The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling

BMC Medical Ethics

Debate

Ray Greek¹  Annalea Pippus¹  Lawrence A Hansen² 

[1] Americans For Medical Advancement, 2251 Refugio Rd, 93117, Goleta, CA, USA;Department of Neurosciences and Pathology, University of California, San Diego, Mail Code 062, 9500 Gilman Drive (MTF 351), 92093-0624, La Jolla, CA, USA;

关键词: Animal;    Biological complexity;    Ethics;    Evolution;    Law;    Nuremberg code;    Species variation;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-13-16

 received in 2012-02-12, accepted in 2012-05-14,  发布年份 2012

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThe requirement that animals be used in research and testing in order to protect humans was formalized in the Nuremberg Code and subsequent national and international laws, codes, and declarations.DiscussionWe review the history of these requirements and contrast what was known via science about animal models then with what is known now. We further analyze the predictive value of animal models when used as test subjects for human response to drugs and disease. We explore the use of animals for models in toxicity testing as an example of the problem with using animal models.SummaryWe conclude that the requirements for animal testing found in the Nuremberg Code were based on scientifically outdated principles, compromised by people with a vested interest in animal experimentation, serve no useful function, increase the cost of drug development, and prevent otherwise safe and efficacious drugs and therapies from being implemented.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Greek et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012