A Radical Approach to Ebola: Saving Humans and Other Animals

11Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

As the usual regulatory framework did not fit well during the last Ebola outbreak, innovative thinking still needed. In the absence of an outbreak, randomised controlled trials of clinical efficacy in humans cannot be done, while during an outbreak such trials will continue to face significant practical, philosophical, and ethical challenges. This article argues that researchers should also test the safety and effectiveness of novel vaccines in wild apes by employing a pluralistic approach to evidence. There are three reasons to test vaccines in wild populations of apes: i) protect apes; ii) reduce Ebola transmission from wild animals to humans; and iii) accelerate vaccine development and licensing for humans. Data obtained from studies of vaccines among wild apes and chimpanzees may even be considered sufficient for licensing new vaccines for humans. This strategy will serve to benefit both wild apes and humans.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Edwards, S. J. L., Norell, C. H., Illari, P., Clarke, B., & Neuhaus, C. P. (2018). A Radical Approach to Ebola: Saving Humans and Other Animals. American Journal of Bioethics, 18(10), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1513584

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free