Letter/Communication
Bias During the Evaluation of Animal Studies?
Animals (Basel), Vol.2(1), pp.85-92
2012
PMID: 26486779
Abstract
Simple Summary
Animal experimentation evokes strong emotional responses in people on both sides of the debate surrounding its ethical status. However, the true level of its usefulness to society may only be discerned by careful examination of reliable scientific evidence. My recent book, The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments, reviewed more than 500 relevant scientific publications. Recently in this journal, however, a reviewer essentially accused me of bias. Yet the conclusions of my book are based on sound reasoning and strong evidence, and no critic has yet provided any substantive evidence to refute them.
Abstract
My recent book entitled The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments seeks to answer a key question within animal ethics, namely: is animal experimentation ethically justifiable? Or, more precisely, is it justifiable within the utilitarian cost:benefit framework that fundamentally underpins most regulations governing animal experimentation? To answer this question I reviewed more than 500 scientific publications describing animal studies, animal welfare impacts, and alternative research, toxicity testing and educational methodologies. To minimise bias I focused primarily on large-scale systematic reviews that had examined the human clinical and toxicological utility of animal studies. Despite this, Dr. Susanne Prankel recently reviewed my book in this journal, essentially accusing me of bias. However, she failed to provide any substantive evidence to refute my conclusions, let alone evidence of similar weight to that on which they are based. Those conclusions are, in fact, firmly based on utilitarian ethical reasoning, informed by scientific evidence of considerable strength, and I believe they are robust.
Details
- Title
- Bias During the Evaluation of Animal Studies?
- Authors/Creators
- Andrew Knight - Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities
- Publication Details
- Animals (Basel), Vol.2(1), pp.85-92
- Publisher
- Mdpi
- Number of pages
- 8
- Identifiers
- 991005694752507891
- Copyright
- © 2012 by the authors
- Murdoch Affiliation
- School of Veterinary Medicine
- Language
- English
- Resource Type
- Letter/Communication
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
Source: InCites
Metrics
1 File views/ downloads
31 Record Views
InCites Highlights
These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output
- Citation topics
- 1 Clinical & Life Sciences
- 1.117 Pharmacology & Toxicology
- 1.117.2161 Non-Animal Testing
- Web Of Science research areas
- Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science
- Veterinary Sciences
- Zoology
- ESI research areas
- Plant & Animal Science