About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2006 U. Chi. Legal F. 195 (2006)
Reduce, Refine, Replace: The Failure of the Three R's and the Future of Animal Experimentation

handle is hein.journals/uchclf2006 and id is 199 raw text is: Reduce, Refine, Replace: The Failure of the Three R's and the Future of Animal Experimentation Darian M Ibrahimt The debate in animal ethics is defined by those who advocate the regulation of animal use and those who advocate its aboli- tion.' The animal welfare approach, which focuses on regulating animal use, maintains that humans have an obligation to treat animals humanely but may use them for human purposes.2 The animal rights approach, which focuses on abolishing animal use, argues that animals have inherent moral value that is inconsis- tent with us treating them as property.3 The animal welfare approach is the dominant model of ani- mal advocacy in the United States.4 Animal experimentation provides a fertile ground for testing this model because a unique confluence of factors make experimentation appear susceptible to meaningful regulation. First, there is more opposition to using animals in experiments than to any other type of animal use.' I Associate Professor, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. My thanks to David Adelman, Taimie Bryant, Dave Fagundes, Jamie Heisler Ibrahim, Tom Lindell, Marc Miller, Andrew Rowan, Roy Spece, and participants at the University of Chicago Legal Forum Symposium, held Oct 28-29, 2005. Special thanks are owed to Gary Francione. I also thank Nikia Fico and Maureen Garmon for their excellent research assistance. 1 Consider Gary L. Francione, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement 1-6 (Temple 1996) (discussing these two basic approaches to animal advocacy). 2 Id at 1. 3 Id. As Gary Francione discusses, some animal welfare advocates maintain that regulation is a means to abolition. Francione argues, however, that continuing to regulate animal exploitation will simply further entrench its acceptability and will not lead to abolition. Id at 110-41. 4 Francione, Rain Without Thunder at 32 (cited in note 1) (Although virtually all modern animal advocates describe their various positions as embodying 'rights' views in their fund-raising literature and in the media, many leaders of the movement now explic- itly dismiss the importance of rights notions.); Darian M. Ibrahim, The Anticruelty Stat- ute:A Studyin Animal Welfare, 1 J Animal L & Ethics 175, 178-79 (2006). 5 See, for example, Andrew N. Rowan, Of Mice, Models, & Men: A Critical Evalua- tion of Animal Research 31 (SUNY 1984) (What is it about animal research that pro- duces such strong reactions? Intensive farming methods, whereby animals are essentially protein factories, is of concern to animal welfare groups, but the issues does not evoke nearly as much passion.). Consider Deborah Rudacille, The Scalpel and the Butterfly: 195

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most