Abstract
Major segments of the news media, as well as many scientific journals, have produced innumerable articles and stories that polarize issues about proper protections for animals involved in research. The prevailing exposition of the issues is the following: On the one hand, animal lovers make emotional appeals to the public's attachment to animals and use clever tactics to increase the vulnerability of universities and institutions of research. On the other hand, arrogant scientists refuse to respond to public controversy, have an inherent conflict of interest in reviewing research involving animals, and are out to advance their careers and interests, callously using animals as means to that end. As a result, journalists warn NIH officials that they “can expect continuing criticism from two disparate and opposing groups—animal welfare activists, who consider NIH the fox guarding the chickens … and scientists and administrators from the research community, who regard tighter restrictions as unnecessarily burdensome.”
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference19 articles.
1. 10. Buchanan, and Brock, , 261–62.
2. “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism,”;Frey;Between the Species,1988
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Aspectos bioéticos de la investigación preclínica para la evaluación farmacológica del suplemento nutricional LECISAN®;Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética;2023-11-10
2. Ethics and Animal Welfare;Laboratory Animal Welfare;2013
3. Preface;The Ethics of Animal Experimentation;2005-07-01
4. Epigraph;The Ethics of Animal Experimentation;2005-07-01
5. Dedication;The Ethics of Animal Experimentation;2005-07-01