Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research (New Studies in Social Policy, 2)

Rating:
Summary: antidote for animal rights extremism
Review: "Why Animal Experimentation Matters" invites a wide audience to learn about animal research. Although it is a scholarly treatise on the use of animals for biomedical purposes, it is written in a manner that enables those unfamiliar with science and ethics to appreciate the issue.

The Introduction by Ellen Frankel Paul notes the historical use of animals that provided us with knowledge often taken for granted today, e.g., the development of antibiotics, understanding of nervous system function. She addresses the philosophical basis for animal rightism and the emergence of animal rights activism.

In the first chapter, historians Kiple and Ornelas provide a comprehensive history of medical research dating back to Aristotle's observations of motion in animals; one of the earliest studies of animal physiology. They provide detailed examples of animal research, e.g., discovery of cures for vitamin deficiency diseases by nutritionists. They also discuss future needs for research to find cures for viral diseases such as ebola and other emerging diseases. They also outline the history of animal rightism, dating back to 19th century anti-vivisectionism.

The next chapter by Veterinarian and researcher Adrian Morrison provides a personal perspective on animal research. One of the earliest targets of terrorism by the Animal Liberation Front, Morrison has devoted himself to evaluating moral and ethical issues surrounding animal research. He provides solid factual information, soundly contradicting the garbled misinformation promoted by animal rightist oriented health professionals.

Stuart Zola's chapter provides a contemporary example of the application of animal research to the problem of amnesia. Veterinary ethicist Jerrold Tannenbaum contributes a thought-provoking essay on the paradigm shift towards expectations that animals should be 'happy' and its potential impact on biomedical research. Medical Ethicist Baruch Brody contrasts American and International attitudes towards animal research, addressing the continuum of social interactions from familial to Kingdom-wide.

Nicoll and Russell explore this continuum in a Darwinian framework. Their chapter evolves towards the issues of animal protectionism and rightism, finishing with an expose of the misanthropic anti-humanistic and anti-scientific fundamentalism of the animal rights philosophy.

Tristam Engelhardt's provocatively titled chapter "Animals: their right to be used" discusses animals as moral agents relative to humans; who are the authors of our moral codes! Philosopher R.G. Frey concludes the book addressing the justification of animal experimentation from an "argument from benefit" viewpoint. Touching upon Judeo-Christian ethics and relative valuations of human and animal life, he provides a logical framework, upon which one can make their own conclusions about animal research.

This book serves an important function as a compelling argument supporting animal research. Indeed, one may ask: Why is there such a raging debate on this issue? Is it because societal understanding of science has weakened to the point that it falls victim to the pseudoscientific arguments of the animal rightists?

This book has the potential to serve as an antibiotic to cure the infection of misunderstanding about animal research foisted upon society and a maturing generation of children by the animal rights movement.

Rating:
Summary: This is an Amazing Book
Review: I heartily recommend Why Animal Experimentation Matters. So often, arguments defending animal experimentation are cast in careful politically correct affirmations of a concern for the animals and a wish that scientists did not have to use them. Such apologies frequently ring with the dull thud of falsehood.

But the nine essays (including the introduction) in this book are heartless and pointed: Humans can do what they choose to animals. The authors accept this as gospel and then attempt to justify these personal and varied prejudices. Facts that get in the way are either ignored altogether, or else massaged into claims that are misleading or simply false.

Book editor, E.F. Paul makes the following claim in her introduction: "The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Enforcement Report for Fiscal Year 1997 reported that 1,267,828 dogs, cats, primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits and farm animals were subjects of laboratory experiments in registered facilities. Dogs and cats now comprise less than 1 percent of U.S. laboratory animals, while mice, rats, and other rodents represent 80 to 90 percent." This is (intentionally?) misleading. Of the 1.3 million animals cited, dogs (75,429 used in FY 1997, according to the USDA report named above) and cats (26,091) make up closer to ten percent. No one has an inkling of the total number of animals used in U.S. laboratories. The 1.3 million cited excludes most of them from the data. Mice, rats, (perhaps 30 million combined according to industry estimates) birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates... the total number is many orders of magnitude greater than the number cited by E.F. Paul.

Misleading facts and claims aside, what sets this book apart is the theme running through every essay that the very least human interest is always more important than the very greatest animal interest. We are told by the vivisectors themselves, such as Zola Morgan, director of the NIH Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, that oversight interferes with research and should be curtailed. We are told by pro-vivisectionist philosophers that the beauty created by new cosmetics is ample justification for blinding rabbits.

It is not true, as some have claimed, that the book is written at a junior high reading level. Such claims may be based on content that fails to measure up to the title's promise. People in favor of animal experimentation may be embarrassed by the authors' honesty and not like what they have to say, but the essays are generally clear and straightforward.

I believe that the authors are representative of many of those working in the labs today. Readers will find many windows into the minds and hearts of those who measure everything by what's in it for them. This is an amazing book.

Rating:
Summary: does making a book "easier" make it better?
Review: One reviewer praises the book because you don't have to know anything about science or ethics to understand it. Another reviewer critizes it because it's written at about a Jr. High level of understanding of biology, medical research, logic and ethics. Having read the book, I'd agree more with the second reviewer. The fact that the book is easy to read and doesn't require ANY background knowledge does not make the book better.

This book is just not very good. It is disappointing in many ways. It just doesn't engage the issues of the ethics or the science in a deep and careful way. Even those who think animal research is a good thing really should be able to admit this and think that there needs to be a better book that defends animal research. I guess they think they don't need to and maybe that's true, at least for now.

It sure would have been nice if they could have found a physician to write a chapter for the book: a perspective from someone that actually deals with sick people would have been good.

One thing the first positive reviewer forgot to mention in his praise of the philosopher R.G. Frey was this: Frey thinks that if you are going to allow animal experimentation, rationality requires that you be open to the possibility of allowing experimentation on "terminally defective" newborn babies and other "mentally challenged" human beings. He thinks you can't rationally defend the idea that there are things that rightly can be done to animals (such as research that causes pain and death) but can never rightly be done to any humans. Frey thinks that view can only be defended from a Judeo-Christian theistic perspective, which he rejects as unreasonable (or thinks there isn't good evidence to accept that there is a God). Frey's view is at least consistent, unlike most of the other moral views given in defense of animal research.

Rating:
Summary: we *still* lack a professional-level defense of vivisection
Review: This book is intended to provide a scientific and ethical defense of using animals as models for medical research. It fails in both respects. Those interested in the topics (and those who teach on the topic who try to give a balanced perspective on the issue) will have to wait for a future defense of the practice that actually engages the issues on a more scholarly level, especially with regards to the scientific aspects of the debate.

Two recent books, "Brute Science: Dilemas of Animal Experimentation" (by two philosophers and a scientist) and "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experimentation on Animals," (by an MD and a DVM) have condemned the use of animals in medical research, product testing, and toxicology.

Their condemnation is based on purely scientific reasons: small differences between species at the cellular level make it impossible to reliably extrapolate results from one species to another. Since it can't be predicted how a drug will affect a mouse on the basis of how it affects a rat, it is all the more difficult to predict how a human will be affected by a drug, chemical or treatment on the basis of an animal's response.

Thus, animals are poor models for human disease and physiological responses and so it's not in our best interest to use them as they are not a source of reliable information. The details of medical history show that animal have not been reliable models; evolutionary theory explains why this is so.

One not need have any views on "animal rights" or other philosophical matters to find vivisection highly suspect. The historical and scientific case against the practice of trying to use one species to understand the diseases of another is strong, even on purely "humanistic" moral principles: if one wants the best for human health, it seems that spending resources on animal research is not a good investment; non-animal research methods are what bring the goods.

The authors of the essays in this book do not adequately address the scientific objections to animal research. They assert that animals have been and are essential to medical research (meaning, it couldn't be done without animals and were it stopped, medical progress would nearly stop), but they do not show how results from animal testing or research results from animals yields fruit for humans, and, most importantly, how those results could not have been obtained without animals (e.g., autopsies, clinical research, cellular research, technology). They do not explain how animal researchers can infer useful information about humans, given the subtle, but extremely significant differences between species. They do not address the objection from evolutionary theory and comparative physiology. In fact, there is very little in the book about science at all, as it is all pitched at a very low level of scientific understanding. This is unfortunate, since the critics of vivisection, at least above, argue for their positions in rather sophisticated manners, which presuppose at least a college-level understanding of biology.

The historical claims in this book are poorly documented, and they fail to engage the critics responses. Those who condemn animal research do not claim that animals were not used in the history of medicine: rather they argue that the use of animals was not necessary to whatever discoveries were made. This can be shown through detailed careful studies of the history of medicine. The authors of this book do not provide detailed histories, rather they merely assert that animals were necessary, but do not explain why this is so. Their references are often suspect, as they often cite literature from animal research public relations and lobby organizations as sources of their history, not peer reviewed journals or professional-level histories of medicine.

Unfortunately, none of the authors of this book are health professionals. It would have been helpful for their case had they been able to find an MD who could plausibly argue that he or she is able to provide the quality of care he or she does primarily because of animal research, not because of other research means.

Throughout the book there is a lot of discussion about the tactics of animal rights activists. This is wholly irrelevant to whether animal research is justified from scientific and/or moral points of view. It is mentioned that throughout history people have nobly and rightly broken the law to fight injustice, but the question of whether the ALF and others are among this group is never discussed.

With one exception, the book is philosophically disappointing. Singer's utilitarianism and Regan's rights view are misunderstood and very weak objections are leveled against them.

Two authors argue for a "Darwinian" morality. They argue that to not experiment on animals would be an evolutionary maladaptive strategy and so contrary to our own self interest, and so we should continue doing so. This is surprising: usually morality is not defined in terms of self-interest, but if it were, this would very easily sanction exploiting other groups of humans as well, as it could easily be in our "tribes" advantage. Perhaps these authors are unaware of the "is-->ought" and "can-->should" fallacies.

One author argues that animals have the rights to be "skinned," "used in circuses, bullfights, cockfights, rodeos, etc.," to be hunted, and many more rights. Also, animals have a "special right" to be "the object of the culinary arts of Chinese and French chefs." These are quite surprising rights to have.

The final essay is quite good and is recommended. The author shows just what one has to accept if one does not condemn animal experimentation on moral grounds.

Generally, the essays in this book are disappointing. If there is a strong defense of vivisection, it is not to be found in this book. Perhaps there will eventually be a book from the pro-vivisection side that is as scientifically and historically sophisticated and well-documented as the critics' books. But this is doubtful.

Rating:
Summary: we *still* lack a professional-level defense of vivisection
Review: This book is intended to provide a scientific and ethical defense of using animals as models for medical research. It fails in both respects. Those interested in the topics (and those who teach on the topic who try to give a balanced perspective on the issue) will have to wait for a future defense of the practice that actually engages the issues on a more scholarly level, especially with regards to the scientific aspects of the debate.

Two recent books, "Brute Science: Dilemas of Animal Experimentation" (by two philosophers and a scientist) and "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experimentation on Animals," (by an MD and a DVM) have condemned the use of animals in medical research, product testing, and toxicology.

Their condemnation is based on purely scientific reasons: small differences between species at the cellular level make it impossible to reliably extrapolate results from one species to another. Since it can't be predicted how a drug will affect a mouse on the basis of how it affects a rat, it is all the more difficult to predict how a human will be affected by a drug, chemical or treatment on the basis of an animal's response.

Thus, animals are poor models for human disease and physiological responses and so it's not in our best interest to use them as they are not a source of reliable information. The details of medical history show that animal have not been reliable models; evolutionary theory explains why this is so.

One not need have any views on "animal rights" or other philosophical matters to find vivisection highly suspect. The historical and scientific case against the practice of trying to use one species to understand the diseases of another is strong, even on purely "humanistic" moral principles: if one wants the best for human health, it seems that spending resources on animal research is not a good investment; non-animal research methods are what bring the goods.

The authors of the essays in this book do not adequately address the scientific objections to animal research. They assert that animals have been and are essential to medical research (meaning, it couldn't be done without animals and were it stopped, medical progress would nearly stop), but they do not show how results from animal testing or research results from animals yields fruit for humans, and, most importantly, how those results could not have been obtained without animals (e.g., autopsies, clinical research, cellular research, technology). They do not explain how animal researchers can infer useful information about humans, given the subtle, but extremely significant differences between species. They do not address the objection from evolutionary theory and comparative physiology. In fact, there is very little in the book about science at all, as it is all pitched at a very low level of scientific understanding. This is unfortunate, since the critics of vivisection, at least above, argue for their positions in rather sophisticated manners, which presuppose at least a college-level understanding of biology.

The historical claims in this book are poorly documented, and they fail to engage the critics responses. Those who condemn animal research do not claim that animals were not used in the history of medicine: rather they argue that the use of animals was not necessary to whatever discoveries were made. This can be shown through detailed careful studies of the history of medicine. The authors of this book do not provide detailed histories, rather they merely assert that animals were necessary, but do not explain why this is so. Their references are often suspect, as they often cite literature from animal research public relations and lobby organizations as sources of their history, not peer reviewed journals or professional-level histories of medicine.

Unfortunately, none of the authors of this book are health professionals. It would have been helpful for their case had they been able to find an MD who could plausibly argue that he or she is able to provide the quality of care he or she does primarily because of animal research, not because of other research means.

Throughout the book there is a lot of discussion about the tactics of animal rights activists. This is wholly irrelevant to whether animal research is justified from scientific and/or moral points of view. It is mentioned that throughout history people have nobly and rightly broken the law to fight injustice, but the question of whether the ALF and others are among this group is never discussed.

With one exception, the book is philosophically disappointing. Singer's utilitarianism and Regan's rights view are misunderstood and very weak objections are leveled against them.

Two authors argue for a "Darwinian" morality. They argue that to not experiment on animals would be an evolutionary maladaptive strategy and so contrary to our own self interest, and so we should continue doing so. This is surprising: usually morality is not defined in terms of self-interest, but if it were, this would very easily sanction exploiting other groups of humans as well, as it could easily be in our "tribes" advantage. Perhaps these authors are unaware of the "is-->ought" and "can-->should" fallacies.

One author argues that animals have the rights to be "skinned," "used in circuses, bullfights, cockfights, rodeos, etc.," to be hunted, and many more rights. Also, animals have a "special right" to be "the object of the culinary arts of Chinese and French chefs." These are quite surprising rights to have.

The final essay is quite good and is recommended. The author shows just what one has to accept if one does not condemn animal experimentation on moral grounds.

Generally, the essays in this book are disappointing. If there is a strong defense of vivisection, it is not to be found in this book. Perhaps there will eventually be a book from the pro-vivisection side that is as scientifically and historically sophisticated and well-documented as the critics' books. But this is doubtful.