对动物研究的另一种思考。

NAM perspectives Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.31478/202211a
Lisa Hara Levin, Louis J Muglia
{"title":"对动物研究的另一种思考。","authors":"Lisa Hara Levin, Louis J Muglia","doi":"10.31478/202211a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Animals have been used as scientific research subjects since at least the 4th century BCE (Guerrini, 2003). Since then, there has been both support for and objections to that use. Some similarity between nonhuman animals and humans powers the arguments of both research advocates (who see animals as relevant models for human disease) and animal protectionists (who see animals as victimized, nonconsenting individuals). Taking into account both science and health care concerns, as well as to human and animal welfare, the authors of this commentary encourage the biomedical research community to ask at least three questions about the use of animals in research: • Has animal-based research helped advance the understanding of basic physiological and pathophysiological processes, reliably identified toxic substances, and advanced human and animal health care? • Has unchallenged reliance on animal-based research diverted resources from developing what might have and could become other methods of scientific investigation (nonanimal methods or new approach methods [alternatives]) that predict positive or negative health care outcomes with equal or greater effectiveness? • Lastly, who or what groups of people can most effectively champion the utility of nonanimal methods and their potential to replace or significantly reduce animal use after a controversy lasting more than two millenia?","PeriodicalId":74236,"journal":{"name":"NAM perspectives","volume":"2022 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875849/pdf/nampsp-2022-202211a.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alternative Thinking About Animals in Research.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Hara Levin, Louis J Muglia\",\"doi\":\"10.31478/202211a\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Animals have been used as scientific research subjects since at least the 4th century BCE (Guerrini, 2003). Since then, there has been both support for and objections to that use. Some similarity between nonhuman animals and humans powers the arguments of both research advocates (who see animals as relevant models for human disease) and animal protectionists (who see animals as victimized, nonconsenting individuals). Taking into account both science and health care concerns, as well as to human and animal welfare, the authors of this commentary encourage the biomedical research community to ask at least three questions about the use of animals in research: • Has animal-based research helped advance the understanding of basic physiological and pathophysiological processes, reliably identified toxic substances, and advanced human and animal health care? • Has unchallenged reliance on animal-based research diverted resources from developing what might have and could become other methods of scientific investigation (nonanimal methods or new approach methods [alternatives]) that predict positive or negative health care outcomes with equal or greater effectiveness? • Lastly, who or what groups of people can most effectively champion the utility of nonanimal methods and their potential to replace or significantly reduce animal use after a controversy lasting more than two millenia?\",\"PeriodicalId\":74236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NAM perspectives\",\"volume\":\"2022 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875849/pdf/nampsp-2022-202211a.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NAM perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31478/202211a\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NAM perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31478/202211a","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Alternative Thinking About Animals in Research.
Animals have been used as scientific research subjects since at least the 4th century BCE (Guerrini, 2003). Since then, there has been both support for and objections to that use. Some similarity between nonhuman animals and humans powers the arguments of both research advocates (who see animals as relevant models for human disease) and animal protectionists (who see animals as victimized, nonconsenting individuals). Taking into account both science and health care concerns, as well as to human and animal welfare, the authors of this commentary encourage the biomedical research community to ask at least three questions about the use of animals in research: • Has animal-based research helped advance the understanding of basic physiological and pathophysiological processes, reliably identified toxic substances, and advanced human and animal health care? • Has unchallenged reliance on animal-based research diverted resources from developing what might have and could become other methods of scientific investigation (nonanimal methods or new approach methods [alternatives]) that predict positive or negative health care outcomes with equal or greater effectiveness? • Lastly, who or what groups of people can most effectively champion the utility of nonanimal methods and their potential to replace or significantly reduce animal use after a controversy lasting more than two millenia?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信