Regulatory acceptance of validated replacement alternatives: a moral obligation, a legal requirement, and a scientific necessity
Non-animal testing methods that have been independently shown to be relevant and reliable should be accepted and used for three main reasons: there is a moral obligation not to cause suffering to animals if the objective can be achieved in ways that avoid the suffering to animals if the objective can be achieved in ways that avoid suffering; national and international laws require that replacements are used when they are reasonably and practicably available; such methods overwhelmingly tend to have a sounder, more scientific basis and to produce more reproducible results.
Bibliographic Reference: Article: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation, (1997)
Record Number: 199911142 / Last updated on: 1999-08-13
Original language: en
Available languages: en