Brute Science Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation

Brute Science investigates whether biomedical research using animals is, in fact, scientifically justified. Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks examine the issues in scientific terms using the models that scientists themselves use. They argue that we need to reassess our use of animals and, indeed, rethink the standard positions in the debate.

Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Part I Understanding the debate -- 1 A FIRST LOOK: THE PRIMA-FACIE CASES -- 2 THE PROBLEMS OF RELEVANCE -- 3 CLAUDE BERNARD: THE FOUNDER OF THE PARADIGM -- 4 THE CURRENT PARADIGM -- 5 EVOLUTION I: SPECIES AND SPECIES DIFFERENCES -- 6 EVOLUTION II: THE WIDENING SYNTHESIS -- Part II Evaluating animal experimentation: the scientific issues -- 7 CAUSAL DISANALOGY I: STRONG MODELS -- AND THEORETICAL EXPECTATIONS -- 8 CAUSAL DISANALOGY II: THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE -- 9 CAUSAL DISANALOGY III: WEAK MODELS -- 10 EVADING CAUSAL DISANALOGY: IT JUST WORKS -- 11 AVOIDING CAUSAL DISANALOGY: TRANSGENIC ANIMALS -- 12 BASIC RESEARCH -- Part ill Evaluating animal experimentation: the moral issues -- 13 THE MORAL DEBATE IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT -- 14 SPECIESISM: THE DEONTOLOGICAL DEFENSE -- 15 INCALCULABLE BENEFITS: THE CONSEQUENTIALIST DEFENSE -- 16 CONCLUSION -- Bibliography -- Index.

Hugh LaFollette is Professor of Philosophy at East Tennessee State University; he is the author of Personal Relationships: Love, Identity, and Morality (1995) and editor of Ethics in Practice: An Anthology ( 1996). Niall Shanks is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor of Biological Sciences at East Tennessee State University.