The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation

Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a gro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics Vol. 24; no. 4; pp. 407 - 419
Main Author AKHTAR, AYSHA
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.10.2015
Subjects
Animal care
Animal Experimentation - ethics
Animal Rights
Animal Welfare - ethics
Animals
Bioethics
Disease Models, Animal
Drug Industry - ethics
Ethics
Humans
Laboratory animals
Medical research
Special Section: Moving Forward in Animal Research Ethics
Toxicity Tests - ethics
Toxicity Tests - methods
drug development
medical testing
human ethics
animal ethics
human health
animal research
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
I am deeply indebted to David DeGrazia, Tom Beauchamp, and John Pippin for their careful review and helpful comments. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the official position of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. government.
ISSN:0963-1801
1469-2147
DOI:10.1017/S0963180115000079