Overview: The Horrors Of Animal TestingTens of millions of animals are used in laboratory experiments every year in the United States — and by most estimates, between 85 and 95% of these animals are not protected by the law. Those without protection are complex beings who think and feel pain, just the same as those who have legal protections. Show
This figure is only an approximation because under current law, labs are not required to disclose data about the animals most often used in experimentation — rats, mice, birds, and fish. Animals are used across fields, in many types of research: biomedical, aeronautic, automotive, military, agricultural, behavioral, and cognitive research, and in consumer product testing. It’s estimated that the National Institutes of Health spends some $14.5 billion per year of taxpayer dollars on animal experimentation. The overall amount spent on animal research is likely far higher, given that the $14.5 billion figure doesn’t include spending by other federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture or animal research funded by private companies.  Thanks to better technology and increasing public demand, we have seen some progress. For example, after decades of scrutiny and pressure from animal protection groups, the general public and the international community, in 2015 the National Institutes of Health announced the agency would no longer support the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. Since that time, NIH has retired some chimpanzees to sanctuaries as space is available, and has reportedly convened a working group to develop plans for chimpanzees deemed too old or sick to be safely relocated. But our work here is far from done. Despite legal requirements to do so under principles known as the “3 Rs” — reduction, refinement, and replacement — many facilities don’t adequately look for alternatives to animal-based tests. Experts also recognize the need for more change. In 2007, the National Research Council — an organization that puts out reports and policy recommendations for The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine — issued a report on toxicity testing that recommended a move away from the use of animals in laboratory experiments. Many scientists believe that in vitro testing is scientifically superior to inhumane testing on animals. The same is true for radiation exposure tests and cosmetic testing. Technology, such as non-invasive imaging, provide alternatives to cutting into animals’ brains. Cancer antibody testing is better conducted with human cells than by injecting mice with cancer. On top of that, animal testing does not achieve its intended results. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), just 8% of drugs tested on animals are deemed safe and effective for human use — 92% are not. This helps bolster the argument that animal testing does not provide enough worthwhile information to justify its wide scale cruelty, and calls into question the ethics of animal testing. We’ve seen important promising developments, but the millions of animals experimented on in United States labs every year show how much more is still needed. The Animal Legal Defense Fund calls on government agencies to be more transparent in their treatment of animals used in research. We file lawsuits to compel taxpayer-funded research facilities to follow records laws, so that public funds are used with public awareness. We work throughout the legal system to secure better protections for animals used in research, and better enforcement of those protections. journal article What Dictionary Are Animal Researchers Using?Journal of Animal Ethics Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 2012) , pp. 1-5 (5 pages) Published By: University of Illinois Press https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.2.1.0001 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.2.1.0001 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Read Online Read 100 articles/month free Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Purchase article $14.00 - Download now and later With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Get StartedAlready have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $14.00 USD. How does it work?
Abstract The public largely supports the use of animals in biomedical research, but only if they are sure that the animals are treated humanely. The scientific community has provided these assurances. Is this a truthful claim? I argue that when examined systematically, the claim that animals in research are treated humanely is not truthful by any existing definition of the word. This article does not argue for or against the morality of using animals in research; rather, the reasoning set forth herein argues that in this use of animals, the scientific community is not being truthful to the public. Journal Information The Journal of Animal Ethics is devoted to the exploration of progressive thought about animals. It is multidisciplinary in nature and international in scope. It covers theoretical and applied aspects of animal ethics of interest to academics from the humanities and the sciences, as well as professionals working in the field of animal protection. Publisher Information The University of Illinois Press is one of the leading publishers of humanities and social sciences journals in the country. Founded in 1918, the Press publishes more than 40 journals representing 18 societies, along with more than 100 new books annually. Our publication program covers a wide range of disciplines including psychology, philosophy, Black studies, women's studies, cultural studies, music, immigration, and more. Current issues are available through the Scholarly Publishing Collective. The Press is a founding member of the Association of University Presses. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Why is animal research widely considered acceptable?Animals are good research subjects for a variety of reasons. They are biologically similar to humans and susceptible to many of the same health problems. Also, they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations.
Is a committee that must approve all research methods using animals as humane?An institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) is required by federal regulations for most institutions that use animals in research, teaching, and testing. The IACUC has a key oversight role, including the review and approval of animal use activities, and inspection of animal facilities.
Which of the following is not a suitable reason for using debriefing in a study?Confidential research collects participants' names but separates them from the data; anonymous research does not collect participants' names. Which of the following is NOT a suitable reason for using debriefing in a study? It prevents researchers from being sued.
In which of the following ways is an IACUC different from an IRB?In which of the following ways is an IACUC different from an IRB? IACUCs monitor the care and treatment of animals throughout the study; IRBs do not monitor the care of human participants throughout the study.
|
Which of the following has NOT been used as a defense of animal research by animal researchers
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
