Why Test Animals to Treat Humans? On the Validity of Animal Models
Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences 2010 Sep; 41(3): 292-9
Critics of animal modeling have advanced a variety of arguments against the validity of the practice. The point of one such form of argument is to establish that animal modeling is pointless and therefore immoral. In this article, critical arguments of this form are divided into three types, the pseudoscience argument, the disanalogy argument, and the predictive validity argument. I contend that none of these criticisms currently succeed, nor are they likely to. However, the connection between validity and morality is important, suggesting that critical efforts would be instructive if they addressed it in a more nuanced way.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Galvin, Shelley L.; Herzog, Harold A. (1992)In two studies, we used the Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) to investigate the relationship between individual differences in moral philosophy, involvement in the animal rights movement, and attitudes toward the treatment ...
Galvin, Shelley L.; Herzog, Harold A. (1992)
Michell, Alastair R. (2002-06-15)