Veganism | February 23, 2011 | 9 comments

Some Scientists Say Animal Research Ethically Complicated, But Necessary

source: http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-animal-research-20110223,0,4930263.story?t...

Image
EthicalVegan
Los Angeles Times...

Poll: Scientists say animal research ethically complicated, but necessary


Scientists polled by the journal Nature reported mixed feelings about animal research. In April 2009, animal rights activist Graciela Iparraguirre, center, talked with UCLA student Martin Ducker,23, left, as pro-animal research supporters walked behind her on UCLA campus. (Spencer Weiner/Los Angeles Times)


By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times

February 23, 2011, 10:30 a.m.



Animal research has helped scientists understand human disease, and in some cases, develop cures. But it has also exposed them to an onslaught of attacks -- some violent -- from animal rights activists who question the ethics and necessity of animal experiments.

This week, the journal Nature takes a look at the complicated case of animal activism and its effects on scientific research, publishing the results of a poll of 980 biomedical scientists from around the world.

The vast majority -- 91.7% -- said they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that "Animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science." About 70% of those polled said they conduct experiments on animals.

At the same time, almost 16% said they had experienced misgivings about the role of animals in their research -- and half of those said that the misgivings had led them to change the direction of their research. Thirty-three percent said they had ethical concerns about the role of animals in their current work.

Many said that discussing the issue of animal testing with the public was very difficult, but there were signs that communication efforts might be improving. More than half said that the institutions they work for encourage them to speak with the public about their work (less than a third reported this to be the case in a 2006 Nature poll.)
  1. groups:
    Veganism,   Animal Rights = Veganism,   Voices of Advocacy
  2. tags:
    Animal Rights,  Ethics,  animal cruelty,  veganism,  14 more
  3.     
    |

9 comments // Some Scientists Say Animal Research Ethically Complicated, But Necessary

  • EthicalVegan
    • +2
      EthicalVegan  

    • Just posted by Gary L. Francione, on Facebook.....

      Debate: The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research

      Tuesday, March 8 at 6:00pm at Rutgers University School of Law, Newark, NJ

      Debate: The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research: A Moral Justification?

      at Rutgers University School of Law, March 8, from 6-8 p.m.

      The participants: Gary L. Francione, Rutgers University; Dario Ringach, UCLA http://bit.ly/eQg2vf

      Gary L Francione:

      Dear Colleagues: On Tuesday, March 8, I will debate Dario Ringach, Professor of Neurobiology and Psychology, Jules Stein Eye Institute, Biomedical Engineering Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

      The topic: The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research: A Moral Justification?

      Professor Ringach will argue that we are justified in using animals in experiments; I will argue that we cannot justify animal use in this or in any other context.

      The debate will take place in the Baker Moot Court Room at Rutgers University School of Law, 123 Washington Street, Newark, New Jersey, from 6-8 p.m.

      Vegan refreshments will be served following the debate, which will be videotaped and made available here and on Professor Ringach’s site. The debate will be sponsored by the Student Bar Association, the American Constitutional Society, and the Federalist Society. The debate will be moderated by John J. Farmer, Jr., Dean and Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark. Dean Farmer served as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and as General Counsel of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly known as the 9/11 Commission).

      The debate will have the following format: Professor Ringach will present a 20 minute opening statement focusing on the benefits of animal research and the moral justification for the practice. I will respond with a 20 minute statement that questions the practical efficacy of vivisection but focuses primarily on the moral arguments. We will each have a 5-minute rebuttal. Professor Ringach and I will then have a question/answer session with each other with his asking me a question, my getting three minutes to reply; his getting 3 minutes to respond and my getting 1 minute for a sur-reply. There will be 4 of these exchanges, which will take approximately 30 minutes. There will be a 40 minute Q&A with the audience.

      The event will last a total of approximately 2 hours. All members of the Rutgers University Community are invited to attend, as are members of the public, but seating will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis.

      Professor Ringach and I disagree strongly with each other on this topic and I am confident that we will have a rigorous, provocative, but courteous and civil debate about a subject that is of increasing interest to the public and to educational institutions alike. **********

      If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do. You will never do anything else in your life as easy and satisfying. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione

    • 1 year ago
  • EthicalVegan
    • +1
      EthicalVegan  

    • When I was in high school, back in the 16th century (sigh), my biology class oftentimes required us to dissect various beings. I flunked all my science courses because I always refused.

      When it was time to have my own child, I'd already long before decided to home-educate him. So when it came to biology -- or anything related -- we could go online (mid-'80s and up) and find whatever we could... without causing any harm to any other living being.

    • 1 year ago
  • EthicalVegan
    • +2
      EthicalVegan  

    • If there are already vast differences between females and males in the HUMAN species (different kinds of cancers, etc., and different kinds of results from meds, etc.), how can one possibly rationalize experimenting on any and all non-human species? Yes, we're all sentient beings, but we are not alike.

      Our beautiful animals would never volunteer for such atrocities that are forced upon them.

      There's also something not many folks thing about: These animals are watching their fellow "inmates" being tortured. That, in and of itself, would be enough to terrorize any living being.

    • 1 year ago
  • Geoffrey232
    • +2
      Geoffrey232  

    • I see where you're coming from, littlwarrior, and it's a thoughtful comment. But if we really have the animals' interests at heart, we should try to put ourselves in their shoes. I don't for a second think that a monkey would voluntarily sacrifice him/herself, no matter what the result. So with that in mind, I don't think we should sacrifice even one monkey. First and foremost, what gives us the right? If you could save millions of monkeys by being tortured and then killed, would you sacrifice YOUR life? Probably not. And no one has the right to put you in such a position.

    • 1 year ago
  • EthicalVegan
  • littlwarrior
    • +4
      littlwarrior  

    • This is a hard issue, becuase if we can sacrifice one hundred monkeys and as a result cure aids and save millions of human lives shouldn't we? But then you have the problem of that 100 monkeys may not lead to a cure and then they want 100 more, and that doesn't work then they want a thousand more and at what point does it stop. I think if there is any way around testing on animals then we should defiantly go that way.

    • 1 year ago
  • bertkamp
  • Niki_Staehle
  • EthicalVegan
more from Veganism:
from the community

top videos