Animals In Medical Research Research Articles

Sacred cows and golden geese: the human cost of experiments on animals

This volume challenges the widely held belief that the use of living animals in biomedical research is absolutely necessary for the advancement of human medical knowledge. The authors seek to show that the use of animals in medical research is unethical, not only in relation to the suffering of the animals, but because faulty science underpins such experimentation, leading to needless human as well as animal suffering.

A compassionate autonomy alternative to speciesism.

Many people in the animal welfare community have argued that the use of nonhuman animals in medical research is necessarily based on speciesism, an unjustified prejudice based on species membership. As such it is morally akin to racism and sexism. This is misguided. The combined capacities for autonomy and sentience with the obligations derived from relations support a morally justifiable rationale for using some nonhuman animals in order to limit the risk of harm to humans. There may be a few cases where it is morally better to use a never sentient human than a sentient animal, but these cases are few and would not fulfill the current need for research subjects. The use of nonautonomous animals instead of humans in risky research can be based on solid moral ground. It is not necessarily speciesism.

Animals in Medical Research

Animals in Medical Research

Bringing both sides together.

It began in 1992, with two men walking out of a television studio. Colin Blakemore, Oxford Professor of Physiology, is a quiet-spoken, eloquent defender of the use of animals in medical research. Les Ward, Director of the Edinburgh-based Advocates for Animals, is a passionate opponent of animal use. Bringing them together in front of an invited audience with strong opinions on both sides would make the sparks fly and be good viewing. But Blakemore and Ward, retiring after yet another bout that neither side won, were dissatisfied. Both knew that media debates gave them a chance to highlight the flaws and evasions in the other side's arguments, and perhaps to recruit some new supporters to their own. But Ward realized that this was not enough to achieve the radical change he wanted: replacement of animals by other methods. And Blakemore disliked defending animal experiments against all comers. He too wanted to replace animals, albeit only when this could be done without forgoing the real benefits of research.

Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War

Long before the US government began conducting secret radiation and germ-warfare experiments, and long before the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments, medical professionals had introduced - and hotly debated the ethics of - the use of human subjects in medical experiments. In this book Susan Lederer draws on published reports, unpublished correspondence, the popular press, and antivivisection materials to provide a full-length history of biomedical research with human subjects from 1890 to 1940. Lederer examines the situations in which human experimentation occurred as well as the social arrangements made between experimenters and their subjects. She offers detailed accounts of experiments - benign and otherwise - conducted on both healthy and unhealthy men, women, and children. These accounts then form the background for a discussion of such issues as patient consent, self-experimentation, the authority of orthodox medicine, and the ethical problems raised by the use of human subjects in biomedical research. Examining the development of medical research ethics in the pre-World War II period, this book puts contemporary issues in perspective. The book provides valuable historical background for understanding current controversies, from debates about the use of animals in medical research to concerns about informed consent in human research.

Ethics and animal issues in US medical education.

Increasing public and regulatory agency concern about a variety of animal protection issues that affect the field of medicine have made these issues increasingly relevant to medical school curricula. The purpose of this study was to assess the availability and forms of medical school training relating to ethical, conceptual, and societal concerns in the use of animals within the field of medicine and the perceived need for such training. Questionnaire surveys were mailed to the Deans of the 125 accredited US medical schools, and completed by Deans or their designees within the same medical institution. Questionnaire recipients were informed that results would be compiled in a fashion that did not identify specific individuals or institutions. Survey responses were obtained from 84 medical institutions (67% response). Sixty respondents (71%) indicated that their medical school offered or sponsored some type of activity related to ethical and conceptual concerns in the use of animals in medical research and training. Most schools (43) offered informal discussions/seminars relating to these issues, but nine schools offered full formal courses with up to 15 lectures on these topics. Programme content and perceived need for additional instruction varied greatly amongst respondents. The results suggest a wide diversity amongst US medical schools in the availability and perceived importance of medical school training relating to ethical and conceptual concerns in the uses of animals in medicine. It is proposed that instruction in these areas be pursued with more concerted efforts to address the growing body of knowledge about non-human beings and the ethical implications of such knowledge.

Man & Mouse: Animals in Medical Research, 2nd edition. William Paton (1993). Oxford University Press: Oxford. 288pp. Paperback. Obtainable from OUP Distribution Services, Saxon Way West, Corby, Northamptonshire, NN18 9ES, UK (ISBN 0 19 286146 8) Price £7.99 plus £1.75 postage.

Man & Mouse: Animals in Medical Research, 2nd edition. William Paton (1993). Oxford University Press: Oxford. 288pp. Paperback. Obtainable from OUP Distribution Services, Saxon Way West, Corby, Northamptonshire, NN18 9ES, UK (ISBN 0 19 286146 8) Price £7.99 plus £1.75 postage.

Responsibility in use of animals in medical research

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

William Paton, Manz and mouse: animals in medical research, Oxford University Press, 1993, 2nd edition, pp. xvi, 304, £7.99 (0-19-286146-8).

William Paton, Manz and mouse: animals in medical research, Oxford University Press, 1993, 2nd edition, pp. xvi, 304, £7.99 (0-19-286146-8).

Animals in medical research

Over the last few years the biomedical research community, in response to numerous attacks from animal welfare and anti animal-usage groups, has produced a number of popular and semi popular leaflets and booklets defending animal-based research. The two publications considered here are typical examples of the material that has been produced. ‘Animals and the Advancement of Science’, a booklet from the British Association for the Advancement of Science, is a systematic expansion of the six point declaration on animal experimentation originally put forward at the Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1990. Amongst other things, it lists and briefly discusses a number of medical discoveries that were largely dependent on the study of animals and it claims that research using animals is essential to the understanding of disease processes and in the development and testing of new treatments. ‘Understanding Animal Research’ is a booklet in a less formal style, which has been sponsored by the Animals in Medical Research Information Centre and has been paid for by the pharmaceutical industry. It covers in essence the same ground as the British Association's booklet but in a more popular manner.

Formulation of ethical standards for use of animals in medical research

In the past 200 years, moral theories and attitudes toward both humans and animals have changed considerably. These changes have led to widespread criticism of animal use in some or all research and testing. For the most part, the debate has been marked more by rhetoric than scholarship, but the underlying philosophical theories and their protagonists have been a very important influence on the modern debate over animal use. This paper examines some of the moral philosophy and attempts to present the main arguments concisely and simply and to refute common misconceptions.

Biomedical Research & the Animal Rights Movement: A Contrast in Values

Research Article| April 01 1993 Biomedical Research & the Animal Rights Movement: A Contrast in Values Adrian R. Morrison Adrian R. Morrison Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar The American Biology Teacher (1993) 55 (4): 204–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449633 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Adrian R. Morrison; Biomedical Research & the Animal Rights Movement: A Contrast in Values. The American Biology Teacher 1 April 1993; 55 (4): 204–208. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/4449633 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe American Biology Teacher Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1993 National Association of Biology Teachers Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The Use of Animals in Medical Education-Reply

In Reply. —Dr Kaufman's criticism of the use of animals in medical education is not surprising, for it reflects the views of the chairman of a self-professed animal rights group. Contrary to the views stated by Dr Kaufman, the AMA supports the responsible use of animals in medical research and teaching in much the same way as it supports the appropriate use of technology in medicine: after rigorous and carefully thought-out analysis of benefit, risk, and cost. Certainly fellow students, surrogate patients, and even patients represent important learning tools. However, as stated in Ms Foreman's article, most expert opinion recognizes the necessity for the use of animals in medical education and research. It is a bit ironic that Dr Kaufman alludes to a taxpayer's right to demonstrate against a particular biomedical research activity that he or she feels objectionable. Quite often monies collected by animal rights organizations are used to

The moral standing of animals in medical research.

Major segments of the news media, as well as many scientific journals, have produced innumerable articles and stories that polarize issues about proper protections for animals involved in research. The prevailing exposition of the issues is the following: On the one hand, animal lovers make emotional appeals to the public's attachment to animals and use clever tactics to increase the vulnerability of universities and institutions of research. On the other hand, arrogant scientists refuse to respond to public controversy, have an inherent conflict of interest in reviewing research involving animals, and are out to advance their careers and interests, callously using animals as means to that end. As a result, journalists warn NIH officials that they “can expect continuing criticism from two disparate and opposing groups—animal welfare activists, who consider NIH the fox guarding the chickens … and scientists and administrators from the research community, who regard tighter restrictions as unnecessarily burdensome.”

Use of Animals in Medical Education-Reply

In Reply. —While testimony against use of animals in medical education contained in these letters may lead readers to believe that such attitudes are commonplace, facts speak otherwise. First, president of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has orchestrated a letter-writing campaign toJAMAdesigned to promote idea that physicians believe the use of animals in medical education is unnecessary. On contrary, in a recent national survey of over 1500 physicians on attitudes toward use of animals in medical research and education, more than 91% maintained that use of animals was important for their own training, and more than 93% advocated continued use of animals for medical education.1 It is correct that about 25% of medical schools no longer use animal laboratories as part of basic science curriculum; however, many of these schools report that basis for this decision

Animals in Medical Research

Animals in Medical Research

Are we Willing to Fight for our Research?

In June of 1989 The Johns Hopkins Medical School celebrated its hun­ dredth anniversary. In the half-dozen speeches at the opening ceremonies, given by major figures at Hopkins, plus the Secretary of Health, the Postmaster General, and the chief executive officer of one of the country's leading pharmaceutical houses, all the important problems confront­ ing modern medicine were addressed, from AIDS to our legal system­ with one exception. Not one speaker mentioned the animal activists. After the convocation I asked my host, one of the world's leading neurophysiologists, how he could account for this. His answer: David, they're scared to death. On February 8, 1990, the Dean of the Knoxville Tennessee School of Veterinary Medicine was murdered. He was found in the driveway of his home with eight bullets in his chest. Less than two weeks later the Boston Herald reported that animal-rights extremists had threatened to kill one veterinary-college dean each month for twelve months, as a protest against research involving the use of animals. At present these rumors remain unconfirmed, and there seems to be no shred of evidence that the murder had anything to do with the animal activists. What is significant is the immediate and instinctive reaction of those of us who use animals in our research, to have it even cross our minds that the murder might represent some new wave of fanaticism on the part of the animal-rights activists. No one who uses animals in medical research can doubt that these activists pose a most serious threat to our field and to society. I am not a scholar of the animal-activist movement and do not count myself an expert in its history or philosophy. My involvement comes partly from the fact

Animals in Research: A Quote Out of Context

To the Editor.— I wish to correct an erroneous interpretation of a statement I made in a 1979 article 1 on the history of advances in understanding of the disease hepatitis. The sentence taken out of context in my article reads as follows: Progress by the study of man is by no means unusual, in fact it is more nearly the rule. Elsewhere in the same article I noted that although the initial observations of various human diseases must begin with the study of human beings, the elucidation of pathogenesis often depends on the use of other scientific disciplines, including animal experimentation. Indeed most of the research I have engaged in for longer than a half century has involved experimental animals. Yet, opponents of animal experimentation, in a letter 2 published in JAMA , quoted my statement in a letter opposing the use of animals in medical research. Let's keep the

Animals in Research: The American Medical Association's Position-Reply

In Reply.— We are chagrined that Dr Petersen has misconstrued our support of the use of animals in medical research to mean that the American Medical Association indiscriminately support[s] all uses of animals, however cruel and useless. For more than 100 years, the American Medical Association has supported the humane treatment of animals and endorsed legislative actions to ensure proper care of laboratory animals. Dr Allison dismisses the obvious point that the benefit of research with animals, as of research in general, is not what we fail to learn, but rather what we do learn. Certainly there are situations where data extrapolated from animals have proved to be inapplicable to humans. But the vast majority of animal experiments have proved invaluable, as documented in a recent American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs report that identifies many medical advances resulting directly from the use of animals in the laboratory. 1

Ethical problems with the use of animals in medical research and education: an introduction.

It is well to remember that the issue of the use of animals in medical research and training is fought with highly emotional appeals. One needs to assess clearly the moral status of animals and the benefits that medical science produces. It is not enough and will not resolve the issues, to show pictures of animals going through a research procedure or to endlessly parade individuals who have been ‘saved’ by animal research. Only a clear understanding of the issues and careful reasoning will help resolve problems posed by the use of animals in medical research and education. The articles in this issue ofTheoretical Medicine advance the understanding of the moral problems with using animals in medical education, the role of IACUC's in resolving their problems, and the problems of assessing scientific and educational merit of animal use.