2021. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2212440321006015>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

DOWNS, J. A Brief History of Ethics. Ethics in Forensic Science. p.1–25, 2012. Elsevier. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780123850195000014>. Acesso em: 28/2/2023.

ERICSSON, A. C.; CRIM, M. J.; FRANKLIN, C. L. A brief history of animal modeling. Missouri medicine, v. 110, n. 3, p. 201–205, 2013. United States.

FEESS, E.; KERZENMACHER, F.; TIMOFEYEV, Y. Utilitarian or deontological models of moral behavior—What predicts morally questionable decisions? European Economic Review, v. 149, p. 104264, 2022. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0014292122001556>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

HE, Y.; YUAN, C.; CHEN, L.; et al. While it is not deliberate, much of today’s biomedical research contains logical and technical flaws, showing a need for corrective action. International Journal of Medical Sciences, v. 15, n. 4, p. 309–322, 2018. Disponível em: <http://www.medsci.org/v15p0309.htm>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS Medicine, v. 11, n. 10, p. e1001747, 2014. Disponível em: <https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

LEUKER, C.; SAMARTZIDIS, L.; HERTWIG, R.; PLESKAC, T. J. When money talks: Judging risk and coercion in high-paying clinical trials. (Z. Gao, Org.)PLOS ONE, v. 15, n. 1, p. e0227898, 2020. Disponível em: <https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227898>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

MORRELL, K.; DAHLMANN, F. Aristotle in the Anthropocene: The comparative benefits of Aristotelian virtue ethics over Utilitarianism and deontology. The Anthropocene Review, p. 205301962211050, 2022. Disponível em: <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20530196221105093>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

NODARI, P. C. A ÉTICA ARISTOTÉLICA. Síntese: Revista de Filosofia, v. 24, n. 78, 1997. Disponível em: <https://www.faje.edu.br/periodicos/index.php/Sintese/article/view/722>. Acesso em: 11/3/2023.

NOSELLA, P. Ética e pesquisa. Educação & Sociedade, v. 29, n. 102, p. 255–273, 2008. Disponível em: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-73302008000100013&lng=pt&tlng=pt>. Acesso em: 11/3/2023.

PARRISH, E. Aristotelian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism. Bear Market, 2. dez. 2012. Disponível em: <https://bearmarketreview.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/aristotelian-ethics-vs-utilitarianism/>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

RATHJEN, L.; STÄHELIN, J. Towards a Negative History of Science: The Unknown, Errors, Ignorance, and the “Pseudosciences”. Histories, v. 2, n. 2, p. 146–156, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9252/2/2/11>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

REZA KHORRAMIZADEH, M.; SAADAT, F. Animal models for human disease. Animal Biotechnology. p.153–171, 2020. Elsevier. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128117101000082>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

ROBBINS, J. Between Reproduction and Freedom: Morality, Value, and Radical Cultural Change. Ethnos, v. 72, n. 3, p. 293–314, 2007. Disponível em: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00141840701576919>. Acesso em: 28/2/2023.

ROBINSON, D. H.; TOLEDO, A. H. Historical Development of Modern Anesthesia. Journal of Investigative Surgery, v. 25, n. 3, p. 141–149, 2012. Disponível em: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/08941939.2012.690328>. Acesso em: 4/3/2023.

ROBINSON, N. B.; KRIEGER, KATHERINE; KHAN, F. M.; et al. The current state of animal models in research: A review. International Journal of Surgery, v. 72, p. 9–13, 2019. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1743919119302808>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers. .Retraction Watch, 28. dez. 2015. Disponível em: <https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

TSENG, P.-E.; WANG, Y.-H. Deontological or Utilitarian? An Eternal Ethical Dilemma in Outbreak. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, v. 18, n. 16, p. 8565, 2021. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8565>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

VAN STAVEREN, I. Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics. Review of Political Economy, v. 19, n. 1, p. 21–35, 2007. Disponível em: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09538250601080776>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

VAN DER WORP, H. B.; HOWELLS, D. W.; SENA, E. S.; et al. Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies? PLoS Medicine, v. 7, n. 3, p. e1000245, 2010. Disponível em: <https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

Senciência, bem estar e maus tratos

ANDRADE, S. B.; ANNEBERG, I. Farmers Under Pressure. Analysis of the Social Conditions of Cases of Animal Neglect. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, v. 27, n. 1, p. 103–126, 2014. Disponível em: <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10806-013-9456-9>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

AZEVEDO, A.; WHITING, M.; MAGALHÃES-SANT’ANA, M. 77. The use and misuse of the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights in Portugal. Transforming food systems: ethics, innovation and responsibility. Anais… . p.495–500, 2022. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Wageningen Academic Publishers. Disponível em: <https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/10.3920/978-90-8686-939-8_77>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

BAUMANS, V. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: laboratory animals. Revue Scientifique Et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), v. 24, n. 2, p. 503–513, 2005.

DE BOO, J.; KNIGHT, A. “Concepts in Animal Welfare”: A Syllabus in Animal Welfare Science and Ethics for Veterinary Schools. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, v. 32, n. 4, p. 451–453, 2005. Disponível em: <https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/jvme.32.4.451>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

BROOM, D. M. A History of Animal Welfare Science. Acta Biotheoretica, v. 59, n. 2, p. 121–137, 2011. Disponível em: <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

BROOM, D. M. Brain complexity, sentience and welfare. Animal Sentience, v. 5, n. 29, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol5/iss29/27>. Acesso em: 8/3/2023.

BROWNING, H. The Measurability of Subjective Animal Welfare. Journal of Consciousness Studies, v. 29, n. 3, p. 150–179, 2022a. Disponível em: <https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.53765/20512201.29.3.150>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

BROWNING, H. Assessing measures of animal welfare. Biology & Philosophy, v. 37, n. 4, p. 36, 2022b. Disponível em: <https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10539-022-09862-1>. Acesso em: 9/3/2023.

BROWNING, H.; BIRCH, J. Animal sentience. Philosophy Compass, v. 17, n. 5, 2022. Disponível em: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12822>. Acesso em: 8/3/2023.

BROWNING, H.; VEIT, W. The sentience shift in animal research. The New Bioethics, v. 28, n. 4, p. 299–314, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2022.2077681>. Acesso em: 9/3/2023.

CORIA-AVILA, G. A.; PFAUS, J. G.; ORIHUELA, A.; et al. The Neurobiology of Behavior and Its Applicability for Animal Welfare: A Review. Animals, v. 12, n. 7, p. 928, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/7/928>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

DAWKINS, M. S. Evolution and Animal Welfare. The Quarterly Review of Biology, v. 73, n. 3, p. 305–328, 1998. Disponível em: <https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/420307>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

DELABARY, B. F. Aspectos que influenciam os maus tratos contra animais no meio urbano. Revista Eletrônica em Gestão, Educação e Tecnologia Ambiental, v. 5, n. 5, p. 835–840, 2012.

DUNCAN, I. J. H. The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, v. 100, n. 1–2, p. 11–19, 2006. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168159106001110>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

ENGEL, R. M.; SILVER, C. C.; VEEDER, C. L.; BANKS, R. E. Cognitive Dissonance in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Implications for Animal Welfare. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, v. 59, n. 2, p. 132–138, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-19-000073>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

FRANK, C. The pig that was not convicted of homicide, or: The first animal trial that was none. Global Journal of Animal Law; Vol 9 (2021), 2021. Disponível em: <https://ojs.abo.fi/ojs/index.php/gjal/article/view/1736>. .

FRASER, D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, v. 50, n. S1, p. S1, 2008. Disponível em: <https://actavetscand.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

GORDILHO, H. J. S.; BRITO, F. A. A. Universal Declaration of Animal Rights and Brazilian Law System. Revista Jurídica Luso-Brasileira, v. 5, n. 4, p. 987–1009, 2019.

HAMMERSCHMIDT, J.; MOLENTO, C. F. M. Protocolo de perícia em bem-estar animal para diagnóstico de maus-tratos contra animais de companhia. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science, v. 51, n. 4, p. 282, 2014. Disponível em: <http://www.revistas.usp.br/bjvras/article/view/90021>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

HELD, S. D. E.; ŠPINKA, M. Animal play and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour, v. 81, n. 5, p. 891–899, 2011. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000334721100008X>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

HEMSWORTH, P.; MELLOR, D.; CRONIN, G.; TILBROOK, A. Scientific assessment of animal welfare. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, v. 63, n. 1, p. 24–30, 2015. Disponível em: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00480169.2014.966167>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

HENRY, B. Can Attitudes about Animal Neglect be Differentiated from Attitudes about Animal Abuse? Society & Animals, v. 17, n. 1, p. 21–37, 2009. Disponível em: <https://brill.com/view/journals/soan/17/1/article-p21_2.xml>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

HOLST, A.; MARTENS, P. Determinants of Animal Protection Policy: A Cross-Country Empirical Study. Politics and Animals, v. 2, n. 1, p. 1–14, 2016.

KAAS, J. H. The origin and evolution of neocortex: From early mammals to modern humans. Progress in Brain Research. v. 250, p.61–81, 2019. Elsevier. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0079612319300470>. Acesso em: 8/3/2023.

KNIGHT, S.; VRIJ, A.; BARD, K.; BRANDON, D. Science versus Human Welfare? Understanding Attitudes toward Animal Use. Journal of Social Issues, v. 65, n. 3, p. 463–483, 2009. Disponível em: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01609.x>. Acesso em: 4/3/2023.

KOKNAROGLU, H.; AKUNAL, T. Animal welfare: An animal science approach. Meat Science, v. 95, n. 4, p. 821–827, 2013. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0309174013001526>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

La Déclaration universelle des droits de l’animal. .Disponível em: <https://www.fondation-droit-animal.org/la-fondation/declaration-universelle-droits-de-lanimal/>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

LIRA, M. G. S.; CANTANHÊDE, L. G.; MIRANDA, G. S.; NETA, R. N. F. C. Bioética e uso de animais invertebrados em pesquisa: Uma abordagem histórico-legislativa. Investigação, v. 15, n. 1, p. 143–149, 2016.

Lobsters, octopus and crabs recognised as sentient beings. .Disponível em: <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lobsters-octopus-and-crabs-recognised-as-sentient-beings>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

LUI, J. H.; HANSEN, D. V.; KRIEGSTEIN, A. R. Development and Evolution of the Human Neocortex. Cell, v. 146, n. 1, p. 18–36, 2011. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867411007057>. Acesso em: 8/3/2023.

MATHER, J. A. Ethics and Care: For Animals, Not Just Mammals. Animals, v. 9, n. 12, p. 1018, 2019. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/12/1018>. Acesso em: 8/3/2023.

MCBRIDE, E. A.; BAUGH, S. Animal Welfare in Context: Historical, Scientific, Ethical, Moral and One Welfare Perspectives. In: A. Vitale; S. Pollo (Orgs.); Human/Animal Relationships in Transformation, The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series. p.119–147, 2022. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Disponível em: <https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-85277-1_7>. Acesso em: 13/3/2023.

MCGINNIS, A.; TESAREK KINCAID, A.; BARRETT, M. J.; HAM, C.; COMMUNITY ELDERS RESEARCH ADVISORY GROUP. Strengthening Animal-Human Relationships as a Doorway to Indigenous Holistic Wellness. Ecopsychology, v. 11, n. 3, p. 162–173, 2019. Disponível em: <https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/eco.2019.0003>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

MCMAHON, C. R.; HARCOURT, R.; BATESON, P.; HINDELL, M. A. Animal welfare and decision making in wildlife research. Biological Conservation, v. 153, p. 254–256, 2012. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000632071200239X>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

MELLOR, D.; BEAUSOLEIL, N. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, v. 24, n. 3, p. 241–253, 2015. Disponível em: <https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0962728600006874/type/journal_article>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

MELLOR, D. J.; BEAUSOLEIL, N. J.; LITTLEWOOD, K. E.; et al. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals, v. 10, n. 10, p. 1870, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/10/1870>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

NADASDY, P. First Nations, Citizenship and Animals, or Why Northern Indigenous People Might Not Want to Live in Zoopolis. Canadian Journal of Political Science, v. 49, n. 1, p. 1–20, 2016. Disponível em: <https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0008423915001079/type/journal_article>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

OLIVEIRA, E. M.; GOLDIM, J. R. Legislação de proteção animal para fins científicos e a não inclusão dos invertebrados – Análise bioética. Revista Bioética, v. 22, n. 1, p. 45–56, 2014.

OLSSON, I. A. S.; NIELSEN, B. L.; CAMERLINK, I.; et al. An international perspective on ethics approval in animal behaviour and welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, v. 253, p. 105658, 2022. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168159122001162>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

PEDEN, R. S. E.; TURNER, S. P.; BOYLE, L. A.; CAMERLINK, I. The translation of animal welfare research into practice: The case of mixing aggression between pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, v. 204, p. 1–9, 2018. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016815911830100X>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

PEREIRA, K. C. DE A. F.; MENDONÇA, F. R.; SANTOS, T. S.; et al. Maus-tratos animal e as cinco liberdades: percepção e conhecimento da população de Pelotas/RS. Brazilian Journal of Development, v. 6, n. 2, p. 7503–7515, 2020. Disponível em: <http://www.brjd.com.br/index.php/BRJD/article/view/6915/6094>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

PHILLIPS, C. Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. The Welfare of Animals, Animal Welfare. v. 8, p.55–77, 2009. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Disponível em: <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4020-9219-0_4>. Acesso em: 13/3/2023.

POWELL, R.; MIKHALEVICH, I. Affective sentience and moral protection. Animal Sentience, v. 5, n. 29, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol5/iss29/35>. Acesso em: 8/3/2023.

PROCTOR, H. Animal Sentience: Where Are We and Where Are We Heading? Animals, v. 2, n. 4, p. 628–639, 2012. Disponível em: <http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/4/628>. Acesso em: 4/3/2023.

PROCTOR, H.; CARDER, G.; CORNISH, A. Searching for Animal Sentience: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Literature. Animals, v. 3, n. 3, p. 882–906, 2013. Disponível em: <http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/3/3/882>. Acesso em: 8/3/2023.

RUSSELL, W. M. S. The Use of Non-human Animals in Research: A Guide for Scientists. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, v. 32, n. 2, p. 119–120, 2004. Disponível em: <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/026119290403200209>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

SINCLAIR, M.; PHILLIPS, C. J. C. The Cross-Cultural Importance of Animal Protection and Other World Social Issues. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, v. 30, n. 3, p. 439–455, 2017. Disponível em: <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10806-017-9676-5>. Acesso em: 13/3/2023.

STUCKI, S. Towards a Theory of Legal Animal Rights: Simple and Fundamental Rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v. 40, n. 3, p. 533–560, 2020. Disponível em: <https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/40/3/533/5862901>. Acesso em: 13/3/2023.

The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals, by E. P. Evans—A Project Gutenberg eBook. .Disponível em: <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43286/43286-h/43286-h.htm#APPENDIX>. Acesso em: 9/3/2023.

TINOCO, I. A. P.; CORREIA, M. L. A. Análise crítica sobre  a Declaração Universal dos Direitos dos Animais. Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal, v. 7, p. 169–195, 2010.

VALLORTIGARA, G. Sentience does not require “higher” cognition. Animal Sentience, v. 2, n. 17, 2017. Disponível em: <https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol2/iss17/6>. Acesso em: 4/3/2023.

VATOMSKY, S. When Societies Put Animals on Trial. Disponível em: <https://daily.jstor.org/when-societies-put-animals-on-trial/>. Acesso em: 9/3/2023.

VIEIRA, C.; OLIVEIRA, F. Libertação animal: 40 anos depois. 2016.

WOODHOUSE, J.; CARR, A.; LIEBERGREEN, N.; et al. Conceptualizing Indigenous Human–Animal Relationships in Aotearoa New Zealand: An Ethical Perspective. Animals, v. 11, n. 10, p. 2899, 2021. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/10/2899>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

YEATES, J. W. Ascribing Sentience: Evidential and Ethical Considerations in Policymaking. Animals, v. 12, n. 15, p. 1893, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/15/1893>. Acesso em: 4/3/2023.

Legislação

A Lei Arouca. .Disponível em: <https://agencia.fiocruz.br/lei-arouca>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

BATESON, P. When to experiment on animals. New Scientist (1971), v. 109, n. 1496, p. 30–32, 1986.

Biografia do(a) Deputado(a) Federal SERGIO AROUCA. .Disponível em: <https://www.camara.leg.br/deputados/73423/biografia>. Acesso em: 4/3/2023.

DÍEZ-SOLINSKA, A.; VEGAS, O.; AZKONA, G. Refinement in the European Union: A Systematic Review. Animals, v. 12, n. 23, p. 3263, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/23/3263>. Acesso em: 13/3/2023.

FENWICK, N.; GRIFFIN, G.; GAUTHIER, C. The welfare of animals used in science: how the “Three Rs” ethic guides improvements. The Canadian Veterinary Journal = La Revue Veterinaire Canadienne, v. 50, n. 5, p. 523–530, 2009.

CONSELHO NACIONAL DE CONTROLE DE EXPERIMENTAÇÃO ANIMAL.Disponível em: <https://www.gov.br/mcti/pt-br/composicao/conselhos/concea/pagina-inicial>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

Instituto Estadual de Florestas – IEF – Pesquisa Científica em Unidade de Conservação. .Disponível em: <http://www.ief.mg.gov.br/pesquisa-cientifica>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

LEI 11794. .Disponível em: <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2008/lei/l11794.htm>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

Legislação do Concea. Disponível em: <https://www.gov.br/mcti/pt-br/composicao/conselhos/concea/paginas/publicacoes-legislacao-e-guia/legislacao-do-concea>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

Lei Arouca é aprovada. .Disponível em: <https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/lei-arouca-e-aprovada/>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

Lei que regulamenta a experimentação com animais é aprovada pela Câmara. .Disponível em: <https://agencia.fiocruz.br/lei-que-regulamenta-a-experimenta%C3%A7%C3%A3o-com-animais-%C3%A9-aprovada-pela-c%C3%A2mara>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

IMPRENSA NACIONAL. RESOLUÇÃO N^o 55, de 5 DE OUTUBRO DE 2022 – DOU – Imprensa Nacional. Disponível em: <https://www.in.gov.br/web/dou>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

OHCHR | Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Portuguese. .Disponível em: <https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/portuguese>. Acesso em: 1/3/2023.

Pesquisa nas Unidades de Conservação Federal (UC´s) – SISBIO. .Disponível em: <https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/servicos/servicos-do-icmbio-no-gov.br/autorizacoes/pesquisa-nas-ucs-sisbio/pesquisa-nas-ucs-sisbio>. Acesso em: 14/3/2023.

Requerer e/ou obter renovação ou cancelamento de autorização para realização de pesquisa científica, aula de campo e visita técnica em Unidades de Conservação. .Disponível em: <https://www.mg.gov.br/servico/requerer-eou-obter-renovacao-ou-cancelamento-de-autorizacao-para-realizacao-de-pesquisa>. Acesso em: 13/3/2023.

REZENDE, A. H. DE; PELUZIO, M. DO C. G.; SABARENSE, C. M. Experimentação animal: ética e legislação brasileira. Revista de Nutrição, v. 21, n. 2, p. 237–242, 2008. Disponível em: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-52732008000200010&lng=pt&tlng=pt>. Acesso em: 13/3/2023.

Sergio Arouca. .Disponível em: <https://portal.fiocruz.br/sergio-arouca>. Acesso em: 12/3/2023.

Veto n^o 45/2008 – Vetos – Congresso Nacional. .Disponível em: <https://www.congressonacional.leg.br/materias/vetos/-/veto/detalhe/3149>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

ZUANON, A. C. A. A bioética e as atividades didático-científicas com animais, 2014. Doutorado em Medicina Veterinária, Viçosa: Universidade Federal de Viçosa.

Perspectivas

ALEXY, R. On Necessary Relations Between Law and Morality. Ratio Juris, v. 2, n. 2, p. 167–183, 1989. Disponível em: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1989.tb00035.x>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

BOURQUE, T. One Welfare. The Canadian Veterinary Journal = La Revue Veterinaire Canadienne, v. 58, n. 3, p. 217–218, 2017.

BROOM, D. M.; JOHNSON, K. G. One Welfare, One Health, One Stress: Humans and Other Animals. Stress and Animal Welfare, Animal Welfare. v. 19, p.1–13, 2019. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Disponível em: <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-32153-6_1>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

CELLA, J. R. G. Positivismo jurídico no século XIX: Relações entre direito e moral do Ancien Régime à modernidade. Anais do XIX Encontro Nacional do CONPEDI, p. 5480–5501, 2010.

CLEARY, M.; THAPA, D. K.; WEST, S.; WESTMAN, M.; KORNHABER, R. Animal abuse in the context of adult intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, v. 61, p. 101676, 2021. Disponível em: <https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1359178921001300>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

COLONIUS, T. J.; EARLEY, R. W. One welfare: a call to develop a broader framework of thought and action. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, v. 242, n. 3, p. 309–310, 2013. Disponível em: <https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/242/3/javma.242.3.309.xml>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

FAWCETT, A. One Welfare, the role of health professionals, and climate change. Animal Sentience, v. 5, n. 30, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol5/iss30/9>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

FLYNN, C. P. Examining the links between animal abuse and human violence. Crime, Law and Social Change, v. 55, n. 5, p. 453–468, 2011. Disponível em: <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10611-011-9297-2>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

GARCIA, R. ‘One Welfare’: a framework to support the implementation of OIE animal welfare standards: -EN- -FR- « Un seul bien-être » : un cadre pour favoriser l’application des normes de l’OIE sur le bien-être animal -ES- «Un solo bienestar» : marco de trabajo para apoyar la implementación de las normas de bienestar animal de la OIE. Bulletin de l’OIE, v. 2017, n. 1, p. 3–8, 2017. Disponível em: <https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.xhtml?page=alo&aloId=34699>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

JEGATHEESAN, B.; ENDERS-SLEGERS, M.-J.; ORMEROD, E.; BOYDEN, P. Understanding the Link between Animal Cruelty and Family Violence: The Bioecological Systems Model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, v. 17, n. 9, p. 3116, 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3116>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

JOHN, K. D.; JOHN, G. H. A Review of Indigenous Perspectives in Animal Biosciences. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, v. 11, n. 1, p. 307–319, 2023. Disponível em: <https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-animal-051622-091935>. Acesso em: 10/3/2023.

KENNEDY, B. P. A.; BOYLE, N.; FLEMING, P. J. S.; et al. Ethical Treatment of Invasive and Native Fauna in Australia: Perspectives through the One Welfare Lens. Animals, v. 12, n. 11, p. 1405, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/11/1405>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

KORALESKY, K. E.; RANKIN, J. M.; FRASER, D. The everyday work of One Welfare in animal sheltering and protection. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, v. 9, n. 1, p. 430, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01455-3>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

KUBASIEWICZ, L.; WATSON, T.; NORRIS, S.; et al. One welfare: Linking poverty, equid ownership and equid welfare in the brick kilns of India. Animal Welfare, v. 31, n. 4, p. 517–528, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0962728600032504/type/journal_article>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

LECONSTANT, C.; SPITZ, E. Integrative Model of Human-Animal Interactions: A One Health–One Welfare Systemic Approach to Studying HAI. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, v. 9, p. 656833, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.656833/full>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

LESLIE. Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals. New York University Law Review, v. 83, p. 1–24, 2008.

MOTA-ROJAS, D.; MONSALVE, S.; LEZAMA-GARCÍA, K.; et al. Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach. Animals, v. 12, n. 8, p. 977, 2022. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/8/977>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

MOTTA, P. R. F. Direito e moral: qual o conteúdo para a Constituição? A&C – Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional, p. 173, 2007. Disponível em: <http://www.revistaaec.com/index.php/revistaaec/article/view/758>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

PATTERSON-KANE, E. G.; PIPER, H. Animal Abuse as a Sentinel for Human Violence: A Critique. Journal of Social Issues, v. 65, n. 3, p. 589–614, 2009. Disponível em: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01615.x>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

PINILLOS, R. G.; APPLEBY, M. C.; MANTECA, X.; et al. One Welfare – a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Veterinary Record, v. 179, n. 16, p. 412–413, 2016. Disponível em: <http://doi.wiley.com/10.1136/vr.i5470>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

RAZ, J. About Morality and Nature of Law. American Journal of Jurisprudence, v. 48, p. 1–17, 2003.

TARAZONA, A. M.; CEBALLOS, M. C.; BROOM, D. M. Human Relationships with Domestic and Other Animals: One Health, One Welfare, One Biology. Animals, v. 10, n. 1, p. 43, 2019. Disponível em: <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/1/43>. Acesso em: 15/3/2023.

WEBER, T. Ética, direito e moral. Revista Dissertatio de Filosofia, v. 41, p. 293–304, 2015.