没有动物的研究和测试:我们现在在哪里,我们将走向何方?

T. Hartung
{"title":"没有动物的研究和测试:我们现在在哪里,我们将走向何方?","authors":"T. Hartung","doi":"10.1163/9789004391192_029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Experiments involving non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) were the predominant technology in the life sciences from the 1920s to the 1970s. Increasingly, animal-based procedures have been complemented and superseded by other approaches; yet, they still have an enormous reputation as an apparent definitive answer to many scientific and, especially, regulatory questions. They have been questioned first for ethical reasons: Can we justify making animals suffer for scientific inquiry? Simply said, people have different views on this question, but the general public views animal experimentation more and more critically. The animal research community has sought a com­ promise between those who would like to see the end to the use of animals sooner rather than later, and those who think animal research is indispensable. The societal response has included regulation and oversight of animal experi­ ments ( e.g., requiring formal justifications and permission), as well as support for the development of alternative methods.","PeriodicalId":138056,"journal":{"name":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research and Testing Without Animals: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading?\",\"authors\":\"T. Hartung\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/9789004391192_029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Experiments involving non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) were the predominant technology in the life sciences from the 1920s to the 1970s. Increasingly, animal-based procedures have been complemented and superseded by other approaches; yet, they still have an enormous reputation as an apparent definitive answer to many scientific and, especially, regulatory questions. They have been questioned first for ethical reasons: Can we justify making animals suffer for scientific inquiry? Simply said, people have different views on this question, but the general public views animal experimentation more and more critically. The animal research community has sought a com­ promise between those who would like to see the end to the use of animals sooner rather than later, and those who think animal research is indispensable. The societal response has included regulation and oversight of animal experi­ ments ( e.g., requiring formal justifications and permission), as well as support for the development of alternative methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":138056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

从20世纪20年代到70年代,非人类动物(以下简称动物)实验是生命科学的主导技术。越来越多的以动物为基础的程序已被其他方法补充和取代;然而,作为许多科学问题,尤其是监管问题的明确答案,它们仍然享有很高的声誉。它们首先受到道德上的质疑:我们能证明让动物遭受科学研究的痛苦是正当的吗?简单地说,人们对这个问题有不同的看法,但公众对动物实验的看法越来越批判。动物研究界寻求在希望尽早结束动物实验和认为动物实验必不可少的两派之间达成妥协。社会的反应包括对动物实验的管理和监督(例如,要求正式的理由和许可),以及对开发替代方法的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Research and Testing Without Animals: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading?
Experiments involving non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) were the predominant technology in the life sciences from the 1920s to the 1970s. Increasingly, animal-based procedures have been complemented and superseded by other approaches; yet, they still have an enormous reputation as an apparent definitive answer to many scientific and, especially, regulatory questions. They have been questioned first for ethical reasons: Can we justify making animals suffer for scientific inquiry? Simply said, people have different views on this question, but the general public views animal experimentation more and more critically. The animal research community has sought a com­ promise between those who would like to see the end to the use of animals sooner rather than later, and those who think animal research is indispensable. The societal response has included regulation and oversight of animal experi­ ments ( e.g., requiring formal justifications and permission), as well as support for the development of alternative methods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ethics, Efficacy, and Decision-making in Animal Research How Can the Final Goal of Completely Replacing Animal Procedures Successfully Be Achieved? Rethinking the 3Rs: From Whitewashing to Rights Humane Education: The Tool for Scientific Revolution in Brazil The Changing Paradigm in Preclinical Toxicology: in vitro and in silico Methods in Liver Toxicity Evaluations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1