A few weeks ago, two prominent scientists, Hollis Cline and Mar Sanchez, wrote a brief piece in The Hill newspaper arguing that animal research is "necessary." They were prompted by the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) decision to phase out the use of primates in controversial maternal deprivation studies.
Scientists have long been fond of claims of necessity — in fact, justifications for animal research have remained largely the same since the writings of 19th century French physiologist Claude Bernard. However, this claim is problematic for a number of reasons.
If animal research is necessary, then it is not necessary in the sense that we have to do it. Rather, it is a choice that we make, a choice that its proponents believe is a necessary means to the end of further medical advances. Such advances are undoubtedly of significant moral importance, but even if we grant the assumption that animals are necessary for medical progress, this does not equate to a moral justification.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Just use prisoners convicted without a doubt for murdering innocent people.
ReplyDeleteIf my child's life was at stake, they could use every spotted owl, manatee and bald eagle to save him.
ReplyDeletespot on 8:05 and most of these people who don't want to use animals in this way are ok with killing babies for research. REALLY?????!!!!
ReplyDelete