Animal Experimentation

This study by a Canadian member of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees found that more than half of the Asian primate research studies conducted in 2001 involved non-invasive behavioral or ecological research. The articles also provides a brief description of animal experimentation and the ethical arguments against it

This study focuses on consumers' expectations for American companies and how their perceptions can influence purchasing, employment, and investment decisions. The results show that corporate responsibility has a significant impact on consumer purchase decisions, as well as employee loyalty.

According to a report from MatTek, a company that produces alternatives to animal testing, a test method derived from cultured human skin cells is more accurate than animal testing for the identification of skin irritants.

This article summarizes two opinion polls conducted in early 2008 about the use of human-animal embryos in the United Kingdom, with both surveys finding the majority of respondents opposed to the concept.

According to this 1992 survey by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), 11 out of 16 Canadian medical universities no longer use live animals in their curricula.

This editorial in the Baltimore Sun discusses the current use of animals in medical school curricula, focusing on John Hopkins Medical School. Basic information on the current status of the use of animals in medical school training is provided, including the statement that more than 90% of U.S. medical schools have stopped using animals.

According to this 1998 NOP survey, 31% of those in the United Kingdom believe that a vegetarian diet is healthier than one that includes meat, 48% believe that the results from animal experiments can be applied to people, and 60% believe that animals suffer at the time of slaughter.

Historically, treatment for pain relief has varied according to the social status of the sufferer. A similar tendency to make arbitrary distinctions affecting pain relief was found in an ethnographic study of animal research laboratories. The administration of pain-relieving drugs for animals in laboratories differed from standard practice for humans and, perhaps, for companion animals. Although anesthesia was used routinely for surgical procedures, its administration was sometimes haphazard. Analgesics, however, were rarely used. Most researchers had never thought about using analgesics and did not consider the subject worthy of serious attention. Scientists interviewed for this study agreed readily that animals are capable of feeling pain, but such assertions were muted by an overriding view of lab animals as creatures existing solely for the purposes of research. [Excerpted from article]

According to the results of this survey, the majority of British General Practitioners believe that animal research has made important contributions to medicine over the years, but most also agree that the resulting medical research data can be misleading when applied to humans.