Monday, October 24, 2011
"Images of Crisis"
One's position in the world can shape the way in which he or she might feel about identity, society, and culture. Take the example of "images of crisis." Images of crisis are powerful images portraying the devastating aftermath of such events as earthquakes and tsunamis, as well as footage of bombings, terrorist attacks, and wars. These photos by professional and amateur photographers, paparazzi, and passerby are meant to tell a particular story about a certain crisis in its one frame. However, depending on the perspective of the scene, the picture could tell a completely different story, while different people could also view a particular photo in different ways. People directly affected by these terrible events tend to show negative views toward photographers who try to capture their suffering. And the photographers on the other hand, see the need to share the story with others around the world and to pass down history to future generations. Viewers of the pictures have mixed feelings of the pictures, with varying opinions of the pictures being too gruesome and unnecessary to opinions that the pictures are simply conveying reality and that people need to know the truth. Despite, photos capturing the truth, it is only the truth at one moment in time. The moment in time at which the photographer takes the photo could tell a completely different story of the same event. Also, the motive of the photographer could change the meaning of the photo. A photographer wanting to capture the reality of the devastation of the aftermath of a hurricane and a photographer wanting to capture the glimpses of hope for revival after a crisis will have completely different photos to share with the world. Pictures are objective in that the people taking the picture, the people in the picture, the people viewing the picture, and everyone else affected by the picture have different perspectives on the identities, societies, and cultures portrayed in the pictures and therefore have different feelings about them.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Annotated Bibliography of 12 Sources
1.
This article by Frank Gannon, the senior editor of EMBO reports and senior scientist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany questions the "balance between the rights of animals and their use in biomedical research." He introduces the two extremist sides of the debate- animal-rights activists calling for the complete eradication of animal research and scientists who claim that animals are absolutely necessary for research- and those in between the two extremists- scientists and others who believe animal research can be conducted under strict regulation. Several views by other scientists and different organizations related to animal research is given. Some alternatives to using animals are given, but the author sees that it cannot replace animal use. Gannon concludes the article with his view on debate- animal research is "justifiable if it is done in such a way that causes minimal pain to the animals involved and if all possible alternative methods have been explored." In his opinion the continuation of this debate is important in determining the specific regulations of animal research. (Gannon 519-520)
Gannon, Frank. "Animal rights, human wrongs? Introduction to the Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research." EMBO reports talking point. 8.6 (2007): 519-520. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400998.html>.
2.
Bernard E. Rollin, a professor of philosophy, of animal sciences, and of biomedical sciences, and a bioethicist at Colorado State University discusses his philosophical views on the ethics of animal science. Since the Renaissance, "true science" has been defined as the validation of science through experience and through logical positivism, science excluded everything empirically "unverifiable." Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein's view that ethical judgments are "unverifiable" and therefore irrelevant to science, society had "a very limited ethic for animal treatment" until the 1970s. Rollin, who played a large role in "the 1985 Health Research Extension Act and an 'Animal Welfare' amendment to the 1985 Food Security Act," supports the increasingly popular rational view of animal ethics for two reasons- "there is no morally relevant difference between humans and animals that justifies excluding animals from what [he] call[s] 'the moral arena' or the full 'scope of moral concern'" and there are positive reasons including animals in our 'moral arena.'" Some argue that humans are superior to animals and that animal research is more beneficial than harmful, but Rollin disagrees and that even if animal research was permissible "pain control and housing" need to be improved. (Rollin 521-525)
Rollin, Bernard E. "Animal research: a moral science Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research." EMBO reports talking point. 8.6 (2007): 521-525. Web. 17 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400996.html>.
3.
In this issue of the EMBO reports Simon Festing and Robin Wilkinson, Executive Director and Science Communications Officer, respectively, at the Research Defense Society in London, UK, present their views on the debate regarding the ethics of animal research. They initially present the view of the animal-rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups who believe that "animal experimentation is cruel and unnecessary, regardless of its purpose or benefit." They further explain the public's perspective that "animal welfare should be weighed against health benefits" as long as the 3Rs- replacement, reduction, and refinement are stressed. The article discusses various surveys and changes to the law that have been done and made in response to the debate. They conclude that animal-rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups are ignorant in demanding the immediate replacement of animal use in research. Festing and Wilkinson agree that alternatives should be continually researched, but that "the use of animals in research can be ethically and morally justified" as long as refinement and reduction are constantly enforced. (Festing, and Wilkinson 526-530)
Festing, Simon, and Robin Wilkinson. "The ethics of animal research Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research." EMBO reports talking point. 8.6 (2007): 526-530. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400993.html>.
4.
Author, David DeGrazia, influenced by the works of Henry Spira, wrote an article summarizing the views of "biomedicine" and "animal advocates" in a comparison analysis. DeGrazia explains that there are many points upon which non-extremist supporters of biomedicine and animal advocates agree including the following: the issue of animal research is an ethical debate, moral protection of some animals, many animals are capable of mental states, protection of animals' well-being, highly social animals' humane care, certain animals' strong protection, continuation and expansion of research on alternatives, improvement of human health as a result of biomedical research, morally significant differences between humans and other animals, and the presence of a few justifiable research. There are a few points upon which the two sides will never agree which are issues involving the moral status of animals in comparison with humans, specific circumstances in which animal research is justifiable, and whether current research morally protects animals. DeGrazia concludes the article with several suggestions for the future of this ethical debate. To summarize he believes, both sides of the debate should recognize the points of agreement and learn the true argument of the opposing side, while animal research is improved morally and research for alternatives is continued. (DeGrazia 23-34)
DeGrazia, David. "The Ethics of Animal Research: What Are the Prospects for Agreement?." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 8. (1999): 23-34. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=46377>.
5.
The authors of this article believe that there needs to be an "urgent clarification" of the "clinical relevance of animal experiments." Many recognize that animal research has greatly influenced the advancement of medicine however there is little evidence to prove this statement. The few systematic reviews of animal research that they were able to find revealed methodological problems of animal experiments including, animal and clinical research being done on the same study, lack of randomization and blinding, and variations between animals being researched and humans. "Systematic reviews can provide important insights into the validity of animal research." (Pound, Ebrahim, Sandercock, Bracken, and Roberts 524-517)
Pound, Pandora, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B. Bracken, and Ian Roberts. "Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?." BMJ. 328. (2004): 524-517. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7438/514.full>.
6.
Neal D. Barnard, nutrition researcher and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Stephen R. Kaufman, co-chair of the Medical Research Modernization Committee, believe animal research is "poorly suited to addressing the urgent health problems of our era." They explain several cases where animal experiments mislead researchers, resulting in false conclusions of certain diseases and drugs and delaying advancement in the medical field. Due to differences in the makeup of animals and humans, animal research is unreliable and a waste of money. They offer alternatives to animal experimentation- "epidemiological studies, clinical intervention trials, astute clinical observation aided by laboratory testing, human tissue and cell cultures, autopsy studies, endoscopic examination and biopsy, as well as new imaging methods"- and give cases where these alternatives were influential to medical advancement. "Animal 'models' are, at best, analogous to human conditions, but no theory can be proved or refuted by analogy" and 'thus, it makes no logical sense to test a theory about humans using animals." Barnard and Kaufman define animal experiments as mere rhetorical devices for researchers to cite as evidence for their theory. (Barnard, and Kaufman 80-82)
Barnard, Neal D., and Stephen R. Kaufman. "Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading." Scientific American. (1997): 80-82. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf >.
7.
Jack H. Botting, former scientific adviser to the Research Defense Society in London, and Adrian R. Morrison, director of the Laboratory Study of the Brain in Sleep at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, are both strong defenders of animal research. They strongly support animal research due to the different cases in which it has played a significant role such as in vaccines, antibiotics, insulin, and transplantation of organs. The claim that differences in animals and humans invalidate animal research is a misconception and Botting and Morrison argue that there are no basic differences between them and that animal models are not meant to be identical to humans. Opponents of animal research claim that researchers should use alternatives. Again, Bottin and Morrison argue that alternatives have been taken into consideration, however, animal experimentation proves to be best. (Botting, and Morrison 83-85)
Botting, Jack H., and Adrian R. Morrison. "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine." Scientific American. (1997): 83-85. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf >.
8.
Madhusree Mukerjee discusses the changes in animal research that have occurred due to the increasingly heated debate between animal rightists and scientists. Several factors have resulted in the decrease of animal research since its beginning, which the author indicates as the following: the philosophers, the public, the scientists, the 3 Rs, the laws and the propaganda. Philosophers and their discussion of animal ethics led to the beginning of the opposition movement for animal experimentation while the public was "wildly inconsistent" regarding their views on animal use, although trends were seen between different groups of people. The scientists' view on animal research has evolved from non-existing animal ethics to enforcing two of the 3 Rs, reduction and refinement. The laws put certain regulations on animal research, decreasing animal use but also increasing costs. Propaganda has been effective in convincing some people but ineffective in bringing an agreement between animal rights protectionists and researchers. The author believes that "animal liberators need to accept that animal research is beneficial to humans [and] animal researchers need to admit that if animals are close enough to humans that their bodies, brains and even psyches are good models for the human condition, then ethical dilemmas surely arise in using them." (Mukerjee 86-93)
Mukerjee, Madhusree. "Trends in Animal Research." Scientific American. (1997): 86-93. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf >.
9.
Pauline Perry summarizes the issues pointed out in The Ethics of Research Involving Animals report published as a result of the Working Party that she chaired. The Working Party, consisting of scientists, philosophers, animal rightists, and a lawyer, discuss the different views on each issue and not just between those all for or against animal research- issues consisting of the following: the assessment of pain, distress, and suffering in animals, the question of valid results in animal research, and the ethics of causing pain and suffering to animals. Although differences exist among the views on animal research, the Working Party agreed that animal research has been beneficial in some areas of science and therefore to the society, and that the goal is to be able to conduct research without any pain and suffering. To improve the debate, the Working Party believes that more information regarding animal research needs to be made public and to reduce disagreement, the 3 Rs must be enforced. (Perry 42-46)
Perry, Pauline. "The Ethics of Animal Research: A UK Perspective." ILAR Journal. 42-46. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://dels-old.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/48_1/pdfs/4801Perry.pdf >.
10.
Bernard E. Rollin summarizes his work as a philosopher to regulate animal research. Firstly, he discusses the history of ethics in animal research from the time when is was nearly non-existent to when it first began to emerge in the mid-twentieth century. He introduces the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (what led to its passing and how it affected the anti-vivisection movement). He then outlines his part in the anti-vivisection movement.
(Rollin 285-304)
Rollin, Bernard E. "The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History." Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 27.4 (2006): 285-304. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/771m854192497482/>.
11.
This article focuses on the future enforcement of the 3 Rs- replacement, reduction, and refinement. According to the author, the debate over the ethics of animal research is oversimplified to simply extreme animal protectionists who threaten the closing down of animal research laboratories and researchers who reply fully on animal research for the improvement of society. However, a "middle ground" can be achieved to compromise the two sides. Replacement is constantly being researched but science is far from finding an alternative, while reduction and refinement has been somewhat neglected. Nothing will be achieved through an immediate closing down of research facilities and the author suggests compromise through better enforcement of the 3 Rs. (Smith 248-249)
Smith, Richard. "Animal research: the need for a middle ground." BMJ. 322. (2001): 248-249. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7281/248.full>.
12.
Scientists of animal research and philosophers questioning the ethics of animal studies have written many works to try to convince society and each other to understand their respective views. However, Fraser argues that the two opposing sides are "arguing from different premises." The way each group defines certain issues on animal research differ, disallowing the two groups to debate on the same level and understanding. Fraser says that there needs to be an increased "convergence" between the scientific and philosophical approaches to the ethical debate in order to accurately define the "proper" relationship between humans and animals. (Fraser 171-189)
Fraser, David. "Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures." Applied Animal Behavior Science. 65.3 (1999): 171-189. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159199000908
This article by Frank Gannon, the senior editor of EMBO reports and senior scientist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany questions the "balance between the rights of animals and their use in biomedical research." He introduces the two extremist sides of the debate- animal-rights activists calling for the complete eradication of animal research and scientists who claim that animals are absolutely necessary for research- and those in between the two extremists- scientists and others who believe animal research can be conducted under strict regulation. Several views by other scientists and different organizations related to animal research is given. Some alternatives to using animals are given, but the author sees that it cannot replace animal use. Gannon concludes the article with his view on debate- animal research is "justifiable if it is done in such a way that causes minimal pain to the animals involved and if all possible alternative methods have been explored." In his opinion the continuation of this debate is important in determining the specific regulations of animal research. (Gannon 519-520)
Gannon, Frank. "Animal rights, human wrongs? Introduction to the Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research." EMBO reports talking point. 8.6 (2007): 519-520. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400998.html>.
2.
Bernard E. Rollin, a professor of philosophy, of animal sciences, and of biomedical sciences, and a bioethicist at Colorado State University discusses his philosophical views on the ethics of animal science. Since the Renaissance, "true science" has been defined as the validation of science through experience and through logical positivism, science excluded everything empirically "unverifiable." Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein's view that ethical judgments are "unverifiable" and therefore irrelevant to science, society had "a very limited ethic for animal treatment" until the 1970s. Rollin, who played a large role in "the 1985 Health Research Extension Act and an 'Animal Welfare' amendment to the 1985 Food Security Act," supports the increasingly popular rational view of animal ethics for two reasons- "there is no morally relevant difference between humans and animals that justifies excluding animals from what [he] call[s] 'the moral arena' or the full 'scope of moral concern'" and there are positive reasons including animals in our 'moral arena.'" Some argue that humans are superior to animals and that animal research is more beneficial than harmful, but Rollin disagrees and that even if animal research was permissible "pain control and housing" need to be improved. (Rollin 521-525)
Rollin, Bernard E. "Animal research: a moral science Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research." EMBO reports talking point. 8.6 (2007): 521-525. Web. 17 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400996.html>.
3.
In this issue of the EMBO reports Simon Festing and Robin Wilkinson, Executive Director and Science Communications Officer, respectively, at the Research Defense Society in London, UK, present their views on the debate regarding the ethics of animal research. They initially present the view of the animal-rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups who believe that "animal experimentation is cruel and unnecessary, regardless of its purpose or benefit." They further explain the public's perspective that "animal welfare should be weighed against health benefits" as long as the 3Rs- replacement, reduction, and refinement are stressed. The article discusses various surveys and changes to the law that have been done and made in response to the debate. They conclude that animal-rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups are ignorant in demanding the immediate replacement of animal use in research. Festing and Wilkinson agree that alternatives should be continually researched, but that "the use of animals in research can be ethically and morally justified" as long as refinement and reduction are constantly enforced. (Festing, and Wilkinson 526-530)
Festing, Simon, and Robin Wilkinson. "The ethics of animal research Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research." EMBO reports talking point. 8.6 (2007): 526-530. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400993.html>.
4.
Author, David DeGrazia, influenced by the works of Henry Spira, wrote an article summarizing the views of "biomedicine" and "animal advocates" in a comparison analysis. DeGrazia explains that there are many points upon which non-extremist supporters of biomedicine and animal advocates agree including the following: the issue of animal research is an ethical debate, moral protection of some animals, many animals are capable of mental states, protection of animals' well-being, highly social animals' humane care, certain animals' strong protection, continuation and expansion of research on alternatives, improvement of human health as a result of biomedical research, morally significant differences between humans and other animals, and the presence of a few justifiable research. There are a few points upon which the two sides will never agree which are issues involving the moral status of animals in comparison with humans, specific circumstances in which animal research is justifiable, and whether current research morally protects animals. DeGrazia concludes the article with several suggestions for the future of this ethical debate. To summarize he believes, both sides of the debate should recognize the points of agreement and learn the true argument of the opposing side, while animal research is improved morally and research for alternatives is continued. (DeGrazia 23-34)
DeGrazia, David. "The Ethics of Animal Research: What Are the Prospects for Agreement?." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 8. (1999): 23-34. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=46377>.
5.
The authors of this article believe that there needs to be an "urgent clarification" of the "clinical relevance of animal experiments." Many recognize that animal research has greatly influenced the advancement of medicine however there is little evidence to prove this statement. The few systematic reviews of animal research that they were able to find revealed methodological problems of animal experiments including, animal and clinical research being done on the same study, lack of randomization and blinding, and variations between animals being researched and humans. "Systematic reviews can provide important insights into the validity of animal research." (Pound, Ebrahim, Sandercock, Bracken, and Roberts 524-517)
Pound, Pandora, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B. Bracken, and Ian Roberts. "Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?." BMJ. 328. (2004): 524-517. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7438/514.full>.
6.
Neal D. Barnard, nutrition researcher and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Stephen R. Kaufman, co-chair of the Medical Research Modernization Committee, believe animal research is "poorly suited to addressing the urgent health problems of our era." They explain several cases where animal experiments mislead researchers, resulting in false conclusions of certain diseases and drugs and delaying advancement in the medical field. Due to differences in the makeup of animals and humans, animal research is unreliable and a waste of money. They offer alternatives to animal experimentation- "epidemiological studies, clinical intervention trials, astute clinical observation aided by laboratory testing, human tissue and cell cultures, autopsy studies, endoscopic examination and biopsy, as well as new imaging methods"- and give cases where these alternatives were influential to medical advancement. "Animal 'models' are, at best, analogous to human conditions, but no theory can be proved or refuted by analogy" and 'thus, it makes no logical sense to test a theory about humans using animals." Barnard and Kaufman define animal experiments as mere rhetorical devices for researchers to cite as evidence for their theory. (Barnard, and Kaufman 80-82)
Barnard, Neal D., and Stephen R. Kaufman. "Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading." Scientific American. (1997): 80-82. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf >.
7.
Jack H. Botting, former scientific adviser to the Research Defense Society in London, and Adrian R. Morrison, director of the Laboratory Study of the Brain in Sleep at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, are both strong defenders of animal research. They strongly support animal research due to the different cases in which it has played a significant role such as in vaccines, antibiotics, insulin, and transplantation of organs. The claim that differences in animals and humans invalidate animal research is a misconception and Botting and Morrison argue that there are no basic differences between them and that animal models are not meant to be identical to humans. Opponents of animal research claim that researchers should use alternatives. Again, Bottin and Morrison argue that alternatives have been taken into consideration, however, animal experimentation proves to be best. (Botting, and Morrison 83-85)
Botting, Jack H., and Adrian R. Morrison. "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine." Scientific American. (1997): 83-85. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf >.
8.
Madhusree Mukerjee discusses the changes in animal research that have occurred due to the increasingly heated debate between animal rightists and scientists. Several factors have resulted in the decrease of animal research since its beginning, which the author indicates as the following: the philosophers, the public, the scientists, the 3 Rs, the laws and the propaganda. Philosophers and their discussion of animal ethics led to the beginning of the opposition movement for animal experimentation while the public was "wildly inconsistent" regarding their views on animal use, although trends were seen between different groups of people. The scientists' view on animal research has evolved from non-existing animal ethics to enforcing two of the 3 Rs, reduction and refinement. The laws put certain regulations on animal research, decreasing animal use but also increasing costs. Propaganda has been effective in convincing some people but ineffective in bringing an agreement between animal rights protectionists and researchers. The author believes that "animal liberators need to accept that animal research is beneficial to humans [and] animal researchers need to admit that if animals are close enough to humans that their bodies, brains and even psyches are good models for the human condition, then ethical dilemmas surely arise in using them." (Mukerjee 86-93)
Mukerjee, Madhusree. "Trends in Animal Research." Scientific American. (1997): 86-93. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf >.
9.
Pauline Perry summarizes the issues pointed out in The Ethics of Research Involving Animals report published as a result of the Working Party that she chaired. The Working Party, consisting of scientists, philosophers, animal rightists, and a lawyer, discuss the different views on each issue and not just between those all for or against animal research- issues consisting of the following: the assessment of pain, distress, and suffering in animals, the question of valid results in animal research, and the ethics of causing pain and suffering to animals. Although differences exist among the views on animal research, the Working Party agreed that animal research has been beneficial in some areas of science and therefore to the society, and that the goal is to be able to conduct research without any pain and suffering. To improve the debate, the Working Party believes that more information regarding animal research needs to be made public and to reduce disagreement, the 3 Rs must be enforced. (Perry 42-46)
Perry, Pauline. "The Ethics of Animal Research: A UK Perspective." ILAR Journal. 42-46. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://dels-old.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/48_1/pdfs/4801Perry.pdf >.
10.
Bernard E. Rollin summarizes his work as a philosopher to regulate animal research. Firstly, he discusses the history of ethics in animal research from the time when is was nearly non-existent to when it first began to emerge in the mid-twentieth century. He introduces the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (what led to its passing and how it affected the anti-vivisection movement). He then outlines his part in the anti-vivisection movement.
(Rollin 285-304)
Rollin, Bernard E. "The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History." Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 27.4 (2006): 285-304. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/771m854192497482/>.
11.
This article focuses on the future enforcement of the 3 Rs- replacement, reduction, and refinement. According to the author, the debate over the ethics of animal research is oversimplified to simply extreme animal protectionists who threaten the closing down of animal research laboratories and researchers who reply fully on animal research for the improvement of society. However, a "middle ground" can be achieved to compromise the two sides. Replacement is constantly being researched but science is far from finding an alternative, while reduction and refinement has been somewhat neglected. Nothing will be achieved through an immediate closing down of research facilities and the author suggests compromise through better enforcement of the 3 Rs. (Smith 248-249)
Smith, Richard. "Animal research: the need for a middle ground." BMJ. 322. (2001): 248-249. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7281/248.full>.
12.
Scientists of animal research and philosophers questioning the ethics of animal studies have written many works to try to convince society and each other to understand their respective views. However, Fraser argues that the two opposing sides are "arguing from different premises." The way each group defines certain issues on animal research differ, disallowing the two groups to debate on the same level and understanding. Fraser says that there needs to be an increased "convergence" between the scientific and philosophical approaches to the ethical debate in order to accurately define the "proper" relationship between humans and animals. (Fraser 171-189)
Fraser, David. "Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures." Applied Animal Behavior Science. 65.3 (1999): 171-189. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159199000908
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)