Animals and Science examines the debates, from the Renaissance to the present, surrounding issues of animal rights, consciousness, and self-awareness. Animals and Science examines what science has (and has not) taught us about the nature of nonhuman animals and explores the moral, religious, social, and scientific implications of those teachings. It shows how the scientific study of animals, especially their cognitive abilities, has transformed our understanding of them. Animals and Science traces our evolving understanding of animal pain and considers its moral relevance to humans. It discusses Darwin's belief-shattering notion that species differences are not absolute, then traces its impact to the present day. Ultimately, Animals and Science is about the nature of science-the kinds of questions science can and cannot answer, and the role of theory in shaping the interpretation of evidence. 12 thought-provoking essays trace the evolution of our ideas about animals and their impact on science, medicine, and society The book includes an extensive collection of primary source documents, ranging from Thomas Aquinas' Summa contra Gentiles to Peter Singer's Animal Liberation

Brute Science investigates whether biomedical research using animals is, in fact, scientifically justified. Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks examine the issues in scientific terms using the models that scientists themselves use. They argue that we need to reassess our use of animals and, indeed, rethink the standard positions in the debate.

Animal experimentation is one of the most controversial areas of debate on animal rights. Biomedical research is at the hard edge of these debates: it throws up fundamental questions of moral value - of whether human life is more important than that of animals. Much experimentation is defended by its apparent success in terms of increasing medical knowledge. This study investigates whether biomedical research using animals is, in fact, scientifically justified. The authors show that in scientific terms - using the models that scientists themselves use - these claims are exaggerated, or even false. They argue that we need to reassess our use of animals and, indeed, rethink the standard positions in the debate. Their analysis reveals why research using animals might be a source of hypotheses about human biomedical phenomena, yet would never prove or establish anything about this phenomena.

In the last fifteen years a controversial new theory of the origins of biological complexity and the nature of the universe has been fomenting bitter debates in education and science policy across North America, Europe, and Australia. Backed by intellectuals at respectable universities, Intelligent Design Theory (ID) proposes an alternative to accepted accounts of evolutionary theory: that life is so complex, and that the universe is so fine-tuned for the appearance of life, that the only plausible explanation is the existence of an intelligent designer. For many ID theorists, the designer is taken to be the god of Christianity.
Niall Shanks has written the first accessible introduction to, and critique of, this controversial new intellectual movement. Shanks locates the growth of ID in the last two decades of the twentieth century in the growing influence of the American religious right. But as he shows, its roots go back beyond Aquinas to Ancient Greece. After looking at the historical roots of ID, Shanks takes a hard look at its intellectual underpinnings, discussing modern understandings of thermodynamics, and how self-organizing processes lead to complex physical, chemical, and biological systems. He considers cosmological arguments for ID rooted in so-called "anthropic coincidences" and also tackles new biochemical arguments for ID based on "irreducible biological complexity." Throughout he shows how arguments for ID lack cohesion, rest on errors and unfounded suppositions, and generally are grossly inferior to evolutionary explanations.
While ID has been proposed as a scientific alternative to evolutionary biology, Shanks argues that ID is in fact "old creationist winein new designer label bottles" and moreover is a serious threat to the scientific and democratic values that are our cultural and intellectual inheritance from the Enlightenment.

The central concern of this book is with the "prediction problem" in biomedical research. In particular, the authors examine the use of animal models to predict human responses in drug and disease research. The arguments discussed are drawn from both biological and biomedical theory (with numerous examples and case studies drawn from evolutionary biology, complex systems theory, oncology, teratology, and AIDS research), and analyses of empirical evidence (concerning, for example, data on intra- and inter-species differences revealed by recent results from genome analyses of various species, human population studies, and statistical studies of the predictive utility of animal models). This book comes to the unique conclusion that while animals can be successfully used for many endeavors in science such as basic and comparative research, they cannot be used to predict drug and disease response in humans. The arguments presented are rooted in the history, philosophy, and methodology of biomedical research. This book will be of interest to anyone involved, directly or indirectly, in biomedical research (including physicians, veterinarians and scientists), and anyone interested in the history, philosophy and methodology of science. In contrast to books written by and for the animal rights movement and books written by and for the animal-based research industry, this book honestly examines all sides of the scientific arguments for using animals in science and concludes that each group in turn exaggerates the flaws or strengths of using animals. There are areas in science where animals can be viably used but there are also areas where they cannot be so used.