With What Should We Replace Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research Protocols?

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Singer M;Singer M; Akhtar A; Akhtar A
  • Source:
    AMA journal of ethics [AMA J Ethics] 2024 Sep 01; Vol. 26 (9), pp. E701-708. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 01.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: American Medical Association Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101649265 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2376-6980 (Electronic) NLM ISO Abbreviation: AMA J Ethics Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: Chicago, IL : American Medical Association, [2015]-
    • Subject Terms:
      Biomedical Research*/ethics ; Animal Experimentation*/ethics; Humans ; Animals ; Animal Testing Alternatives/ethics ; Research Design ; Animal Welfare/ethics ; Ethics, Research
    • Abstract:
      Historically, most discussions about nonhuman animal experimentation consider what has become known as the 3 R's: refinement, reduction, and replacement. Refinement and reduction receive the most attention, but recent modeling advances suggest that suitable replacement of nonhuman animal testing would bolster human research and increase translatability to human health outcomes. This article discusses these modeling advances and advocates their use, especially as replacements to nonpredictive nonhuman animal protocols, and discusses growing momentum in biomedical research communities and federal agencies that favors replacement of animal testing.
      (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20240909 Date Completed: 20240909 Latest Revision: 20240909
    • Publication Date:
      20240910
    • Accession Number:
      10.1001/amajethics.2024.701
    • Accession Number:
      39250942