Animal Research

In his Commentary entitled "Animal Rights (And Wrongs)" [The Scientist, Oct. 29, 1990, page 16], Albert Kligman first says we should give the animal rights movement "due credit" for improved conditions for animals in the laboratories and a "drastic reduction" in the number of animals used in biomedical research. These dubious claims of improvements are simply not substantiated in fact. Then he attacks the real successes achieved by the movement, including PETA's [People for the Ethical Treatme

Renate Strauss
Jan 20, 1991
In his Commentary entitled "Animal Rights (And Wrongs)" [The Scientist, Oct. 29, 1990, page 16], Albert Kligman first says we should give the animal rights movement "due credit" for improved conditions for animals in the laboratories and a "drastic reduction" in the number of animals used in biomedical research. These dubious claims of improvements are simply not substantiated in fact.

Then he attacks the real successes achieved by the movement, including PETA's [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] successful campaigns for alternatives to animals in product testing. "Its [PETA's] aggressive PR stunts have caused Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder to forswear the use of animals." By promising only in vitro testing, Kligman fumes, these companies have "improved their public image, while harming the cause of biomedical research."

Kligman's affiliation with the research facilities of L'Oreal at Aulnay-sus-Bois--a company still adamantly opposed to alternatives to animal testing--makes one wonder whether...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?