FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4232846327> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4232846327 endingPage "816" @default.
• W4232846327 startingPage "815" @default.
• W4232846327 abstract "The use of animals in medical research and safety testing is a vital part of the quest to improve human health. It always has been and probably always will be, despite the alternatives available. Indeed, in this era of genomics and proteomics, more rather than fewer animals will be needed. Without animal testing, there will be no new drugs for new or hard-to-treat diseases. These sentiments will upset many, from the moderate and law-abiding antivivisectionists to the radical animal rights activists who resort to terror and violence to achieve their aims. We listen respectfully to their arguments—but we respectfully disagree. Animal use in medical research repeatedly hits the headlines. The UK Home Secretary has just banned Jerry Vlasak, the US trauma surgeon and animal rights activist, from entering the country to speak at an animal rights conference next month. A small hamlet in Staffordshire, UK, is being targeted by animal rights extremists: anyone with any link (milkman, newspaper agent, tractor-fuel supplier, pub landlord) to a farm that is licensed to breed guineapigs for medical research is at risk. Residents receive abusive mail or phone calls, have windows broken, endure late-night visits from activists with loudhailers, and cars are attacked. Both Cambridge and Oxford universities have had major battles with animal rights activists. In January this year, Cambridge University abandoned plans to build a primate research centre, citing the additional cost of security as too high. Work on a new animal facility at Oxford University halted last month after the construction company pulled out because it, and shareholders, were targeted. Nowhere has the animal rights frontline been fought so hard as at Huntingdon Life Sciences, in Cambridgeshire. This contract research group, which uses animals in research, even has its “own” animal rights group: Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. The violence there, directed against staff and their homes and cars, is extreme. Partly as a result, Victims of Animal Rights Extremism began as a new organisation in April to lobby the government to crack down on extremists. What is clear is that those who do use animals in research rarely grab positive headlines, and so the public rarely gets to hear their arguments. An opinion poll in 1999 in the UK was interesting. Of those polled, 24% were in favour of such use of animals and 64% were against. But, if the question was preceded by information justifying the work, the balance tipped: now 45% agreed and 41% did not. This sea-change in opinion shows that the public can be swayed if they hear balanced arguments. Medical researchers also have great responsibilities. All animal work needs to be fully justified scientifically. That has not always been the case, as Peter Singer's trenchant book, Animal Liberation, correctly points out. Researchers, as they do already, need to make their case, to show the public the good that they do in combating disease. The immensely valuable side of animal research needs to steal headlines from animal rights activists. And, although there are major security implications, researchers need to consider opening up their laboratories to highlight their work and to reassure the public that they use animals responsibly and with due care. The use of animals must be regulated, and many countries, especially the USA, need to catch up with the UK legislation, probably the strongest in the world, which demands the highest standards of licensing for procedures and animal husbandry. Legislation to regulate the use of animals in research and safety testing followed human disasters with drug treatments. In 1937, in the USA, a seeming wonder-drug was dispensed in liquid form, especially for children, to treat streptococcal infections—sulphanilamide elixir. Unfortunately, the solvent was diethylene glycol (antifreeze), which was known to be horribly and fatally toxic but drug-safety testing was not required. 137 deaths followed, and the next year the Food and Drug Administration passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to regulate drug-safety testing. That law did prevent the disaster of thalidomide reaching the USA. In the late 1950s, thalidomide was prescribed to pregnant women for early-morning sickness. Worldwide, over 10 000 babies were born with thalidomide-induced deformities. The drug was withdrawn and tested in several species of animal, where its neuropathic effects were eventually observed. Animal testing for drug safety was not widespread at that time, except in the USA where the FDA refused to approve thalidomide because safety data were lacking. A few drug companies at that time did tests in rats if a drug was to be given to pregnant women, but thalidomide was not tested in this way. The thalidomide tragedy led to the 1968 Medicines Act in the UK, which required animal testing for safety. We are not naive enough to ignore the scientific arguments against animal research. Obviously, there are species differences between animals and human beings. But animal work is just one part of the totality of evidence gathering, and use of one rodent and one non-rodent species will predict seven of ten toxic reactions in human beings. About 350 human diseases have an animal counterpart. For each drug tried in humans, about 350 animals will have been tested. Human trials need 3000–4000 participants. They enter studies for no known efficacy benefit to themselves, that being the purpose of the trial to discover. To argue that human beings do not subject themselves to research, research that can lead to harm or even death, is to grievously misunderstand medical science. In sum, the use of animals in medical research and safety testing is necessary. Our view is a humanistic one that challenges other arguments. This view is, as Singer argues, open to the objection of speciesism. But the creation and development of medicine, together with its vast influence over human life, is inherently speciesist. Rather than apologise for medicine as it is pursued today, society should be seeking to strengthen it. Animal research is an essential part of compassionate humanistic endeavour." @default.
• W4232846327 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4232846327 creator A5085953656 @default.
• W4232846327 date "2004-09-01" @default.
• W4232846327 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
• W4232846327 title "Animal research is a source of human compassion, not shame" @default.
• W4232846327 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16990-0" @default.
• W4232846327 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15351167" @default.
• W4232846327 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W4232846327 type Work @default.
• W4232846327 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W4232846327 countsByYear W42328463272012 @default.
• W4232846327 countsByYear W42328463272014 @default.
• W4232846327 countsByYear W42328463272016 @default.
• W4232846327 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4232846327 hasAuthorship W4232846327A5085953656 @default.
• W4232846327 hasBestOaLocation W42328463271 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C2777432744 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C2778052017 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C2781283010 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C520753416 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C523966790 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C538525177 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C118552586 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C144024400 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C169437150 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C17744445 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C18903297 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C199539241 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C2777432744 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C2778052017 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C2781283010 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C520753416 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C523966790 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C538525177 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C71924100 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C73484699 @default.
• W4232846327 hasConceptScore W4232846327C86803240 @default.
• W4232846327 hasIssue "9437" @default.
• W4232846327 hasLocation W42328463271 @default.
• W4232846327 hasLocation W42328463272 @default.
• W4232846327 hasOpenAccess W4232846327 @default.
• W4232846327 hasPrimaryLocation W42328463271 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W108462188 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W129092266 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W195859492 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W2094048250 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W2228008469 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W2268666676 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W2400212852 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W2405118297 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W2886114293 @default.
• W4232846327 hasRelatedWork W3104728019 @default.
• W4232846327 hasVolume "364" @default.
• W4232846327 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4232846327 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4232846327 workType "article" @default.