(Americans for Medical Advancement)
AFMA’s position is rooted in science and the harm that is done to humans when scientific arguments are ignored. Animal protectionists, on the other hand, hold their position on ethical grounds.
Because AFMA opposes the use of animals as predictive and causal analogical models for human drug and disease response, our position intersects the position of animal protectionists in that they too wish to eliminate the use of animal models in drug and disease testing.
However, that is where all commonality ends.
AFMA’s position is rooted in science and the harm that is done to humans when scientific arguments are ignored. Animal protectionists, on the other hand, hold their position on ethical grounds. They utilize the scientific argument as a way to win people over to their cause. And that is their right to do so.
There are additional differences. Because we are based purely in science, we do not oppose the use of animals to benefit humans when it is scientifically sound. We readily acknowledge that in many respects animals have proven to be of great benefit to medicine—just not as predictive models for human drug and disease response. Animal protectionists, however, unilaterally oppose the use of animals in science as part of their philosophy regarding humanity’s relationship with animals.
The mistaken belief that AFMA is an animal rights group is sometimes a natural one, since there is a thread of commonality and it is all too easy to make false assumptions. At the same time, AFMA is frequently and purposefully accused by those who advocate animal-based studies as being an animal rights group in an ad hominem attack designed to confuse those who are not familiar with AFMA and the scientific basis for our position.
Return to Animal Rights Articles
Read more at Alternatives to Animal Testing, Experimentation and Dissection