First published in 1997. Aren't humans more valuable than animals? Isn't it morally appropriate to sacrifice animals to cure human disease? Questions about the scientific and moral status of biomedical experimentation are hotly debated in the media and in professional circles. The outcome of this debate will shape future public health policy. Lafollette and Shanks expose the weaknesses in both the standard defense and standard criticisms of animal experimentation. This thorough investigation of one of today's most fiercely debated questions yields some unexpected conclusions. Brute Science essential reading for anyone involved, directly or indirectly in animal experimentation.
Part I. Understanding the Debate
1. A First Look: the Prima Facie Case
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 III. Evaluating Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issues
13. The Moral Debate in Historical Context
14. Speciesism: The Deontological Defense
15. Incalculable Benefits: the Consequentialist Defense.
Hugh LaFollette is Professor of Philosophy and Niall Shanks of Associate Professor of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor of Biological Sciences at East Tennessee State University.