In fact, much opposition to animal research is scientific. I doubt I shock many readers of The Scientist when I suggest that many, if not most, animal experimentation projects are poorly conceived. Because animal experiments cannot disprove hypotheses about human anatomy, physiology, or pathology, they do not constitute human medical research in the strictest Popperian sense. Most nonscientists are unfamiliar with Karl Popper, a 20th-century philosopher of science, but many can recognize that "animal models" are often poor analogs to human conditions.
Cleveland denounces animal rights, but he does not offer a cohesive alternative ethic. Do we have the right to submit innocent, sentient creatures to pain and/or suffering for supposed human benefit? Many people are concluding that animal research rests on an ethic of "the ends justify the means," which they find unacceptable. I suggest that the notion of a wealthy and violent animal rights movement is a caricature ...
