April 2nd 2021 In the last few weeks we have detailed the irresponsible behavior of those opposed to animal research during the pandemic and the hypocrisy of their rhetoric now that vaccines have received Emergency Use Authorization—thanks to over a decade of animal research as well as in safety and efficacy testing. We also wrote about how recent media coverage … Continue reading #Evergreen: Fair partners in dialogue: Starting assumptions matter and they should be spelled out
March 31, 2021 Allyson J. Bennett, PhD and Jeremy D. Bailoo, PhD Pets directly benefit from animals in testing, research, and teaching veterinary medicine. In fact, pet medicine is big business, projected to reach $12 billion by 2022. In the US alone, 67% of households reportedly have pets. Data from the 2019-20 pet owners survey … Continue reading Should animal testing be used to produce safe medicines for other animals?
March 11, 2021, Allyson J. Bennett, PhD Recent media coverage of Catholic leaders’ endorsement of COVID vaccines provides an interesting model for thinking about public information and decisions concerning the use of nonhuman animals in research and testing for medical products and treatments. First, the situation illustrates why accurate information and understanding of how medicines … Continue reading Connecting action to consequence: Should those opposed to animal research and testing follow the Catholics’ model?
February 4th 2020 Despite nationalistic tendencies and international bias being ever present on the political scene, they have no place in science or scientific discourse. Science works best with fewer/no borders because it embodies objectivity (based on evidence rather than perceptions). Therefore, social and other media bias against the quality of science and the animal … Continue reading International Bias: Enough is Enough
January 7th 2020 Juan Carlos Marvizon, Ph.D. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, VA Greater Los Angeles The buzz is everywhere when animal research is mentioned: experiments in animals are outdated because computer models and other modern techniques are replacing them. For example, you may have heard statements like these: “Researchers have developed a … Continue reading Computer models are not replacing animal research, and probably never will
I find it surprising how often the words pain and suffering are used interchangeably, as it often happens when discussing issues of animal welfare. The concept of suffering has profound implications when applied to both humans and animals, so we should examine carefully what it entails philosophically and scientifically. Let’s consider pain first. When studying … Continue reading The difference between pain and suffering
A recent article in the Atlantic, “How Brain Scientists Forgot That Brains Have Owners” is making headlines. The journalist claims that in an article published in early February, titled “Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting Reductionist Bias”, fancy new technologies have led the field of neuroscience astray. The original scientific publication does draw attention to an area … Continue reading Understanding the animal, not just its parts
My recent article “Not just intelligence: Why humans deserve to be treated better than animals” elicited many thoughtful comments and plenty of debate, both on this blog and in Reddit. In this new post I have compiled some new thoughts that came up during the debate. To view the full discussion, please follow the hyperlinks. … Continue reading More thoughts on animal suffering