Those who defend the use of animals in research contend that nonhuman animals are enough like humans to make them scientifically adequate models of humans, but different enough to make it morally acceptable to experiment on them. In addition to the ethical objections to causing suffering to other sentient species, inherent issues with animal models—including differences from humans in both size and physiology, genetic differences, and variations in biological targets—limit the ability of data collected from an animal model to be translated to people.
Furthermore, when animals are used in studies of human diseases, the artificial way in which the disease is induced in the animal is far removed from the way diseases occur naturally in people, limiting the value of such studies. The validity, usefulness, expense and ethics of scientific experiments that rely upon animal models are increasingly being called into question—not only by animal advocates, but by those in the scientific community—which is why it is essential for researchers to develop and utilize models that better reflect human biology and give us the best chance possible of improving human health and well-being.
The following section describes both traditional and cutting-edge alternatives which hold the promise of reducing, refining and ultimately replacing the use of animals in science. [ Lire plus… ]