Rethinking animal experiments: A philosophical inquiry

This thesis investigates why animal experimentation persists as a dominant research paradigm in biomedical science despite mounting scientific and ethical criticisms. It argues that the resilience of this practice cannot be explained by a lack of alternatives or ignorance, but stems from a complex interplay of epistemic conservatism, institutional inertia, and ethical minimalism. Drawing on interdisciplinary sources in philosophy of science, bioethics, and feminist epistemology, the study offers a conceptual and normative analysis of how methodological practices are legitimized and sustained. The thesis is structured around five central questions: the epistemic indispensability of animal models, the moral justification crisis, the failure of regulatory and scientific reforms, the role of epistemic injustice in preserving the status quo, and the possibility of an epistemically just scientific practice. Through critical engagement with empirical data, regulatory documents, and philosophical theory, it challenges the reliability, ethical coherence, and legitimacy of animal research. It further explores alternative human-relevant methods, including in vitro, in silico, and organ-on-chip technologies, not only as technically superior, but as embodiments of a different epistemic and moral paradigm. The thesis concludes by arguing for a shift toward a science that is ethically reflexive, epistemically inclusive, and accountable to both human and non-human stakeholders. In doing so, it contributes to ongoing debates on responsible research practices and offers a philosophical framework for reimagining scientific legitimacy in the post-animal experimentation era.