One reviewer praises the book because you don't have to know anything about science or ethics to understand it. Another reviewer critizes it because it's written at about a Jr. High level of understanding of biology, medical research, logic and ethics. Having read the book, I'd agree more with the second reviewer. The fact that the book is easy to read and doesn't require ANY background knowledge does not make the book better.

This book is just not very good. It is disappointing in many ways. It just doesn't engage the issues of the ethics or the science in a deep and careful way. Even those who think animal research is a good thing really should be able to admit this and think that there needs to be a better book that defends animal research. I guess they think they don't need to and maybe that's true, at least for now.

It sure would have been nice if they could have found a physician to write a chapter for the book: a perspective from someone that actually deals with sick people would have been good.

One thing the first positive reviewer forgot to mention in his praise of the philosopher R.G. Frey was this: Frey thinks that if you are going to allow animal experimentation, rationality requires that you be open to the possibility of allowing experimentation on "terminally defective" newborn babies and other "mentally challenged" human beings. He thinks you can't rationally defend the idea that there are things that rightly can be done to animals (such as research that causes pain and death) but can never rightly be done to any humans. Frey thinks that view can only be defended from a Judeo-Christian theistic perspective, which he rejects as unreasonable (or thinks there isn't good evidence to accept that there is a God). Frey's view is at least consistent, unlike most of the other moral views given in defense of animal research.

I heartily recommend Why Animal Experimentation Matters. So often, arguments defending animal experimentation are cast in careful politically correct affirmations of a concern for the animals and a wish that scientists did not have to use them. Such apologies frequently ring with the dull thud of falsehood.

But the nine essays (including the introduction) in this book are heartless and pointed: Humans can do what they choose to animals. The authors accept this as gospel and then attempt to justify these personal and varied prejudices. Facts that get in the way are either ignored altogether, or else massaged into claims that are misleading or simply false.

Book editor, E.F. Paul makes the following claim in her introduction: "The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Enforcement Report for Fiscal Year 1997 reported that 1,267,828 dogs, cats, primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits and farm animals were subjects of laboratory experiments in registered facilities. Dogs and cats now comprise less than 1 percent of U.S. laboratory animals, while mice, rats, and other rodents represent 80 to 90 percent." This is (intentionally?) misleading. Of the 1.3 million animals cited, dogs (75,429 used in FY 1997, according to the USDA report named above) and cats (26,091) make up closer to ten percent. No one has an inkling of the total number of animals used in U.S. laboratories. The 1.3 million cited excludes most of them from the data. Mice, rats, (perhaps 30 million combined according to industry estimates) birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates... the total number is many orders of magnitude greater than the number cited by E.F. Paul.

Misleading facts and claims aside, what sets this book apart is the theme running through every essay that the very least human interest is always more important than the very greatest animal interest. We are told by the vivisectors themselves, such as Zola Morgan, director of the NIH Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, that oversight interferes with research and should be curtailed. We are told by pro-vivisectionist philosophers that the beauty created by new cosmetics is ample justification for blinding rabbits.

It is not true, as some have claimed, that the book is written at a junior high reading level. Such claims may be based on content that fails to measure up to the title's promise. People in favor of animal experimentation may be embarrassed by the authors' honesty and not like what they have to say, but the essays are generally clear and straightforward.

I believe that the authors are representative of many of those working in the labs today. Readers will find many windows into the minds and hearts of those who measure everything by what's in it for them. This is an amazing book.

"Why Animal Experimentation Matters" invites a wide audience to learn about animal research. Although it is a scholarly treatise on the use of animals for biomedical purposes, it is written in a manner that enables those unfamiliar with science and ethics to appreciate the issue.

The Introduction by Ellen Frankel Paul notes the historical use of animals that provided us with knowledge often taken for granted today, e.g., the development of antibiotics, understanding of nervous system function. She addresses the philosophical basis for animal rightism and the emergence of animal rights activism.

In the first chapter, historians Kiple and Ornelas provide a comprehensive history of medical research dating back to Aristotle's observations of motion in animals; one of the earliest studies of animal physiology. They provide detailed examples of animal research, e.g., discovery of cures for vitamin deficiency diseases by nutritionists. They also discuss future needs for research to find cures for viral diseases such as ebola and other emerging diseases. They also outline the history of animal rightism, dating back to 19th century anti-vivisectionism.

The next chapter by Veterinarian and researcher Adrian Morrison provides a personal perspective on animal research. One of the earliest targets of terrorism by the Animal Liberation Front, Morrison has devoted himself to evaluating moral and ethical issues surrounding animal research. He provides solid factual information, soundly contradicting the garbled misinformation promoted by animal rightist oriented health professionals.

Stuart Zola's chapter provides a contemporary example of the application of animal research to the problem of amnesia. Veterinary ethicist Jerrold Tannenbaum contributes a thought-provoking essay on the paradigm shift towards expectations that animals should be 'happy' and its potential impact on biomedical research. Medical Ethicist Baruch Brody contrasts American and International attitudes towards animal research, addressing the continuum of social interactions from familial to Kingdom-wide.

Nicoll and Russell explore this continuum in a Darwinian framework. Their chapter evolves towards the issues of animal protectionism and rightism, finishing with an expose of the misanthropic anti-humanistic and anti-scientific fundamentalism of the animal rights philosophy.

Tristam Engelhardt's provocatively titled chapter "Animals: their right to be used" discusses animals as moral agents relative to humans; who are the authors of our moral codes! Philosopher R.G. Frey concludes the book addressing the justification of animal experimentation from an "argument from benefit" viewpoint. Touching upon Judeo-Christian ethics and relative valuations of human and animal life, he provides a logical framework, upon which one can make their own conclusions about animal research.

This book serves an important function as a compelling argument supporting animal research. Indeed, one may ask: Why is there such a raging debate on this issue? Is it because societal understanding of science has weakened to the point that it falls victim to the pseudoscientific arguments of the animal rightists?

This book has the potential to serve as an antibiotic to cure the infection of misunderstanding about animal research foisted upon society and a maturing generation of children by the animal rights movement.

Cohen has essentially edited the bible to a reader's digest type form. This does make it easy to read all the best-known bible stories quickly, but it also robs the bible of most of its granduer, poetry, force, and chill-producing effect. Just take the time to read the real thing instead.