Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation

Routledge (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

_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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,174

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation.Joseph Mahon - 1999 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (1):130-131.
Review. Brute science: dilemmas of animal experimentation. Hugh LaFollette, Niall Shanks.Mark Parascandola - 1997 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):621-624.
Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation.Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks - 1996 - Ethics and the Environment 4 (1):115-121.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
91 (#231,524)

6 months
4 (#1,255,690)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Hugh LaFollette
University of South Florida

Citations of this work

Against external validity.Julian Reiss - 2019 - Synthese 196 (8):3103-3121.
Are animal models predictive for humans?Niall Shanks, Ray Greek & Jean Greek - 2009 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 4:2.
Evidence-Based Policy.Donal Khosrowi - 2022 - In Conrad Heilmann & Julian Reiss (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. Routledge. pp. 370-381.

View all 27 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references