PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11644880

A reply to Joseph Bernstein.

Timothy Sprigge
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Dr. Bernstein suggests that anti-vivisectionists should be able to fill in a directive requesting that they receive no medical treatment developed through work on animals. It is replied that this would only be reasonable if research not using animals had long been funded as adequately and its results were currently available.

Explore related subjects

Animal ExperimentationAnimal RightsAnimal Testing AlternativesAnimal WelfareAnimalsBiomedical TechnologyComplicityEthical AnalysisHistoryHumansMoralsPoliticsReference StandardsRetrospective Moral JudgmentRiskRisk AssessmentStress, PsychologicalTreatment RefusalUnited KingdomBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Timothy Sprigge. 1996. A reply to Joseph Bernstein.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.22.5.302

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Field studies and the IACUC: protocol review, oversight, and occupational health and safety considerations.

Field studies involving animals, like other institutional research endeavors, are regulated and evaluated by an IACUC to insure that the protocols employed in those studies are consistent with the most humane care and use of animals. Unlike many other on-site research projects, however, field studies present unique logistical and other challenges to IACUC evaluation. The authors explore many of these challenges, including the special protocol considerations and idiosyncratic occupational health and safety concerns characteristic of field-study reviews.

Animal Experimentation↗