The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation
Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Akhtar, Aysha [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics - New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992, 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:24 ; year:2015 ; number:4 ; pages:407 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1017/S0963180115000079 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC1959278576 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a2200265 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC1959278576 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230714150934.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1017/S0963180115000079 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a PQ20160617 |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC1959278576 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576 | ||
| 035 | |a (PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270 | ||
| 035 | |a (KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 100 |q ZDB |
| 084 | |a PHILOS |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Akhtar, Aysha |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a human ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a animal ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a medical testing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a human health | |
| 650 | 4 | |a drug development | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Medical research | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Laboratory animals | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Animal care | |
| 650 | 4 | |a animal research | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |d New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 |g 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 |w (DE-627)171063384 |w (DE-600)1146581-5 |w (DE-576)034192417 |x 0963-1801 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:24 |g year:2015 |g number:4 |g pages:407 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079 |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-PHILOS | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-DE-84 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2002 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4219 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 24 |j 2015 |e 4 |h 407 | ||
| author_variant |
a a aa |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:09631801:2015----::hfasnhmnamoaiaep |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
10.1017/S0963180115000079 doi PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1959278576 (DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576 (PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270 (KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Akhtar, Aysha verfasserin aut The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. human ethics animal ethics medical testing human health drug development Medical research Ethics Laboratory animals Animal care animal research Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:24 year:2015 number:4 pages:407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 24 2015 4 407 |
| spelling |
10.1017/S0963180115000079 doi PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1959278576 (DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576 (PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270 (KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Akhtar, Aysha verfasserin aut The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. human ethics animal ethics medical testing human health drug development Medical research Ethics Laboratory animals Animal care animal research Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:24 year:2015 number:4 pages:407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 24 2015 4 407 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1017/S0963180115000079 doi PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1959278576 (DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576 (PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270 (KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Akhtar, Aysha verfasserin aut The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. human ethics animal ethics medical testing human health drug development Medical research Ethics Laboratory animals Animal care animal research Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:24 year:2015 number:4 pages:407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 24 2015 4 407 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1017/S0963180115000079 doi PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1959278576 (DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576 (PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270 (KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Akhtar, Aysha verfasserin aut The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. human ethics animal ethics medical testing human health drug development Medical research Ethics Laboratory animals Animal care animal research Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:24 year:2015 number:4 pages:407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 24 2015 4 407 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1017/S0963180115000079 doi PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1959278576 (DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576 (PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270 (KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Akhtar, Aysha verfasserin aut The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. human ethics animal ethics medical testing human health drug development Medical research Ethics Laboratory animals Animal care animal research Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:24 year:2015 number:4 pages:407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 24 2015 4 407 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 volume:24 year:2015 number:4 pages:407 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics 24(2015), 4, Seite 407 volume:24 year:2015 number:4 pages:407 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
human ethics animal ethics medical testing human health drug development Medical research Ethics Laboratory animals Animal care animal research |
| dewey-raw |
100 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Akhtar, Aysha @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
171063384 |
| dewey-sort |
3100 |
| id |
OLC1959278576 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1959278576</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230714150934.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1017/S0963180115000079</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1959278576</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">ZDB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Akhtar, Aysha</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">human ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">animal ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">medical testing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">human health</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">drug development</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medical research</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laboratory animals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Animal care</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">animal research</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992</subfield><subfield code="g">24(2015), 4, Seite 407</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)171063384</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1146581-5</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034192417</subfield><subfield code="x">0963-1801</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:24</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:407</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-DE-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4219</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">24</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">407</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Akhtar, Aysha |
| spellingShingle |
Akhtar, Aysha ddc 100 fid PHILOS misc human ethics misc animal ethics misc medical testing misc human health misc drug development misc Medical research misc Ethics misc Laboratory animals misc Animal care misc animal research The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation |
| authorStr |
Akhtar, Aysha |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)171063384 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0963-1801 |
| topic_title |
100 ZDB PHILOS fid The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation human ethics animal ethics medical testing human health drug development Medical research Ethics Laboratory animals Animal care animal research |
| topic |
ddc 100 fid PHILOS misc human ethics misc animal ethics misc medical testing misc human health misc drug development misc Medical research misc Ethics misc Laboratory animals misc Animal care misc animal research |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 100 fid PHILOS misc human ethics misc animal ethics misc medical testing misc human health misc drug development misc Medical research misc Ethics misc Laboratory animals misc Animal care misc animal research |
| topic_browse |
ddc 100 fid PHILOS misc human ethics misc animal ethics misc medical testing misc human health misc drug development misc Medical research misc Ethics misc Laboratory animals misc Animal care misc animal research |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
171063384 |
| dewey-tens |
100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 |
| title |
The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC1959278576 (DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576 (PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270 (KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation |
| title_full |
The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation |
| author_sort |
Akhtar, Aysha |
| journal |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| journalStr |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
407 |
| author_browse |
Akhtar, Aysha |
| container_volume |
24 |
| class |
100 ZDB PHILOS fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Akhtar, Aysha |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1017/S0963180115000079 |
| dewey-full |
100 |
| title_sort |
flaws and human harms of animal experimentation |
| title_auth |
The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation |
| abstract |
Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. |
| abstractGer |
Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OLC-DE-84 GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 |
| container_issue |
4 |
| title_short |
The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
171063384 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1017/S0963180115000079 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T16:33:41.330Z |
| _version_ |
1803576327620526080 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1959278576</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230714150934.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1017/S0963180115000079</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1959278576</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1959278576</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)p1344-181b4a914349146f8eea34c73ce0ccb1e88f7af6bb9bc86f01444c904cd161270</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0214365820150000024000400407flawsandhumanharmsofanimalexperimentation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">ZDB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Akhtar, Aysha</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">human ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">animal ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">medical testing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">human health</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">drug development</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medical research</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laboratory animals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Animal care</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">animal research</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992</subfield><subfield code="g">24(2015), 4, Seite 407</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)171063384</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1146581-5</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034192417</subfield><subfield code="x">0963-1801</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:24</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:407</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26364776</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1711663741</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-DE-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4219</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">24</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">407</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399811 |