I think I have adequately explained why the 3Rs are inadequate from a scientific perspective but it appears there are animal protection organizations that are claiming to be using the 3Rs as a tactic for change, while actually supporting the position that animal models have no predictive value and should be abolished immediately. Perhaps I have misinterpreted their position but that is the position that I am going to discuss.
I have answered countless versions of the same questions countless times but as Understanding Animal Research (UAR) seems to want to cover this ground again, I will respond to some of their nonsense.
When animal modelers present their claims to society they rely on fallacious reasoning, misrepresenting scientific facts, and hoping their readers will use their cognitive biases instead of actually thinking about the claims. The following is a good example.
In this essay, Dr Greek addresses the roles of naivety and people with an agenda in terms of why the Three Rs continue to be held as a viable solution to animal modeling.
The uncritical acceptance of the Three Rs is an example of the ignorance regarding science and critical thinking that is rampant in the animal protection movement.
The Vested Interest Groups Comment on ECI Stop Vivisection and it would appear that the vested interest groups have little interest in facts that threaten the status quo.
Oppose B and K Universal of Hull, UK has produced a video about the use of animals in biomedical science. It can be found at
http://notoanimalexperiments.com/science-debate/historic-legal-context.html
