[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 3, 1993

Is Justification of Animal Research Necessary?-Reply

JAMA. 1993;269(9):1114-1115. doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500090049026

In Reply.  —I am grateful that Drs Bernstein, Regan, Rowan, and Singer chose to criticize directly the issues raised in my paper rather than to attack the value of research using animals. Research using animals has benefited human and nonhuman animals immensely. The ethical question is whether such research can be justified, and if so, how?The purpose of my article was twofold: to show that the ethical methods used by the most important ALRM philosophers are inadequate; and, to entice those who support animal research to consider more critically their own philosophical positions. Arguments for using animals in research require moral justification. By showing that ALRM philosophies deserve serious attention (despite their flaws), my hope is that more constructive arguments will emerge on both sides of the animal rights debate.For Bernstein and Singer, nonanalytical ethical traditions (eg, religious, metaphysical, or ethnic) that do not play by analytical rules