Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_013
M. Cojocaru, Philipp von Gall
The fact that countries all over the world continue to develop new regula tions for experimentation on non-human animals testament that this prac tice raises many doubts. Our aim in this chapter is to show that one important type of doubt should receive more attention: a particular type of moral doubt that could play a pivotal role in the ethical review of animal experiments. We assume that there are a range of emotions that indicate morally complex or problematic situations. When one or all of these emotions are experienced, we say that someone is experiencing moral doubt. To illustrate this point, we introduce the concept of moral doubt in the context of review processes, as they are legally required in the European Union (Eu). Independent evaluation committees review animal research proposals to advise competent authorities whether applications for animal experiments comply with the legal standards. We chose the case of Germany as an example to explain what these commit tees decide upon and the degree to which their decisions may be influenced by emotions. We develop the argument that acknowledging emotional moral doubt throughout the review process, in specific ways, may have the positive effect of fostering paradigm change in animal experimentation, as envisioned in Directive 2010/63/EU (European Parliament, 2010 ).
{"title":"Beyond Plausibility Checks: A Case for Moral Doubt in Review Processes of Animal Experimentation","authors":"M. Cojocaru, Philipp von Gall","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_013","url":null,"abstract":"The fact that countries all over the world continue to develop new regula tions for experimentation on non-human animals testament that this prac tice raises many doubts. Our aim in this chapter is to show that one important type of doubt should receive more attention: a particular type of moral doubt that could play a pivotal role in the ethical review of animal experiments. We assume that there are a range of emotions that indicate morally complex or problematic situations. When one or all of these emotions are experienced, we say that someone is experiencing moral doubt. To illustrate this point, we introduce the concept of moral doubt in the context of review processes, as they are legally required in the European Union (Eu). Independent evaluation committees review animal research proposals to advise competent authorities whether applications for animal experiments comply with the legal standards. We chose the case of Germany as an example to explain what these commit tees decide upon and the degree to which their decisions may be influenced by emotions. We develop the argument that acknowledging emotional moral doubt throughout the review process, in specific ways, may have the positive effect of fostering paradigm change in animal experimentation, as envisioned in Directive 2010/63/EU (European Parliament, 2010 ).","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131372507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_005
S. Vyas
Animal experiments are commonly conducted to understand human diseases and responses to treatment. As decades of research indicate, the use of non human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) to translate the side effects, benefits, and impact of medications and treatments on the human body has been demonstrated to be ineffective; while billions of animals and humans have suffered (Shanks, Greek and Greek, 2009). Due to misleading safety and efficacy data from animal experiments, humans are often prescribed medica tions that may not be as effective or as safe as the patient, or even physician, may have been led to believe (Akhtar, 2015). In the United States alone, over 820,000 animals were used for research in 2016. This number does not include many species, including mice, rats and aquatic animals, under the Animal Welfare Act (United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, 2017 ). It is estimated that up to 100 million mice and rats are used for research purposes in the us each year (Carbone, 2004). A number of species of farm animals are also used in research for the purpose of enhancing the agricultural industry. However, from an ethical standpoint, experimenting on animals subjects them to cruelty, costs billions of dollars a year, and of ten does not provide sufficient results to ensure human safety (Akhtar, 2015). A major reason that animal studies are ineffective is that human bodies are very different physiologically from other animals, including the way we develop dis eases and how we absorb nutrients. Many advances have been made to create alternatives to animal testing, which are being adopted by scientists interested in innovative methods in research; and, yet, the use of animals for therapeutic testing is on the rise. To attain more accurate data regarding human health, there are no substitutes for human populationand clinical studies, particular ly for lifestyle-related diseases, which may not be relevant to non-humans. This chapter addresses how we can make decisions towards disease prevention and reduce the demand for prescription drugs and, in turn, reduce animal research and testing, through the adoption of a whole foods, plant-based diet, which has
通常进行动物实验来了解人类疾病和对治疗的反应。正如几十年的研究表明，使用非人类动物(以下简称动物)来翻译药物和治疗对人体的副作用，益处和影响已被证明是无效的;而数十亿的动物和人类却遭受了苦难(Shanks, Greek and Greek, 2009)。由于动物实验的安全性和有效性数据具有误导性，人类经常被开出的药物可能不像患者甚至医生所相信的那样有效或安全(Akhtar, 2015)。仅在美国，2016年就有超过82万只动物被用于研究。根据《动物福利法》(United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, 2017)，这个数字不包括许多物种，包括小鼠、大鼠和水生动物。据估计，美国每年有多达1亿只小鼠和大鼠被用于研究目的(Carbone, 2004)。许多农场动物物种也被用于研究，目的是提高农业工业。然而，从道德的角度来看，动物实验使他们遭受残酷，每年花费数十亿美元，并且通常不能提供足够的结果来确保人类安全(Akhtar, 2015)。动物研究无效的一个主要原因是人体在生理上与其他动物非常不同，包括我们患病的方式和我们吸收营养的方式。在创造动物试验的替代方法方面取得了许多进展，对创新研究方法感兴趣的科学家正在采用这些方法;然而，使用动物进行治疗试验的情况正在增加。为了获得关于人类健康的更准确的数据，没有什么可以替代人口和临床研究，特别是与生活方式有关的疾病，因为这些疾病可能与非人类无关。本章讨论了我们如何做出预防疾病的决定，减少对处方药的需求，进而减少动物研究和试验，通过采用全食物，植物性饮食，这已经
{"title":"Disease Prevention with a Plant-based Lifestyle","authors":"S. Vyas","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_005","url":null,"abstract":"Animal experiments are commonly conducted to understand human diseases and responses to treatment. As decades of research indicate, the use of non human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) to translate the side effects, benefits, and impact of medications and treatments on the human body has been demonstrated to be ineffective; while billions of animals and humans have suffered (Shanks, Greek and Greek, 2009). Due to misleading safety and efficacy data from animal experiments, humans are often prescribed medica tions that may not be as effective or as safe as the patient, or even physician, may have been led to believe (Akhtar, 2015). In the United States alone, over 820,000 animals were used for research in 2016. This number does not include many species, including mice, rats and aquatic animals, under the Animal Welfare Act (United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, 2017 ). It is estimated that up to 100 million mice and rats are used for research purposes in the us each year (Carbone, 2004). A number of species of farm animals are also used in research for the purpose of enhancing the agricultural industry. However, from an ethical standpoint, experimenting on animals subjects them to cruelty, costs billions of dollars a year, and of ten does not provide sufficient results to ensure human safety (Akhtar, 2015). A major reason that animal studies are ineffective is that human bodies are very different physiologically from other animals, including the way we develop dis eases and how we absorb nutrients. Many advances have been made to create alternatives to animal testing, which are being adopted by scientists interested in innovative methods in research; and, yet, the use of animals for therapeutic testing is on the rise. To attain more accurate data regarding human health, there are no substitutes for human populationand clinical studies, particular ly for lifestyle-related diseases, which may not be relevant to non-humans. This chapter addresses how we can make decisions towards disease prevention and reduce the demand for prescription drugs and, in turn, reduce animal research and testing, through the adoption of a whole foods, plant-based diet, which has","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123917257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_014
Jane Johnson, A. Smajdor
Most research on non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) in volves clear harms for the animals used, either as a direct result of research protocols or by virtue of the conditions under which the animals are kept. Ar guably, however, although these harms are widely acknowledged, they have not motivated significant change to the practice of animal research. In this chapter, we focus on the damage to humans that can result from animal ex perimentation and how this may act as an alternative driver of change. Humans employed in animal research, whether inside animal housing or the laboratory, confront significant stress as a result of what they routinely do as part of their job, as well as by virtue of how that work is received by "outsid ers" to animal research. These workplace stressors can result in physical and psychological harms. It is well known that human patients may also be harmed as a consequence of the epistemological shortcomings of research undertaken on animals, which fails to translate to human clinical settings. Whilst we will briefly discuss these kinds of physical and psychological harms, our primary focus is the moral injury that can result from the practice of animal research. Moral injury occurs when a disregard of someone's well-being causes them harm. Typically, this is understood to encompass the kind of moral wrong that may arise from systematic injustices or from criminal or violent acts. However, moral injury is increasingly recognized as a problem for the perpetrators as well as the victims of certain acts. Moral injury, thus, also occurs when a person
{"title":"Human Wrongs in Animal Research: A Focus on Moral Injury and Reification","authors":"Jane Johnson, A. Smajdor","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_014","url":null,"abstract":"Most research on non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) in volves clear harms for the animals used, either as a direct result of research protocols or by virtue of the conditions under which the animals are kept. Ar guably, however, although these harms are widely acknowledged, they have not motivated significant change to the practice of animal research. In this chapter, we focus on the damage to humans that can result from animal ex perimentation and how this may act as an alternative driver of change. Humans employed in animal research, whether inside animal housing or the laboratory, confront significant stress as a result of what they routinely do as part of their job, as well as by virtue of how that work is received by \"outsid ers\" to animal research. These workplace stressors can result in physical and psychological harms. It is well known that human patients may also be harmed as a consequence of the epistemological shortcomings of research undertaken on animals, which fails to translate to human clinical settings. Whilst we will briefly discuss these kinds of physical and psychological harms, our primary focus is the moral injury that can result from the practice of animal research. Moral injury occurs when a disregard of someone's well-being causes them harm. Typically, this is understood to encompass the kind of moral wrong that may arise from systematic injustices or from criminal or violent acts. However, moral injury is increasingly recognized as a problem for the perpetrators as well as the victims of certain acts. Moral injury, thus, also occurs when a person","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129501329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_006
E. McIvor
The ambition of the paradigm shift we seek is vast, and the obstacles we face are intractable. For anyone opposing the use of non-human animals (herein after referred to as animals) in research and testing, the story has been the same from the start. Legitimate concern for animals has been all-too-easily dismissed as misguided sentimentality, and powerful vested interests have claimed scientific, economic, and moral superiority. But the ground is shifting. Animal researchers accept the need to provide scientific justification for their choices, and the protection of animals is increasingly recognized as a public good. Concern among citizens has been translated into hard-and-fast rules, and scientific advances have added weight to the growing demand for change. In deciding how best to achieve the paradigm shift, the question for animal advocates is how to create the greatest change in the shortest time possible. This chapter deals with political campaigning at the European Union (Eu) level, since the adoption of the first Eu Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, and focuses on the main political developments of the past two decades. Historically, much was made of a perceived choice between presenting ethical or scientific arguments; both are powerful drivers, providing evidence that existing practice is flawed. Other chapters in this Vol ume describe aspects of those approaches in detail; similarly, the question of whether to focus on the 3Rs or replacement only is also covered elsewhere. In this chapter, a pragmatic policy focus is necessary to explore how scientific and ethical objectives can be pursued in order to move forward in the politi cal arena, making full use of existing structures and creating new opportuni ties. The stakes are high. Our vision requires a revolution in science and in the way animals are treated. Twenty-first century technology should not depend on inhumane practices, just as modern economies should not depend on the destruction of the environment or the exploitation of workers.
{"title":"Political Campaigning: Where Scientific and Ethical Arguments Meet Public Policy","authors":"E. McIvor","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_006","url":null,"abstract":"The ambition of the paradigm shift we seek is vast, and the obstacles we face are intractable. For anyone opposing the use of non-human animals (herein after referred to as animals) in research and testing, the story has been the same from the start. Legitimate concern for animals has been all-too-easily dismissed as misguided sentimentality, and powerful vested interests have claimed scientific, economic, and moral superiority. But the ground is shifting. Animal researchers accept the need to provide scientific justification for their choices, and the protection of animals is increasingly recognized as a public good. Concern among citizens has been translated into hard-and-fast rules, and scientific advances have added weight to the growing demand for change. In deciding how best to achieve the paradigm shift, the question for animal advocates is how to create the greatest change in the shortest time possible. This chapter deals with political campaigning at the European Union (Eu) level, since the adoption of the first Eu Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, and focuses on the main political developments of the past two decades. Historically, much was made of a perceived choice between presenting ethical or scientific arguments; both are powerful drivers, providing evidence that existing practice is flawed. Other chapters in this Vol ume describe aspects of those approaches in detail; similarly, the question of whether to focus on the 3Rs or replacement only is also covered elsewhere. In this chapter, a pragmatic policy focus is necessary to explore how scientific and ethical objectives can be pursued in order to move forward in the politi cal arena, making full use of existing structures and creating new opportuni ties. The stakes are high. Our vision requires a revolution in science and in the way animals are treated. Twenty-first century technology should not depend on inhumane practices, just as modern economies should not depend on the destruction of the environment or the exploitation of workers.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127753767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_003
R. Greek, Lisa A. Kramer
Over time, the interpretation of science has occasionally been corrupted by vested interest groups, be they financially motivated or ego driven. Scientific consensus and widespread public beliefs usually catch up with the evidence, but this can take a very long time and often costs lives. The use of non-human animals in biomedical research and testing is a scientific endeavor and, as such, can and should be evaluated in light of the best science currently available. But facts that have been accepted in all areas of science are routinely ignored or called into question by well-funded, vested interest groups, compromising the scientific integrity of biomedical research. History is replete with examples of practices deemed scientifically viable in one era, but later abandoned as more facts about the material universe were discovered. There are also many instances of practices being rejected by the scientific establishment, in spite of the fact that they were valid based on scientific criteria. In this chapter, we discuss why science is important in the context of animal modeling, how sci entific positions are currently evaluated through the peer-review process, and how an evaluation of the science of animal modeling should be conducted now. We reach the conclusion that, in order to formally evaluate the scientific viability of animal modeling, a debate is urgently needed with experts in the relevant fields of science reviewing pro and con arguments written in position papers.
{"title":"How to Evaluate the Science of Non-human Animal Use in Biomedical Research and Testing: A Proposed Format for Debate","authors":"R. Greek, Lisa A. Kramer","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_003","url":null,"abstract":"Over time, the interpretation of science has occasionally been corrupted by vested interest groups, be they financially motivated or ego driven. Scientific consensus and widespread public beliefs usually catch up with the evidence, but this can take a very long time and often costs lives. The use of non-human animals in biomedical research and testing is a scientific endeavor and, as such, can and should be evaluated in light of the best science currently available. But facts that have been accepted in all areas of science are routinely ignored or called into question by well-funded, vested interest groups, compromising the scientific integrity of biomedical research. History is replete with examples of practices deemed scientifically viable in one era, but later abandoned as more facts about the material universe were discovered. There are also many instances of practices being rejected by the scientific establishment, in spite of the fact that they were valid based on scientific criteria. In this chapter, we discuss why science is important in the context of animal modeling, how sci entific positions are currently evaluated through the peer-review process, and how an evaluation of the science of animal modeling should be conducted now. We reach the conclusion that, in order to formally evaluate the scientific viability of animal modeling, a debate is urgently needed with experts in the relevant fields of science reviewing pro and con arguments written in position papers.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131795517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_019
Kathy Archibald, Robert Coleman, T. Drake
Animal safety testing for new medicines is arguably the most difficult use of non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) to challenge, for two reasons: first, it is required by governments (regulatory testing); second, pro tecting patients is a vital goal, and it seems intuitively obvious that animal tests must protect patients. Animal testing became institutionalized in the mid twentieth century (Parke, 1994) in response to early drug disasters, with the aim of preventing further tragedies. However, even the laudable aim of protecting patients cannot justify animal testing, unless it is the most effec tive means to ensure the safety of medicines. European Union (EU) law (Euro pean Parliament, 2010, Directive 2010/63/EU) states that animals must not be used if a non-animal method could achieve the same purpose. So, it is crucial to know how well animal tests predict the safety of medicines, and whether any other methods are equally or more predictive. In addition to the question of predictive value, other important issues must also be taken into consider ation, including the efficiency of different methods in terms of time and costs; and the ethical acceptability of using animals, if their use is deemed to be of irreplaceable value. The issue of whether animals should be used as human surrogates for safety testing is highly contentious; individual views range from no use of animals
{"title":"Replacing Animal Tests to Improve Safety for Humans","authors":"Kathy Archibald, Robert Coleman, T. Drake","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_019","url":null,"abstract":"Animal safety testing for new medicines is arguably the most difficult use of non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) to challenge, for two reasons: first, it is required by governments (regulatory testing); second, pro tecting patients is a vital goal, and it seems intuitively obvious that animal tests must protect patients. Animal testing became institutionalized in the mid twentieth century (Parke, 1994) in response to early drug disasters, with the aim of preventing further tragedies. However, even the laudable aim of protecting patients cannot justify animal testing, unless it is the most effec tive means to ensure the safety of medicines. European Union (EU) law (Euro pean Parliament, 2010, Directive 2010/63/EU) states that animals must not be used if a non-animal method could achieve the same purpose. So, it is crucial to know how well animal tests predict the safety of medicines, and whether any other methods are equally or more predictive. In addition to the question of predictive value, other important issues must also be taken into consider ation, including the efficiency of different methods in terms of time and costs; and the ethical acceptability of using animals, if their use is deemed to be of irreplaceable value. The issue of whether animals should be used as human surrogates for safety testing is highly contentious; individual views range from no use of animals","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133328403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_021
J. Pippin, Sarah E. Cavanaugh, F. Pistollato
Perhaps the most impactful and foreboding development in chronic diseas es in recent decades has been the increasing prevalence and awareness of dementia. The various dementias, especially Alzheimer disease (AD), have de railed and ended the lives of tens of millions in America and worldwide. It is a truism that AD patients die twice. First the mind dies, and only later does the body. AD uniquely and unremittingly affects not only patients, but their families, caregivers, and communities. In recent years, AD may have displaced cancer as the most feared disease among Americans. As with other diseases that have no meaningful methods for prevention and treatment, research tar geting AD has primarily focused on preclinical approaches, predominantly us ing animals. Nonetheless, decades of animal research have failed to translate into significant advances in the prevention or treatment of AD. In view of this failure, a different and human-relevant approach is critically needed.
{"title":"Animal Research for Alzheimer Disease: Failures of Science and Ethics","authors":"J. Pippin, Sarah E. Cavanaugh, F. Pistollato","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_021","url":null,"abstract":"Perhaps the most impactful and foreboding development in chronic diseas es in recent decades has been the increasing prevalence and awareness of dementia. The various dementias, especially Alzheimer disease (AD), have de railed and ended the lives of tens of millions in America and worldwide. It is a truism that AD patients die twice. First the mind dies, and only later does the body. AD uniquely and unremittingly affects not only patients, but their families, caregivers, and communities. In recent years, AD may have displaced cancer as the most feared disease among Americans. As with other diseases that have no meaningful methods for prevention and treatment, research tar geting AD has primarily focused on preclinical approaches, predominantly us ing animals. Nonetheless, decades of animal research have failed to translate into significant advances in the prevention or treatment of AD. In view of this failure, a different and human-relevant approach is critically needed.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122216337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_017
Constança Carvalho, D. Alves, A. Knight, Luís Vicente
Since the second half of the twentieth century, non-human animals (herein after referred to as animals) have been widely used as models for researching human disorders. Historically, this occurred for two main reasons: a) animals are complex living systems; and b) it is considered less ethically-contentious as well as easier, quicker, and cheaper to use animals than humans. Their ben efit for biomedical advancement is assumed even though systematic evalua tions, though uncommon, suggest otherwise. It is crucial to evaluate whether animal-based biomedical research successfully benefits medical research even through indirect pathways-or if it is being used merely to justify further animal-based research. In this chapter we demonstrate that there is a lack of communication between animal-based research and clinical research. We dis cuss possible reasons for this and reflect on whether animal use in biomedical research is, indeed, fulfilling its primary purpose. Humans share a long evolutionary story with the rest of the animal king dom, which explains common physiological and behavioral traits and ad aptations. For example, basal ganglia, a set of subcortical nuclei involved in
{"title":"Is Animal-based Biomedical Research Being Used in Its Original Context?","authors":"Constança Carvalho, D. Alves, A. Knight, Luís Vicente","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_017","url":null,"abstract":"Since the second half of the twentieth century, non-human animals (herein after referred to as animals) have been widely used as models for researching human disorders. Historically, this occurred for two main reasons: a) animals are complex living systems; and b) it is considered less ethically-contentious as well as easier, quicker, and cheaper to use animals than humans. Their ben efit for biomedical advancement is assumed even though systematic evalua tions, though uncommon, suggest otherwise. It is crucial to evaluate whether animal-based biomedical research successfully benefits medical research even through indirect pathways-or if it is being used merely to justify further animal-based research. In this chapter we demonstrate that there is a lack of communication between animal-based research and clinical research. We dis cuss possible reasons for this and reflect on whether animal use in biomedical research is, indeed, fulfilling its primary purpose. Humans share a long evolutionary story with the rest of the animal king dom, which explains common physiological and behavioral traits and ad aptations. For example, basal ganglia, a set of subcortical nuclei involved in","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125585164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_024
V. Bones, Rita Garcia, G. Alves, R. L. Paixão, A. A. Rocha, Karynn Capilé, R. Bachinski
{"title":"Humane Education: The Tool for Scientific Revolution in Brazil","authors":"V. Bones, Rita Garcia, G. Alves, R. L. Paixão, A. A. Rocha, Karynn Capilé, R. Bachinski","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116811607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004391192_026
F. Noor
{"title":"The Changing Paradigm in Preclinical Toxicology: in vitro and in silico Methods in Liver Toxicity Evaluations","authors":"F. Noor","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_026","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121124277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：