against animal experimentation

Arguments against animal experimentation

Arguments against animal experimentation
Those who voice opposition to animal experimentation do so for a number of reasons. As well as the philosophical objections to using animals in this way, it is argued that animal experiments should not occur because:
results are misleading Of particular concern are the claims that incorrect evidence obtained from animal experiments has put at risk medical advances. Examples given include the conclusion of scientists in the 1960’ that, based on studies on animals, inhaled tobacco smoke did not cause cancer. results are not applicable to humans and may put people at risk Critics cite examples to show that animal testing has not detected the risk to patients of taking a particular drug - thalidomide being one case in point. claims of historical evidence of the benefits are not true The significance of animal experiments in both the treatment of cholera and the discovery of the role of insulin in diabetes has been challenged. Critics claim that animal experiments have made no contribution to the treatment of cholera and that it was not the experimental studies of Banting and colleagues but rather the report of a clinical case by the American pathologist Moses Barron which provided the conceptual breakthrough in the treatment of diabetes. there are better, alternative methods to replace animals
To find out more about the criticisms of animal experiments visit the following sites: New Zealand Antivivisection Society American Antivivisection Society Animal aid Australian Association for Humane Research National Antivivisection Society