Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1017/S0963180115000079 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1017/S0963180115000079 C4594046!4594046!26364776     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Camb+Q+Healthc+Ethics 2015 ; 24 (4): 407-19 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26364776|t=2015. The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation |pdf=|usr=}}{{26364776}} gab.com Text The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation JO: Camb Q Healthc Ethics http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26364776 #FOAvip Nonhuman animal (?animal?) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. Twit Text FOAVip The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation ????Camb Q Healthc Ethics http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26364776 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26364776 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26364776}}</ref> The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation #MMPMID26364776 AKHTAR A Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2015[Oct]; 24 (4): 407-19 PMID26364776show ga Nonhuman animal (?animal?) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods. äThe Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing