Animal Research Data

There is no doubt that humans are the most scientifically valid surrogates for other humans. The dilemma is in the scope of one's ethical purview--that is, nonhuman animals are simply not included in the ethical systems of many biomedical researchers. Herein lies the crux of the debate; when one expands one's circle of compassion to include all animals, alternatives must be found for entertainment, clothing, dietary needs, and even

Donald Barnes
Jan 23, 1994
Ron Kaufman's report ("Scientific Merit, Rather Than Morals, Guides Use Of Animals In Lab Research," The Scientist, July 12, 1993, page 1) and Martin L. Stephens's letter (The Scientist, Nov. 1, 1993, page 12) state that biomedical researchers choose their experimental subjects on a scientific rather than a moral standard. This is simply not true.

There is no doubt that humans are the most scientifically valid surrogates for other humans.

The dilemma is in the scope of one's ethical purview--that is, nonhuman animals are simply not included in the ethical systems of many biomedical researchers. Herein lies the crux of the debate; when one expands one's circle of compassion to include all animals, alternatives must be found for entertainment, clothing, dietary needs, and even biomedical research.

Through the National Anti-Vivisection Society's support, the International Foundation for Ethical Research is actively seeking means of advancing the goals of biomedicine without causing...

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?