Scholarlink

<p>Programs for the “three Rs” of “replace, reduce, refine” (Russell &amp; Burch 1959) aim to make science more compatible with animal protection. This article draws attention to a major obstacle to that endeavor: While some animal models are being replaced by alternatives, new animal models are also being developed. Animal research thus resembles a moving pipeline, not a fixed set of models, as British scientist and regulator William Lane-Petter noted over half a century ago (Lane-Petter 1961). This article provides an account of “Lane-Petter’s Pipeline” (LPP) by drawing on philosophical literature on animal models and advances two claims: First, there is practically infinite room for the innovation of new animal models, so LPP can continue to move indefinitely unless policy intervenes; Second, the extent to which innovation focuses on new animal models rather than new non-animal-models plausibly depends on scientific repertoires (Ankeny &amp; Leonelli, 2016) and the built environment of scientific work, which policy can help to shape. This highlights the potential, and the need, for strategic policies that tilt the environment of innovation towards new non-animal-models rather than new animal models.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Lane-Petter’s Pipeline: Why reliably decreasing animal research takes more than replacements

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月29日

查看全文
  • Nico Dario Müller

摘要

Programs for the “three Rs” of “replace, reduce, refine” (Russell & Burch 1959) aim to make science more compatible with animal protection. This article draws attention to a major obstacle to that endeavor: While some animal models are being replaced by alternatives, new animal models are also being developed. Animal research thus resembles a moving pipeline, not a fixed set of models, as British scientist and regulator William Lane-Petter noted over half a century ago (Lane-Petter 1961). This article provides an account of “Lane-Petter’s Pipeline” (LPP) by drawing on philosophical literature on animal models and advances two claims: First, there is practically infinite room for the innovation of new animal models, so LPP can continue to move indefinitely unless policy intervenes; Second, the extent to which innovation focuses on new animal models rather than new non-animal-models plausibly depends on scientific repertoires (Ankeny & Leonelli, 2016) and the built environment of scientific work, which policy can help to shape. This highlights the potential, and the need, for strategic policies that tilt the environment of innovation towards new non-animal-models rather than new animal models.