The Use of Animals in ResearchStudent NameAffi.docxssusera34210
The Use of Animals in Research
Student Name
Affiliate Institution
The Use of Animals in Research
The debate about experimental animal use in research aim to prove weather their usage is a pseudoscience or not. Animals have been used widely in scientific research since the 500 BC. However, the use of experimental animals for research has been a controversial issue and subject of ethical debates. The growing body of animal advocates believes that experimental animal use in research is not necessary for reasons of wasting resources. Industries such as pharmaceutical research companies and cosmetics manufacturers use animals such as rats, rabbits and pigs to test their products. With such usage, the society has persistently called upon the concerned scientific community to find an alternative of experimental animal use especially in the business industries. Despite the fact that animal advocates who stage campaigns against the use of animals in research consider it unethical, pure research scientists have not demonstrated the economic and academic benefits of using these animals where Pound et al., (2004) argue that there is no evidence to show that the use of animals in research has direct human benefits. The animal use has led to a better scientific understanding of disease and drug processes hence leading to proper formulations and medical breakthroughs. Experimental animals have been successful models of disease and drug studies before clinical trials. The use of experimental animals is the basic science established in the research of cognitive science, biology, and medicine.
Organizations that refute the use of animals for research such as PETA and ASPCA consider these traditional scientific activities out of date and that it is morally wrong to use animals solely for the benefit of human beings. These organizations claim that traditional animal experiments are costly, they are expensive and time-consuming, (Ryder, 2005). In addition, animal advocates argue that pure research scientists have not been accountable for those experiments that have failed and their results having no economic or academic benefits in the society. Even worse, there is evidence indicating that experimental animal results can mislead researchers. Animals may die in the process of experimentation due to toxic drug treatment and such results may confuse. The PETA organization indicate that researchers focus on making the animals sick and later cure them, a process that does not happen in human. The PETA and allied organization also argue that best doctors and scientists are misplaced because they are compensated to work with animals in the laboratory instead of working with real patients in the community. Even though using animals in research is undisputedly intellectually seductive, these experiments have not solved the urgent health problems of this era such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, AIDS and birth defects. However, scientists have a good course ...
The Use of Animals in ResearchStudent NameAffi.docxssusera34210
The Use of Animals in Research
Student Name
Affiliate Institution
The Use of Animals in Research
The debate about experimental animal use in research aim to prove weather their usage is a pseudoscience or not. Animals have been used widely in scientific research since the 500 BC. However, the use of experimental animals for research has been a controversial issue and subject of ethical debates. The growing body of animal advocates believes that experimental animal use in research is not necessary for reasons of wasting resources. Industries such as pharmaceutical research companies and cosmetics manufacturers use animals such as rats, rabbits and pigs to test their products. With such usage, the society has persistently called upon the concerned scientific community to find an alternative of experimental animal use especially in the business industries. Despite the fact that animal advocates who stage campaigns against the use of animals in research consider it unethical, pure research scientists have not demonstrated the economic and academic benefits of using these animals where Pound et al., (2004) argue that there is no evidence to show that the use of animals in research has direct human benefits. The animal use has led to a better scientific understanding of disease and drug processes hence leading to proper formulations and medical breakthroughs. Experimental animals have been successful models of disease and drug studies before clinical trials. The use of experimental animals is the basic science established in the research of cognitive science, biology, and medicine.
Organizations that refute the use of animals for research such as PETA and ASPCA consider these traditional scientific activities out of date and that it is morally wrong to use animals solely for the benefit of human beings. These organizations claim that traditional animal experiments are costly, they are expensive and time-consuming, (Ryder, 2005). In addition, animal advocates argue that pure research scientists have not been accountable for those experiments that have failed and their results having no economic or academic benefits in the society. Even worse, there is evidence indicating that experimental animal results can mislead researchers. Animals may die in the process of experimentation due to toxic drug treatment and such results may confuse. The PETA organization indicate that researchers focus on making the animals sick and later cure them, a process that does not happen in human. The PETA and allied organization also argue that best doctors and scientists are misplaced because they are compensated to work with animals in the laboratory instead of working with real patients in the community. Even though using animals in research is undisputedly intellectually seductive, these experiments have not solved the urgent health problems of this era such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, AIDS and birth defects. However, scientists have a good course ...
Rapid Impact Assessment of Climatic and Physio-graphic Changes on Flagship G...Arvinder Singh
‘NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MAN AND ENVIRONMENT’October 15 – 16, 2012
Organized by
Department of Zoology and Environmental Sciences, Punjabi University, Patiala (Pb.) – 147 002, India
Macro–anatomical and morphometric studies of the Grasscutter (thryonomysswind...Premier Publishers
The Forelimb of the Grasscutter (Thryonomysswinderianus) was studied using 12 adult rats of both sexes with mean weights of 5167±0.2023kg and 0.8167±0.1276kg for male and female respectively. Correlation coefficient between length of each bone segment and weight of each animal revealed statistical significance (P < 0.05) in all bone segments except the manus when both sexes (n = 12) were considered signifying a positive relationship between weight of the animal and its bone size. The average total number of bones in the forelimb of the rat is 96 bones. Sexual dimorphism was not noticed. The bones of the forelimb revealed significant differences and similarities in morphology to that of other rodents and domestic animals. The Scapula presented a prominent triangular shaped metacromion and acromion process, the Humerus presented well defined head and distinct deltoid tuberosity protruding from the midshaft. The ulna and radius fuses proximally and distally leaving an expansive interosseus space. There were 8 irregularly shaped carpal bones arranged 3 proximally and 5 distally. Metacarpal and digital bones are 5 on each forelimb with the first and fifth greatly reduced with each digit presenting 3 phalanges.
My talk at BASF Science Symposium: sustainable food chain - from field to table, Jun 23-24, 2015, Chicago.
Notes and acknowledgements at http://kamounlab.tumblr.com/post/122151022390/plant-pathology-in-the-post-genomics-era
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
El debate sobre los derechos de los animales y el alcance de nuestras obligaciones morales
1. 1
Selección bibliográfica
El debate sobre los derechos de los animales y el alcance de nuestras obligaciones morales
Miguel Moreno
22/04/2015
Anderson, J. H., & Effmann, E. L. (1987a). Laboratory Animal Welfare. Investigative Radiology (Vol. 22).
Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198701000-00013
Anderson, J. H., & Effmann, E. L. (1987b). Laboratory Animal Welfare. Investigative Radiology (Vol. 22).
Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198701000-00013
Anderson, J. H., & Effmann, E. L. (1987c). Laboratory Animal Welfare. Investigative Radiology (Vol. 22).
Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198701000-00013
Anderson, J. H., & Effmann, E. L. (1987d). Laboratory Animal Welfare. Investigative Radiology (Vol. 22).
Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198701000-00013
Anderson, J. H., & Effmann, E. L. (1987e). Laboratory Animal Welfare. Investigative Radiology, 22(1), 68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198701000-00013
Anderson, J. H., & Effmann, E. L. (1987f). Laboratory Animal Welfare. Investigative Radiology (Vol. 22).
Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198701000-00013
Anderson, J. H., & Effmann, E. L. (1987g). Laboratory Animal Welfare. Investigative Radiology (Vol. 22).
Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004424-198701000-00013
Bayne, K., Bayvel, a. C. D., & Williams, V. (2013). Laboratory Animal Welfare. International Issues.
Laboratory Animal Welfare. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00006-3
Bayne, K., & Turner, P. V. (2013). Animal Environments and Their Impact on Laboratory Animal Welfare.
Laboratory Animal Welfare. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00007-5
Beaver, B. V., & Bayne, K. (2013). Animal Welfare Assessment Considerations. Laboratory Animal
Welfare, 29–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00004-X
Bergmann, I. (2014). Sustainability and Animal Protection : How do they intersect , where do they.
Retrieved from http://irisbergmann.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Bergmann_ICAS-
conference-presentation_2014.pdf
Blair, T., & Blunkett, D. (1997). Government acts on animal rights activists. Current Biology, 635–636.
Bracke, M. B. M. (2006). Providing cross-species comparisons of animal welfare with a scientific basis.
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(1), 61–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1573-
5214(06)80004-7
Broom, D. M. M. (2010). Welfare of Animals: Behavior as a Basis for Decisions. In Encyclopedia of Animal
Behavior (pp. 580–584). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045337-8.00080-2
Brown, M. J. (2013). Ethics and Animal Welfare. Laboratory Animal Welfare. Elsevier.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00002-6
2. 2
Carbone, L. (2014). Chapter 11 – Euthanasia and Laboratory Animal Welfare. Laboratory Animal
Welfare. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00011-7
Crisp, R. (1998). Animal liberation is not an environmental ethic: A response to Dale Jamieson.
Environmental Values, 7(4), 476–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/096327198129341681
East, I. J., Roche, S. E., Wicks, R. M., de Witte, K., & Garner, M. G. (2014). Options for managing animal
welfare on intensive pig farms confined by movement restrictions during an outbreak of foot and
mouth disease. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 117(3-4), 533–541.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.10.002
Editorial. (n.d.). Animal rights protests build. Current Biology, 15(21), 856–857.
Fry, D. (2013). Experimental Design. Reduction and Refinement in Studies Using Animals. Laboratory
Animal Welfare. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00008-7
Hansson, H., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2015). Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence
from Swedish dairy agriculture. Food Policy, 50, 35–42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.012
Hughes, B. O., & Duncan, I. J. H. (1988). The notion of ethological “need”, models of motivation and
animal welfare. Animal Behaviour, 36(6), 1696–1707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-
3472(88)80110-6
Hursthouse, R. (2000). Ethics, Humans and Other Animals - An introduction with readings. Routledge,
NY.
Ingenbleek, P. T. M., Immink, V. M., Spoolder, H. a. M., Bokma, M. H., & Keeling, L. J. (2012). EU animal
welfare policy: Developing a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy, 37(6), 690–699.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.001
Jamieson, D. (1998). Animal liberation is an environmental ethic. Environmental Values.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/096327198129341465
Kauppinen, T., Vesala, K. M., & Valros, A. (2012). Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal
welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science, 143(2-3), 142–150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.011
Kopnina, H. (2014). Environmental justice and biospheric egalitarianism: reflecting on a normative-
philosophical view of human-nature relationship. Earth Perspectives, 1(1), 8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2194-6434-1-8
Lund, V. (2006). Natural living — a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Livestock Science,
100, 71 – 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2005.08.005
McMahon, C. R., Harcourt, R., Bateson, P., & Hindell, M. a. (2012). Animal welfare and decision making
in wildlife research. Biological Conservation, 153, 254–256.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.004
Nicoll, C. S., & Russell, S. M. (1992). Animal rights, animal research, and human obligations. Molecular
and Cellular Neurosciences, 3(4), 271–277.
Patterson-kane, E., & Golab, G. C. (2014). History, Philosophies, and Concepts of Animal Welfare.
Laboratory Animal Welfare. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00001-4
3. 3
Rothgerber, H. (2014). Conscientious omnivores and vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals.
Appetite, 87, 251–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.206
Scudder, J. N., & Mills, C. B. (2009). The credibility of shock advocacy: Animal rights attack messages.
Public Relations Review, 35(2), 162–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.007
Singer, P. (2002). Animal Liberation. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). The Way We Eat Why Our Food Choices Matter. Holtzbrinck Publishers,
USA.
Smith, S. a. (2013). Welfare of Laboratory Fishes. Laboratory Animal Welfare, (1), 301–311.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00017-8
Turner, P. V. (2013). Rodent and Rabbit Welfare in the Research Environment. Laboratory Animal
Welfare. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385103-1.00012-9
Vasbinder, M. A., Hawk, C. T., & Bennett, B. T. (2013). Regulations, Policies, and Guidelines Impacting
Laboratory Animal Welfare. Laboratory Animal Welfare. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-385103-1.00003-8
Vivarelli, F., Canistro, D., Marquillas, C. B., Sapone, A., & Paolini, M. (2014). Animal rights activists:
Misconceived proposals. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 71(3), 624.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.020
Webster, a J. (2001). Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. Veterinary Journal
(London, England : 1997), 161(3), 229–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2000.0563
Whitham, J. C., & Wielebnowski, N. (2013). New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science, 147(3-4), 247–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.004
Williams, N. (2004). Fears grow about animal rights activists. Current Biology : CB.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.09.028