Abstract
The relationship between the animal research industry and those who oppose such use of other animals is not a very gentlemanly one: rather it is one of trying to ignore the bothersome pest on one side and seeking an audience on the other. Franklin M. Loew, dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University has described it in these terms: “The research establishment has shown little interest in debating the technical merits of animal research with their critics for fear it may give the critics what is perceived to be undeserved legitimacy.” The establishment apparently extends to the National Institute of Health in that it joins many research advocacy organizations in rejecting using the term “alternative,” preferring “adjunct” and “complimentary methods.” Loew adds that “alternative” is seen “as a Trojan Horse planted by the animal protection movement that will lead to great harm for medical research if allowed to gain a foothold.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Malone TE (1992). The moral imperative for biological research. In: Porter RJ, Malone TE, eds. Biomedical research: collaboration and conflict of interest. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 3–32.
Rollin BE (August, 1985). The moral status of research animals in psychology. American Psychologist: 920–926.
Loeb JM, Hendee WR, et al. (1989). In defense of animal research. JAMA 262: 2716–2720.
Leopold A (1987). A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press: 224.
Loew FM. (1989). Animals in research. In: Beauchamp TL, Walters L, eds. Contemporary issues in bioethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company: 301–312.
McClosky HJ (1989). The moral case for experimentation on animals. In: Beauchamp TL, Walters L, eds. Contemporary issues in bioethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company: 485–565.
Brody BA (1998). The ethics of biomedical research: An international perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
ibid. p. 16.
Perkins KA (November, 1990). Support of animal research needed: Comment on Dewsbury. American Psychologist: 1270–1271.
Novak MA (July, 1991). Psychologists care deeply about animals. American Psychological Association Monitor: 4.
Vanderberg HL (ed) (1996). The ethics of research involving human subjects: Facing the 21 st century (Appendices A, B, and C). Frederick, MD: University Publishing Group.
Kaufman S (May 24, 2000). Personal communication made in pursuit of reviewing the chapter.
Koshland DE. (1989). Animal rights and animal wrongs. Science: 243: 1253.
Stone CD (1987). Earth and other ethics. The case for moral pluralism. New York: Harper Row.
Rolston H (1988). Environmental ethics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Herzog HA. (March, 1991). Conflicts of interests: Kittens and boa constrictors, pets and research. American Psychologist: 246–247.
Herzog HA (June, 1988). The moral status of mice. American Psychologist: 473–474.
Colen BD (1986). Hard choices: mixed blessings of modern medical technology. New York: G. P. Putman’s Sons.
US Bureau of the Census (1998). Statistical abstract of the United States (118th edition, Table 165). Washington, DC.
CQ Staff (1998, February 8). How each agency and department would fare under Clinton budget. Congressional Quarterly: 297–313.
Tiershutz-Initiative bedroht 10,000 Stellen (February 19, 1992). Swiss-American Review: 2.
Kant I (1929). Kant Selections. 1929. New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons.
Kant I (1886). The metaphysic of ethics. Edinburgh: T.T. Clark
Thomas J (November 23, 1987). The professional and the moral life. An address at the annual meeting of the Western Association of Counselor Educators and Supervisors in Portland, OR, USA.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thompson, A. (2001). The Moral Justification for Substituting Other Animals in Medical Research. In: Thompson, A., Temple, N.J. (eds) Ethics, Medical Research, and Medicine. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0794-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0794-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-7103-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0794-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive