Introduction
Scientists and research workers justify biomedical research using animals on the basis of advancements in medicine, discovery of vaccines for major diseases, and discovering toxic substances. Opponents claim that none of the research has any direct bearing on disease prevention or improved medical care and results may be misleading when drawing conclusions from animals and applying them to humans. The concerns for laboratory animals have led to policies that regulate the care of laboratory animals and have stimulated research on appropriate alternatives to replace animals.
The Arguments against Using Animals in Research
The first opposition to use of animals in research dates back to the late nineteenth century with the beginnings of the antivivisection societies. However, the opposition in recent years has emerged as animal activists and antivivisectionists object to causing animals’ pain and suffering in experiments that they believe have questionable benefit. Biomedical research scientists must now justify what they are doing and the expected benefits from animal research since animal activist opponents, basing their beliefs more on philosophical than scientific reasoning, have attempted to influenced public opinion against their work.
The trial and conviction of Dr. Edward Taub in 1981 alarmed his colleagues in the biomedical community and alerted members of Congress that things were not as they should be in the nation's laboratories. Since 1981, the Silver Spring monkey case has triggered increasing opposition to the use of animals in research from many animal rights and animal welfare organizations. Animal activists, antivivisectionists, and some scientists are now less willing to accept reassuring statements from scientists that all is well in animal research activities. The opposition to animal research is based on concerns of whether.
• Some assumptions about animal testing are valid;
• Laboratory science can make further contributions;
• Basic research in the medical sciences......
