Would aristotle approve of animal experimentation

In one interpretation it is that the past has predetermined the sequence which is about to unfold—and so I believe that how we have gotten to where we are in Artificial Intelligence will determine the directions we take next—so it is worth studying that past.

Would aristotle approve of animal experimentation

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license http: This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract Simple Summary This article reviews the use of non-human animals in biomedical research from a historical viewpoint, providing an insight into the most relevant social and moral issues on this topic across time, as well as to how the current paradigm for ethically and publically acceptable use of animals in biomedicine has been achieved.

Abstract The use of non-human animals in biomedical research has given important contributions to the medical progress achieved in our day, but it has also been a cause of heated public, scientific and philosophical discussion for hundreds of years. This review, with a mainly European outlook, addresses the history of animal use in biomedical research, some of its main protagonists and antagonists, and its effect on society from Antiquity to the present day, while providing a historical context with which to understand how we have arrived at the current paradigm regarding the ethical treatment of animals in research.

Introduction Animal experimentation has played a central role in biomedical research throughout history. For centuries, however, it has also been an issue of heated public and philosophical discussion.

While there are numerous historical overviews of animal research in certain fields or time periods, and some on its ethical controversy, there is presently no comprehensive review article on animal research, the social controversy surrounding it, and the emergence of different moral perspectives on animals within a historical context.

This perspective of animal use in the life sciences and its moral and social implications from a historical viewpoint is important to gauge the key issues at stake and to evaluate present principles and practices in animal research. This review aims to provide a starting point for students and scholars—either in the life sciences or the humanities—with an interest in animal research, animal ethics, and the history of science and medicine.

The reader interested in a more in-depth analysis on some of the topics reviewed is referred to the reference list for suggestions of further reading. From Antiquity to the Renaissance Humans have been using other vertebrate animal species referred to henceforth as animals as models of their anatomy and physiology since the dawn of medicine.

Because of the taboos regarding the dissection of humans, physicians in ancient Greece dissected animals for anatomical studies [ 1 ]. The latter two were Hellenic Alexandrians who disregarded the established taboos and went on to perform dissection and vivisection on convicted criminals, benefiting from the favorable intellectual and scientific environment in Alexandria at the time [ 1 ].

All of these authors had a great influence on Galen of Pergamon 2nd—3rd century CEthe prolific Roman physician of Greek ethnicity who developed, to an unprecedented level, the techniques for dissection and vivisection of animals [ 35 ] and on which he based his many treatises of medicine.

These remained canonical, authoritative, and undisputed until the Renaissance [ 16 ]. For most ancient Greeks, using live animals in experiments did not raise any relevant moral questions.

This view of humans as superior would later influence and underline the Judeo-Christian perspective of human dominion over all nature, as represented by texts by Augustine of Hippo IV century and Thomas Aquinas XIII Centurythe most influential Christian theologians of the Middle Ages.

Cruelty to animals was nevertheless condemned by Aquinas, as it could lead humans to develop feelings and actions of cruelty towards other humans. Also, for this theologian, one could love irrational creatures for the sake of charity, the love of God and the benefit of fellow humans for selected texts, see reference [ 7 ].

Would aristotle approve of animal experimentation

The belief amongst ancient Greek physicians that nature could be understood by means of exploration and experiment—and the medical knowledge thus obtained to be of clinical relevance in practice—would be replaced by other schools of medical thought.

Most notably, the Empiric school 3rd century BCE—4th century would reject the study of anatomy and physiology by dissection of cadavers or by vivisection, not only on the grounds of cruelty and the established taboos, but also for its uselessness. Empiricists believed pain and death would distort the normal appearance of internal organs and criticized the speculative nature of the conclusions drawn from experiments.

Indeed, and despite taking an experimental approach to understand the human body and illness, the interpretations of physiological processes made by ancient Greeks who performed vivisections were often inaccurate.

The theoretical frameworks by which physicians interpreted their experiments more often than not led them to misguided conclusions.

Would aristotle approve of animal experimentation

Observations would be understood in light of such paradigms as the Hippocratic theory of the four humors or the Pythagorean theory of the four elements, along with others of natural or supernatural basis, and to which they added their own theoretical conceptions and observational errors [ 14689 ].“The State of Eritrea presents its initial and combined reports that encompass eight periodic reports overdue since its accession to the Charter.” So begins the first sentence of a page report provided by the State of Eritrea to the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR).

The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations.

Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals.

Aristotle argued that animals are below humans because only humans can reason and therefore we can use animals without the consideration we would give to people. Aristotle's philosophy is still widespread today. The thunder-and-lightning example seems like a bad comparison for this kind of situation, in that the false claim is (1) easily observable to be untrue, and (2) utterly useless to the society that propagates it. The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue.

Decisions are the heart of success and at times there are critical moments when they can be difficult, perplexing and nerve racking. This side provides useful and practical guidance for making efficient and effective decisions in both public and private life.

Airline chicken Airline chicken can be several things, depending upon who you talk to. It can be a fancy cut, a special presentation, or a negative appelation directed at inflight foodservice.

If some of the weirder psi suppression theories are right, psi should actually be easier to study by conducting personal experiments than by trying to study or do public science, especially if you precommit yourself to not telling anyone about the results.

Aristotle (– BCE) and Erasistratus (– BCE) were among the first to perform experiments on living animals. One of the earliest beginnings of the use of animals for research purposes can be traced back to the work .

The Devil's Dictionary ()