Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Animal-Research-I--Historical-Aspects 👈

1. Bergel, Salvador. 2012. “El derecho de acceso a los medicamentos:
su reconocimiento y las barreras puestas a su ejercicio.” In
Cuestiones de Bioética en y desde Latinoamérica, edited by María
Casado and Florencia Luna, 333–48. Navarra, Spain: Aranzadi.
Debora, Diniz. 2012. “Objeción de conciencia y aborto: derechos
y deberes de los médicos respecto de la salud pública en Brasil.”
In Cuestiones de Bioética en y desde Latinoamérica, edited by
María Casado and Florencia Luna, 145–56. Navarra, Spain:
Aranzadi.
Garza, Victoriano de la. 2012. “Bioética en contextos de violencia
extrema: vivir y morir en Juárez.” In Cuestiones de Bioética en y
desde Latinoamérica, edited by María Casado and Florencia
Luna, 65–82. Navarra, Spain: Aranzadi.
GIRE. n.d. “Informe sobre la situación de la accesibilidad al
aborto no punible en América Latina y el Caribe.” Accessed
March 1, 2013. http://www.gire.org.mx/index.php?option=
com_content&view=article&id=568&Itemid=1161&lang=es
InfoLEG Información Legislative. 2010. “Civil marriage.”
Accessed March 1, 2013. http://www.infoleg.gov.ar/infoleg
Internet/anexos/165000-169999/169608/norma.htm
Law 14.208 of the Province of Buenos Aires. Accessed March 1,
2013. http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/
l-14208.html
Luna, Florencia. 1999. “Corruption and Research.” Bioethics
13 (3/4): 262–72.
Luna, Florencia. 2001. “Is ‘Best Proven’ a Useless Criterion?”
Bioethics 15 (4): 273–88.
Luna, Florencia. 2005. “Poverty and Inequality: Challenges for
the IAB.” Bioethics 19 (5/6): 431–59.
Luna, Florencia. 2008. Reproducción Asistida, Género y Derechos
Humanos en Latinoamérica. San José, Costa Rica: Instituto
Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.
Luna, Florencia. 2009. “Elucidating the Concept of Vulnerability:
Layers not Labels.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches
of Bioethics 2 (1): 121–39.
Mastroleo, Ignacio. 2007. “Justicia global e investigación
biomédica: la obligación post investigación hacia la comunidad
anfitriona.” Perspectivas Bioéticas 23: 76–92.
Poder Legislativo. 2012. Accessed March 1, 2013. http://
www.mysu.org.uy/IMG/pdf/ley_promulgada_por_el_poder_
ejecutivo-2.pdf
Saenz, C., et al. n.d. “Twelve Years of Fogarty-Funded Bioethics
Training in Latin America and the Caribbean: Achievements
and Challenges.” Unpublished manuscript.
Vazquez, Rodolfo. 2007. Laicidad una asignatura pendiente.
Coyoacán, Mexico: Fontamara Ediciones.
Vazquez, Rodolfo. 2008. “Laicidad, religión y deliberación
pública.” Perspectiva Bioéticas 13 (24–25): 44–58.
Viera Cherro, Mariana. 2012. “Inequidades múltiples y persis-
tentes en el campo de la reproducción asistida.” Revista de
Antropología Social 21:251–71.
Florencia Luna
Independent Researcher, Consejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
Director of Bioethics Program,
Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO)
ANIMAL RESEARCH
This entry consists of the following:
I. HISTORICAL ASPECTS
Anita Guerrini
II. PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES
Bernard Unti
III. LAW AND POLICY
Jeffrey Kahn, Susan Parry, and Ralph Dell
III. LAW AND POLICY [ADDENDUM]
Stephen R. Latham
I. HISTORICAL ASPECTS
Ethical discussion of animal experimentation is as old as
experimentation itself. Its history encompasses the
development of experimentation and changing views
about animals that led to the emergence of ethical
debates. Culture, religion, philosophy, and politics shaped
the ways science developed as well as the development of
ethical critiques of it. Animal experimentation is often
identified with vivisection—the cutting open of living
animals to observe their inner structure and function—
but that constitutes only a portion of its practice. Other
forms of experimentation include the administration of
drugs or diseases, dietary manipulation, and alteration of
environment. The purpose of such experimenting was to
discover the structure and function of the human and
animal body. The improvement of medical practice was
an ultimate goal, but knowledge of the body for its own
sake was equally important.
EXPERIMENTATION FROM THE GREEKS
TO HARVEY
Ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle (384–322
B.C.E.) observed and manipulated numerous animals,
establishing that mammals in particular resembled
humans to the extent that they could act as stand-ins.
For much of antiquity dissecting the human body was not
allowed. Aristotle did not vivisect animals but others did,
particularly the Alexandrian physicians Herophilus
(c. 335–c. 280 B.C.E.) and Erasistratus (fl. c. 250 B.C.E.).
The Roman physician Galen (129–c. 199 C.E.) followed
the Alexandrians in systematically vivisecting animals to
examine function. He tied off the ureters to show they
channeled urine from the kidneys to the bladder, and he
cut the spinal cord in different places to demonstrate the
connections between nerves and various body parts. Galen
revealed the inner workings of the animal body, and his
treatise De anatomicis administrationibus (On Anatomical
Procedures [1956]) explained how it could be done.
Galen’s concept of the human body, based entirely on
his work with animals, remained the model until the
sixteenth century.
218 BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION
Animal Research
(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

2. Scientific inquiry declined along with the Roman
Empire’s decline. Although Greek and Arab scholars
preserved ancient texts, experimental practices did not
revive until the late Middle Ages and the development of
universities in western Europe. Dead animals were
dissected in some Italian medical schools in the twelfth
century and dead humans by the early fourteenth. But the
questioning of ancient ideas about the body that led to a
revival of experimentation (not merely demonstration)
began only around 1500. The key text in this revival was
De humani corporis fabrica (1543; On the Fabric of the
Human Body) by the Flemish anatomist Andreas Vesalius
(1514–1564). Following many of Galen’s methods from
On Anatomical Procedures, Vesalius employed human
dissection and animal vivisection to revise the dominant
Galenic ideas about the human body, which had been
based entirely on animal dissection and vivisection. Over
the next century, physicians continued the experimental
reevaluation of ancient ideas.
HARVEY AND THE NEW SCIENCE
The English physician William Harvey (1578–1657)
overturned the central concept of Galen’s physiology with
his experimental proof of the circulation of the blood
throughout the body. Galen believed blood was formed in
the liver and did not circulate but was absorbed by the
tissues. Harvey experimented on dozens of different
animals, including using vivisection and performing such
procedures as ligation of the aorta and vena cava. His De
Motu Cordis (1628; The Circulation of the Blood [1990])
initiated a widespread experimental program across Europe
that dismantled the edifice of ancient physiology at the
same time that the works of Nicolaus Copernicus and
Galileo Galilei dismantled ancient ideas about astronomy
and physics, respectively. By 1685, Daniel Le Clerc and
Jean-Jacques Manget, the authors of the collection
Bibliotheca Anatomica (Anatomical Library), had declared
that more had been learned about the body in the previous
fifty years than in all past times. Researchers vivisected
animals and otherwise experimented with them to
investigate respiration, glandular secretion, nervous func-
tion, digestion, and blood pressure, among other functions.
Nonetheless, experimentation did not become the
dominant approach to understanding the human and
animal body until after 1800. Important experimental
work continued in the eighteenth century, such as the
1752 work of the Swiss biologist Albrecht von Haller
(1708–1777) on irritability and sensibility. But vitalist
physicians, who believed that the functions of life were
spontaneous and unrepeatable, rejected experimentation.
Many relied on the dissection of dead animals and
humans to deduce function from structure.
The 1789 revolution in France led to reforms of its
medical and veterinary schools and an increased emphasis
on experimenting over theorizing. The surgeon and
anatomist Xavier Bichat (1771–1802) established criteria
for experimenting with animals, and his student François
Magendie (1783–1855) brought the experimental meth-
od back to the forefront of physiology. Magendie
experimented on live animals to look at the nervous
system, digestion, and the way poisons work, claiming he
could make physiology as certain a science as Isaac
Newton’s physics.
THE EMERGENCE OF EXPERIMENTAL
PHYSIOLOGY
Magendie’s student Claude Bernard (1813–1878) added
chemical analysis to animal experimentation but insisted
on the uniqueness of life, in contrast to his contemporar-
ies in the German states who aimed to reduce biology to
chemistry and physics. Bernard narrowly defined the
scope of experimental physiology to exclude questions
about the nature of life (the concern of the vitalists),
confining his research to explaining specific vital phenome-
na. In this he was extraordinarily successful, making many
major discoveries on digestive and neuromuscular function.
Bernard’s Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale
(1865; Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine
[1957]) was a manifesto for a new science. He argued
forcefully for the value of animal experimentation,
including vivisection. In his view, it was unethical to
perform harmful experiments on humans, but scientists
had the right, “wholly and absolutely,” to vivisect animals
(102). Although various anesthetic agents including ether
and chloroform began to appear in the 1840s, scientists did
not consistently use anesthesia in animal experiments,
fearing it would alter desired outcomes.
As physiology and other experimental medical sciences
became distinct disciplines over the nineteenth century,
institutional structures also changed. Researchers became
professional scientists rather than physicians conducting
research in their spare time. Universities in the German
states took the lead in establishing state-supported
institutions that encouraged cross-disciplinary research
and emphasized medical applications, uniting the laborato-
ry with the clinic in the research hospital. These universities
competed with each other for the best students and
researchers. The German model was widely imitated,
including in the United States, where the medical school at
Johns Hopkins University (founded in 1893) became the
model for the reform of US medical education.
THE GERM THEORY AND THE NORMALIZATION
OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
The germ theory of disease, the major medical (rather
than physiological) discovery of the era, was as much a
result of the diligent individual genius of men such as
BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION 219
Animal Research
(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

3. Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) and Robert Koch (1843–
1910) as of modern institutions of science. Like
physiology, the discovery and application of the germ
theory relied heavily on animal experiments. But the scale
changed: where Bernard had used dozens of animals,
Pasteur in France and Koch in Germany used hundreds,
and Koch’s student Paul Ehrlich (1854–1915) thousands.
Physiological research relied on surgical vivisections, but
the new bacteriology used animals as living test tubes to
grow and test pathogens, vaccines, and antitoxins.
Although dogs and pigs continued to be experimental
subjects, rats, mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits became much
more common in laboratories. Monkeys and other
nonhuman primates, however, were rare.
The success of the germ theory was immediate and
dramatic. Dozens of microbial diseases were identified
between 1880 and 1910, and the development of vaccines
and antitoxins radically changed the medical response to
infectious disease. Childhood diseases such as diphtheria
virtually disappeared within a generation, and the com-
bination of anesthesia with antiseptic practices made
surgery far more effective and safe. Success bred further
success. Ehrlich sacrificed thousands of mice to discover
arsphenamine (sold under the commercial name Salvarsan),
the first specific cure for syphilis (1907), and many
thousands more led to the discovery and testing of
sulfanilamide (1935), penicillin (discovered in 1928 but
not used in humans until 1940), and streptomycin (1943).
Unlike bacterial diseases, viral diseases such as polio
were more species specific. Polio appeared to attack only
primates, and Jonas Salk (1914–1995) and Albert Sabin
(1906–1993) developed polio vaccines in the 1950s in
monkeys. Monkeys and apes also became the preferred
animals for psychological research; although Ivan Pavlov
(1849–1936) tested conditioned reflex in dogs (1903),
Harry Harlow (1905–1981) in the 1950s tested the
nature of motherly love in monkeys.
As these examples indicate, by the twentieth century
the experimental use of animals extended to every aspect
of the life sciences. Basic physiological work faded as
attention turned to disease and other medical research,
including drug testing and psychological studies. The
establishment of safety standards for food, drugs, and
consumer products, beginning in the United States with
the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, led to the extensive
use of animals in product testing. Most recently, new uses
for animals have emerged with experiments in cloning and
xenotransplantation. But the very ubiquity of animals in
science led some to question whether their use was ethical.
ETHICAL DEBATES FROM ANTIQUITY
TO BENTHAM
The ethical debates on animal use in science are
inextricably tied to broader issues of animal cognition
and the human-animal relationship. Aristotle’s disciple
Theophrastus (c. 372–c. 287 B.C.E.) recognized that the
physical analogies between animals and humans made
human uses of animals ethically questionable. But he
blunted the impact of this insight by arguing that human
necessity could overrule ethical considerations. Others in
antiquity made similar arguments, but the Christian view
as enunciated by Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.)—
that animals lack a rational soul and are therefore outside
humanity’s moral realm—came to dominate in western
Europe. When experimentation was revived during the
Renaissance, Augustine’s distinction between animal and
human sanctioned the use of animals. But the medieval
theologian Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224–1274) added an
important caveat: if compassion was a quality of a good
Christian, then humans should not be cruel, even to
animals. Cruelty to animals would corrupt the soul and
lead to cruel behavior toward humans.
Ethical attention to animal experiments emerged in
the seventeenth century for two reasons: the enormous
increase in animal research following the work of Harvey
and the “beast-machine” doctrine developed by the
French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650). Des-
cartes argued, like Augustine, that animals lacked a
rational soul, using their lack of speech as proof. But he
further claimed that therefore they were merely automata
who lacked the mental capacity to experience pain. It is
not clear whether Descartes believed animals feel no pain
or only that they cannot cognitively perceive it. In any
case, the “beast-machine” notion was received with broad
skepticism and some active opposition. Few scientists
believed animals could not feel pain, and even fewer used
that concept to justify experimenting on them. Most
experimenters acknowledged that their actions caused
pain but believed it was justified for the greater human
good. But some, including the English naturalist John Ray
(1627–1705), went further: he wrote in 1693, “the
torture of animals is no part of philosophy” (12).
This debate continued through the eighteenth
century. The protagonist in a series of engravings titled
“The Four Stages of Cruelty” by the English artist
William Hogarth (1697–1764) began his career by
torturing animals and ended it with murder; the German
philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) had these
images in mind when he argued in his Lectures on Ethics
(1780) that cruelty to animals would damage human
moral sensibility, echoing Thomas Aquinas. But, he
added, humans have no moral obligations to animals. In
the same year (but not published until nearly a decade
later), the English political philosopher Jeremy Bentham
(1748–1832) changed the terms of the debate: the
question, he said, “is not, Can they reason? nor, Can
they talk? but, Can they suffer?” (Bentham 1823 [1789],
142–43). According to his utilitarian philosophy, the goal
220 BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION
Animal Research
(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

4. of government and of ethics was to maximize happiness
and minimize pain, and because animals could experience
happiness, they were within humanity’s moral realm.
THE RISE AND DECLINE OF NINETEENTH-
CENTURY ANTIVIVISECTION
Early-nineteenth-century efforts toward animal protection
did not follow Bentham’s arguments but returned to the
earlier connection between cruelty to animals and human
sensibility. In the 1820s the British Parliament passed the
first law forbidding cruelty to farm animals. The Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded
around the same time (“Royal” was later added to the
name when Queen Victoria became its patron, making its
acronym RSPCA). Antivivisection sentiment was strong
in Britain, even though few British scientists at this time
employed vivisection; when François Magendie visited
London in 1824, he was widely condemned in the press.
Although the emphasis of critics was on vivisection, this
term became shorthand for any experimentation on live
animals. The development of anesthesia as well as opiate-
based pain relief such as morphine (1804) made the
infliction of pain a central issue.
By the 1860s a French society for animal protection
existed, but the RSPCA did not hesitate to condemn
French practices. In addition, an Englishwoman in
Florence, Frances Power Cobbe (1822–1904), led a
campaign against a local physiologist who experimented
on animals. Cobbe, a journalist and feminist, became the
leader of an antivivisection movement in Britain and
agitated for antivivisection legislation as British scientists
increasingly experimented with animals. The result, the
Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876, was the first attempt by a
national government to regulate animal experimentation.
It required the licensing and inspection of experimenters
and facilities. Anesthesia was required except in special
circumstances. Scientists, however, were expected to
regulate each other, a provision that Cobbe found
unacceptable. She continued to press for the abolition of
vivisection.
The successes of the new bacteriology made Cobbe’s
battle an uphill one. Opponents of vivisection often also
opposed the germ theory, and the Socialist playwright
George Bernard Shaw wittily attacked vivisection, the
germ theory, vaccines, and the medical profession itself in
the preface to his 1911 play The Doctor’s Dilemma. Henry
Bergh (1811–1888) had founded the American Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in
1866, but several attempts to pass federal legislation
regulating animal experimentation failed. US Senate
hearings in 1896 and 1900 on proposals to regulate
vivisection served to mobilize scientists, and the successes
of the germ theory made antivivisectionists’ arguments
that experimentation was useless unconvincing. By the
1920s the antivivisection movement seemed moribund if
not dead.
ANIMAL LIBERATION AND NEW REGULATIONS
The revelation after World War II (1939–1945) of Nazi
experimentation on humans ironically worked against the
regulation of animal experimentation. The Nuremburg
Code of 1947 precluded research on human subjects for
ends that could be attained by other means and required
prior experiments on animals before human trials could
take place. Increasingly funded by national governments,
biological experimentation grew enormously after 1945
with little criticism on ethical grounds. But the intellectual
and social turmoil of the 1960s reopened and transformed
old debates. Increasing recognition of universal human
rights led to a new consideration of the rights of animals, a
concept that had first been argued by the English writer
Henry S. Salt (1851–1939) in his Animals’ Rights:
Considered in Relation to Social Progress (1892). Salt’s
argument that all beings have the right to live their lives
without interference gained particular resonance in the
context of the liberation movements of the 1960s.
A founding document of the new movement, which
encompassed antivivisection as part of a broader agenda,
was Australian philosopher Peter Singer’s 1975 book
Animal Liberation. Singer returned to Bentham’s utilitari-
an philosophy to argue that animals have equal interests
with humans in maximizing their pleasure and minimiz-
ing their pain. He supported his ideas with numerous
examples of animal exploitation, employing the term
speciesism (coined by the animal activist Richard Ryder a
few years earlier) as a parallel with racism and sexism. A few
years later, in The Case for Animal Rights (1983), the
American philosopher Tom Regan argued for animal
rights from the basis of inherent rights.
The new movement rejected traditional animal
welfare groups such as the RSPCA and ASPCA as
accommodationist, and new groups such as the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF), founded by British activist
Ronnie Lee in 1976, and People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA), founded in 1980 by
Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco, have employed a
variety of tactics to bring attention to animal abuse in
laboratories and elsewhere. ALF, the more radical group,
has “liberated” lab animals, destroyed property, and
threatened scientists. PETA has planted undercover
operatives in labs and other animal facilities to reveal
abuses.
In the United States, triggered in part by scandals
over “puppy mills” that sold pets for research, Congress
passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966 to
regulate animal dealers and facilities. This act (later known
BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION 221
Animal Research
(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

5. as the Animal Welfare Act) has been amended several
times, most recently in 2008; perhaps the most important
revision was in 1985, when institutional animal care and
use committees were required for institutions that used
animals in research. These committees review all animal
research at institutions that receive federal funding, using
for their reviews the “three Rs” enunciated in The
Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (1959) by
W. M. S. Russell and R. L. Burch. The three Rs—
replacement, reduction, and refinement—are supplemen-
ted by an extensive literature, including the National
Research Council’s Guide for the Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals, first published in 1963. The 1985
revision was provoked in part by PETA’s revelation of
abuses of monkeys in a laboratory in Silver Springs,
Maryland, in 1981. Animal research in the United States
is overseen by several overlapping agencies; to give one
example, the Animal Welfare Act excludes rats, mice,
birds, and fish, but the National Institutes of Health,
which fund much biomedical research, include rats and
mice in their regulatory policies.
The 1980s saw the institution of laboratory welfare
regulation in most European countries and many others
around the world. The European Union adopted
legislation in 1986 (revised in 2010) that required
member nations to regulate animal research. The British
act from 1876 was replaced in 1986. Regulations vary
from country to country; in general, European laws are
more stringent than those of the United States, and laws
and regulations are constantly revised to reflect new
techniques and changing sensibilities.
Since the 1980s, increased public consciousness of
animal awareness and cognition has led to significant
changes in animal use. The use of animals for product
testing has declined precipitously, owing to public
preference for so-called cruelty-free products. This label
has no legal standing, however, and may disguise the fact
that products or their components were tested on animals
in the past but are not presently. The kinds of animals
used in research have also changed. The overwhelming
majority of research animals—something like 95 percent
in the United States in 2010—are rats and mice. Specially
bred mice and rats for research began to be marketed to
scientists in the 1920s; now sophisticated genetic
engineering can create custom animals for a variety of
research projects.
In addition, the use of nonhuman primates in
research has become increasingly controversial. Starting
with the research of the primatologist Jane Goodall on
chimpanzees in Africa, and including several experiments
in teaching language to primates, knowledge about
primate intelligence, social life, and complexity has greatly
increased. Extending the insight of Theophrastus, the very
similarities to humans that make nonhuman primates
such good experimental subjects also make their use in
science particularly problematic. In the mid-1990s Good-
all, Singer, and others developed the Great Ape Project,
which aimed to give chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans
the status of “persons,” which would give them the
human rights to life, individual liberty, and freedom from
torture. The Spanish parliament passed a nonbinding
resolution in 2008 that recognized these principles. By
2013 the European Union was examining the feasibility of
phasing out research on nonhuman primates. There is
concern, however, that if Western countries abandon
primate research, countries such as China, where regula-
tion is much more lax, may take it over.
Although many millions of animals—primarily rats
and mice—continue to be used for research around the
world, there has been considerable growth in moral
concern and regulatory legislation since the early 1970s.
The historical trajectory of Western science, and its
undeniable success in improving human and animal
health and adding to the knowledge of the human and
animal body, makes it unlikely that animal experimenta-
tion will disappear anytime soon. But it is much more
highly regulated than in the past, and as values continue
to change, so too will laws and practices.
SEE ALSO Cloning: I. Scientific Background; Harm;
Hinduism, Bioethics in; Jainism, Bioethics in; Moral
Status; Pain and Suffering; Veterinary Ethics;
Xenotransplantation
BIBLI OGRAPHY
Bentham, Jeremy. 1823 [1789]. An Introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation. 2nd ed. London: W. Pickering and
E. Wilson.
Bernard, Claude. 1957 [1865]. Introduction to the Study of
Experimental Medicine. Translated by Henry Copley Greene.
New York: Dover.
Coleman, William, and Frederic L. Holmes, eds. 1988. The
Investigative Enterprise: Experimental Physiology in Nineteenth-
Century Medicine. Berkeley: University of California Press.
European Commission. 2013. “Animals Used for Scientific
Purposes.” Last modified March 7. http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/chemicals/lab_animals/home_en.htm
Finsen, Lawrence, and Susan Finsen. 1994. The Animal Rights
Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect. New York:
Twayne.
French, Richard D. 1975. Antivivisection and Medical Science in
Victorian Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fye, W. Bruce. 1987. The Development of American Physiology:
Scientific Medicine in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Galen. 1956. On Anatomical Procedures. Translated by Charles
Singer. London: Oxford University Press.
Great Ape Project. 2013. Accessed September 15, 2012. http://
www.greatapeproject.org
222 BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION
Animal Research
(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

6. Guerrini, Anita. 2003. Experimenting with Humans and Animals:
From Galen to Animal Rights. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Haller, Albrecht von. 1936 [1752]. A Dissertation on the Sensible
and Irritable Parts of Animals. Translated by Owsei Temkin.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, William. 1990 [1628]. The Circulation of the Blood and
Other Writings. Translated by Kenneth J. Franklin. London:
J. M. Dent.
Jasper, James M., and Dorothy Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights
Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest. New York: Free Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1997 [1780]. Lectures on Ethics. Edited by Peter
Heath and J. B. Schneewind. Translated by Peter Heath. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Le Clerc, Daniel, and Jean-Jacques Manget. 1685. Bibliotheca
Anatomica. Geneva: Chovet.
Lesch, John E. 1984. Science and Medicine in France: The
Emergence of Experimental Physiology, 1790–1855. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
National Research Council. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals. 8th ed. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Passmore, John. 1975. “The Treatment of Animals.” Journal of
the History of Ideas 36 (2): 195–218.
Rader, Karen A. 2004. Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for
American Biomedical Research, 1900–1955. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ray, John. 1693. Synopsis methodica animalium quadrupedum et
serpentini generis. London: S. Smith and B. Walford.
Regan, Tom. 2004. The Case for Animal Rights. Rev. ed. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Ritvo, Harriet. 1987. The Animal Estate: The English and Other
Creatures in the Victorian Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Rowan, Andrew N. 1984. Of Mice, Models, and Men: A Critical
Evaluation of Animal Research. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Rudacille, Deborah. 2000. The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The War
between Animal Research and Animal Protection. New York:
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Rupke, Nicolaas A., ed. 1987. Vivisection in Historical Perspective.
London: Croom Helm.
Russell, W. M. S., and R. L. Burch. 1959. The Principles of
Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen.
Salt, Henry S. 1892. Animals’ Rights: Considered in Relation to
Social Progress. London: Bell.
Shaw, George Bernard. 1911. “Preface on Doctors.” In The
Doctor’s Dilemma, v–xcii. New York: Brentano’s.
Singer, Peter. 1990. Animal Liberation. 2nd ed. New York: New
York Review of Books.
Sorabji, Richard. 1993. Animal Minds and Human Morals: The
Origins of the Western Debate. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Turner, James. 1980. Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and
Humanity in the Victorian Mind. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
US Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. 2012. “Animal Welfare Act.” Last
modified August 15. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_
welfare/awa_info.shtml
US Food and Drug Administration. 2013. “Science and
Research.” Accessed March 16. http://www.fda.gov/
ScienceResearch/
Vesalius, Andreas. 1543. De humani corporis fabrica. Basel,
Switzerland: Joannes Oporinus.
Wise, Steven M. 2000. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for
Animals. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Anita Guerrini
Horning Professor in the Humanities and
Professor of History, Oregon State University
II. PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES
For several centuries the issue of animal use in research,
testing, and education has generated intense debate. In the
early twenty-first century a complex range of opinions are
in play in philosophy, policy, and public discourse, and it
is not apt or especially helpful to cast the debate as one
between those who favor animal use and those who do
not. As an ethical question, the use of animals is deeply
linked to debates over genetic engineering, biotechnology,
cloning, xenotransplantation, stem cell research, and
clinical trials with humans. It is also bound up with
changing scientific and technological understanding about
preclinical research and study as well as growing demands
for a human systems biology approach better suited to
human medical needs. Finally, there is a strong push for
the development and implementation of reliable and
human-relevant methods, directly applicable to the
human condition, for the testing of pharmaceuticals and
other products. These trends and a changing social
consensus promise to transform both ethical discussion
and the practical use of animals in the future.
The topic of animal use encompasses two distinct
questions. Does such use yield useful knowledge that
could not be gained from other sources, and is it morally
acceptable for humans to use animals in ways that can
cause them harm? The two questions are certainly related.
If it were the case that nothing useful and distinctive is
learned from animal use, it would be quite difficult to
justify it on any basis. At the same time the fact that
humans can learn useful things from research on animals
would not by itself show that animal use is justified or—if
it can be justified at all—under what conditions it would
be justified. As explained in more detail below, further
ethical discussion would be required to decide that
question.
Ethical problems related to research on nonhuman
animals are grounded in the assertion that animals have
BIOETHICS, 4TH EDITION 223
Animal Research
(c) 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.