Yes, and when they ask us, of all people, they might be interested not just in the history or X for its own sake, but in the framing of X that a specific telling of history suggests.

I'll address my own question here.

Sometimes, media might ask a philosopher, but not to access *knowledge* as much as a (reasoned) *perspective*.

In this function, we're more pundits than scientific experts. But so what? If done well, punditry may help broaden discussions, bring in new aspects etc

...needless to say, the anthropomorphization question was posed again.

At Nico Müller Enterprises we take customer feedback seriously. I just gave another (!) interview, this time for the evening news, and I emphasized the first line more this time.

I also mentioned that laying hens often have broken keelbones. Let's see if they dare use that right before Easter.

Thanks! There may of course be other reasons too (eg, more research getting done overall). And the paper doesn't assess empirically how much of this pipeline dynamic actually happens. But it gives reasons why the dynamic *can* go on indefinitely. So a *reliable* decrease requires addressing it.

Thank you for the great write-up, @ertrunnell.bsky.social! 🤝

The link below gives read-only access to the paywalled paper. Unfortunately, the open access agreement between my institution and Springer lapsed just as this paper went from acceptance to publication. If anyone needs the pdf, I'm here. ✌️

Replacement changes what tools are available. Displacement changes how science is done.

@nicodmueller.bsky.social's revisit of “Lane‑Petter’s Pipeline” provides the wider lens we need to modernize and humanize biomedical research.

🧵

#bioethics #paradigmchange #scipol #metasci #philsci

Yeah I'm not ditching that first line, I like it too.

Fwiw, I like that the point re: perceived intelligence/warmth relates to humans too. This is how we humanize/dehumanize. Whales/cats/dogs tend to be on the lucky side of this equation, but many other animals and some humans don't.

Also, we shouldn't confuse media attention with moral attention. There's probably a reason why whale strandings do well as a news story in a way the daily suffering and death of countless chicken doesn't.

Usually, I say something like: our bigger problem may actually be anthropodenial.

This time, I thought of Kasperbauer and said: if some people care more about this whale than e.g. millions of chicken, that might be a matter of perceived intelligence/warmth. So, humanization, not anthropomorphism.

The "journos worrying about anthropomorphization" saga continues.

Just gave a short phone interview to 🇨🇭 public radio about the whale stranded in 🇩🇪. Like clockwork, the first substantive question was: do people anthropomorphize the whale?

I tried another answer this time.

Voilà 💫

doi.org/10.1017/S095...

Screenshot of title and abstract for "Harm-Benefit Analysis for Animal Experiments Is Not Utilitarian". The abstract reads: The claim is commonplace that harm-benefit analysis (HBA), a weighing procedure widely used in ethics reviews of animal experiments, is utilitarian. We argue this is false and misleading for three reasons: (1) HBA does not compare, let alone maximize, utility across different options, but merely assesses whether the consequences of one option are net-positive, thereby ignoring opportunity costs; (2) HBA does not aggregate utility coherently, as it allows for varying degrees of speculation in the assessment of harms and benefits; (3) HBA is not concerned with moral evaluation or moral goodness. From our discussion, we derive positive suggestions for how to improve animal experimentation policy and public communications about it. Most straightforwardly, scholars and institutions should stop claiming that HBA is “utilitarian.”

🚨 New paper by myself and @tristankatz.bsky.social 🚨

"Harm-Benefit Analysis for Animal Experiments Is Not Utilitarian"

It's commonly claimed that HBA – used in the licensing of animal studies – is utilitarian. We say this vastly oversells the framework.

#animalexperimentation #animalresearch #3Rs

My work here is done! 😁

I'm afrait not, because the features of HBA we mainly highlight are: (1) it ignores opportunity costs; (2) it allows much more speculation about benefits than harms; (3) it's not about moral goodness. 1 and 2 will be a problem for most forms of consequentialism, and 3 most definitely will be.

Great minds think alike! 💁‍♂️

Thx for raising the point re: practical advantages of calling HBA utilitarian. But I think it risks fostering misunderstandings. Why not just say that a committee considers harms and benefits, then passes a judgment? That's even simpler.

The paper is Open Access and freely available.

Link: doi.org/10.1017/S095...

Screenshot of title and abstract for "Harm-Benefit Analysis for Animal Experiments Is Not Utilitarian". The abstract reads: The claim is commonplace that harm-benefit analysis (HBA), a weighing procedure widely used in ethics reviews of animal experiments, is utilitarian. We argue this is false and misleading for three reasons: (1) HBA does not compare, let alone maximize, utility across different options, but merely assesses whether the consequences of one option are net-positive, thereby ignoring opportunity costs; (2) HBA does not aggregate utility coherently, as it allows for varying degrees of speculation in the assessment of harms and benefits; (3) HBA is not concerned with moral evaluation or moral goodness. From our discussion, we derive positive suggestions for how to improve animal experimentation policy and public communications about it. Most straightforwardly, scholars and institutions should stop claiming that HBA is “utilitarian.”

🚨 New paper by myself and @tristankatz.bsky.social 🚨

"Harm-Benefit Analysis for Animal Experiments Is Not Utilitarian"

It's commonly claimed that HBA – used in the licensing of animal studies – is utilitarian. We say this vastly oversells the framework.

#animalexperimentation #animalresearch #3Rs

Reproducibility, questionable research practices and ethico-epistemic trade-offs in animal-based biomedicine - European Journal for Philosophy of Science European Journal for Philosophy of Science - I discuss reproducibility issues in animal-based research in biomedicine and scrutinise the notion that the causes of non-reproducible results are, by...

🤓 Mandatory reading on #animalexperimentation #reproducibility #3Rs by @simonlohse.bsky.social

link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Last chance to register! Really looking forward to this workshop on Thursday/Friday this week. 🐭📉🧫

The image features a blue and light blue background with text stating "Politics and the Life Sciences" at the top and "New Issue" at the bottom.

NEW ISSUE from Politics and the Life Sciences -

Volume 45 - Issue 1 - Spring 2026 - https://cup.org/4re3eQa

Inc papers by @davinphoenix.bsky.social, @cailinmeister.bsky.social, @ac-lopez.bsky.social, @davidakaye.bsky.social, @nicodmueller.bsky.social, @laurennross.bsky.social & more

Workshop poster with an image of a hand holding an organ-on-a-chip. (Title) Understanding Challenges and Opportunities for the Transition Beyond Animal Experimentation in Research and Safety Testing: What‘s New? What‘s Next? Animal use in science and safety testing persists at high levels – despite decades of advocacy and innovation in alternatives. Apart from technical challenges, this also raises urgent philosophical, ethical, legal, and social-scientific issues. This two-day online workshop focuses on new perspectives that can help to understand the intersection of scientific and human obstacles that slow down transition. Join the discussions to broaden your perspective on the animal experimentation transition and help to explore pathways to a future of innovative, responsible science. Organised by Love Hansell, Radboud U; Simon Lohse, Radboud U; Nico D. Müller, U of Basel Online, 19–20 March 2026 13:30–17:00 CET each day Register by 17 March: tinyurl.com/nam-workshop

📣 Upcoming Online Workshop, 19–20 March 2026

*Understanding Challenges and Opportunities for the Transition Beyond #AnimalExperimentation in Research and Safety Testing: What‘s New? What‘s Next?*

Register by 17 March: tinyurl.com/nam-workshop

#NAM #animalethics #philsci #animalstudies #STS

🚨 New paper out today 🚨

The message is simple: As we replace some animal experiments with alternatives, new animal experiments are also being innovated.

If our policy goal is inflicting less harm on animals in science, replacement won’t be enough. We also need a shift in model innovation. 🐭📉

The paper discusses what space for innovation there still is within animal models – arguing that it's essentially infinite, sadly – and what could potentially be done to steer science away from innovating ever more animal experiments.

Black and white portrait of scientist William Lane-Petter, taken in 1981. He's sitting in front of a bookshelf, looking up from a book or scientific journal.

Simple figure that shows a mouse exiting a pipeline thanks to replacement, but another mouse entering on the other end due to the innovation of new animal models.

That the replacement principle has this limitation isn't exactly a new insight. British scientist and regulator William Lane-Petter talked about it already in 1961, just two years after the #3Rs framework was first articulated.

So I'm calling this dynamic "Lane-Petter's Pipeline."

🚨 New paper out today 🚨

The message is simple: As we replace some animal experiments with alternatives, new animal experiments are also being innovated.

If our policy goal is inflicting less harm on animals in science, replacement won’t be enough. We also need a shift in model innovation. 🐭📉

Sentientist Political Liberalism This paper introduces sentientist political liberalism. Elaborating on the fundamental ideas in John Rawls's political liberalism, we propose that the scheme of fair social cooperation among persons ...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
In a new paper in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Eze Paez and I introduce “sentientist political liberalism,” an attempt to reconcile the ideas of society as a system of cooperation and public justification with taking animals seriously.

Nico Müller talking on stage, behind a big banner saying "Schweizer Tierschutz STS," meaning "Swiss Animal Protection SPA."

Nico Müller (left) and Love Hansell (right) smiling and giving a thumbs up

Had a good time at yesterday's Swiss Animal Protection meeting! 👍

I talked about why I think phase-out planning for animal experimentation is a good idea, if it's done well. 🐭📉

It was also great to meet Love Hansell again. Check out his work, if you haven't yet: doi.org/10.25453/pla...

If this sounds hard to do, that's because it is. But even just trying can be helpful. After all, we *do* make presuppositions about those difficult questions whenever we give ethical guidance on animal research. Spelling them out helps us and others in the debate to move forward.

A quasi-Rawlsian procedure helps to avoid both. First, you spell out the overall goal state you approve – how science and society (including animals) should ideally relate. Then, you try to map a way to get there, selecting for policies that are morally, politically, and strategically acceptable.