Scientists frequently disagree on the interpretation of data. Such disagreements follow an informal set of rules, where one assumes that the contestants are honestly engaged even though biases may cloud their minds. A new group of individuals with medical training operates under a different set of rules, however: any statement or argument may be used to support the animal rightists' contention that using animals to advance human medicine is wrong. These "medical scientists" pervert the scientific discourse in which most of us engage. Their fabrications are egregious. They take legitimate scientists' statements out of context, construct statements out of larger passages to twist arguments in their favor, and cite works that actually are contrary to their arguments for effect. This essay reveals the distortions by a number of such medically trained individuals that I and several colleagues have uncovered.


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 606-619
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.