Hello there bloglodytes! How are we? Sensational.
This week I’m going to return to the controversial topic of animal research. Avid fans among you may recall that I touched on this issue in a previous post, however, I have decided that the topic deserved a fuller entry. The animal research debate is among one of the most important of our time. Without it, the whole face of scientific research changes, we enter an epoch of exclusive human and in vitro testing. With it, surely the strength of the boundaries of ethical research will be tested; leading to debate around the methodology of animal testing, rather than the philosophy. In short, it is something that must be decided in order to prevent both the limiting of productive research and the potential allowance of dangerous research. So, are you okay with it?
PETA, as I’m sure many of you are aware, take a very absolutist stance. 5 minutes on their website will basically let you know what they’re about, no abuse of animals under any circumstances. I find the absolutist stance to be dangerous, to take any absolute view often reflects a lack of appreciation for the complexity of the situation. Whilst Gray argues that a lot of animal rights institutions are too focused on research whilst ignoring farming and pet ethics, PETA is very even-handed in its condemnation of animal injustice. One of the most dangerous aspects of PETA’s campaign is its ability to appeal to our emotions, occasionally at the expense of verifiable fact. A perusal of the references below will show you how this site, to the ends of heightening our emotions, makes unfounded claims ranging from the tear-jerking to the ridiculous. To give you a flavour, they claim that discoveries made via animals only translate to humans 25% of the time; whilst there is some truth in this, the article goes on to say that in some cases you may as well flip a coin; as stats students I’m sure your head is simply buzzing at this assertion. Furthermore they claim that animal research has hindered scientific progression, leading us astray with the polio vaccine and many other breakthroughs. The Royal Society confirmed this is simply not true, and that synthesising of the polio vaccine was largely thanks to experiments on mice and monkeys. Further arguments contest that these cures are tested on humans anyway, in vitro testing has a far greater efficacy, and that since the advent of animal testing the developed states are in fact worse off in terms of health. To both suggest that since we test on humans anyway and should skip the animal testing is ludicrous; and to further associate a decline in health-related statistics with an increase in animal testing is to trivialise the real issues. As for the in vitro argument, The Royal Society have argued that isolated testing of certain extracted cells simply does not give a clear enough picture of how treatments may affect complex organisms, asserting there is a far higher efficacy to be found in animal testing. There is a wealth of argument to be read out there, a lot of it on the PETA links I provide below and I urge you to read them; to either find your own flaws or possibly mine, but having actually read this absolutist, ‘altruistic’ site I can only conclude that though they carry the flag of morality, the arguments they employ are reductionistic.
Jeremy Bentham, philosopher and politician contested that ”The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” Newkirk argues, ”When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife”. These quotes reflect the heart of this argument, which is speciesism. Can we consider ourselves to decide the purpose of other animals based on appearance? Ryder (1990) describes this as “discrimination and exploitation based upon a difference in species”. Possibly dating back to an indirect clash of philosophies between Descartes and Darwin, the former likening animals to machines without souls, and the latter seeing humans as only quantitatively different from other species. Gray suggests that it is our responsibility to our own species to do our best to benefit it, even at the expense of others. Singer disagrees with this view and argues that speciesism is akin to racism as we discriminate based on a creature’s similarity to us. I believe this speciesism is reflected in scientific protocol with the hierarchy of animal testing, we are encouraged in our profession to use the ‘lowest life-form possible’. Though I must concur with Gray on this issue and assert that we are evolutionarily biased towards our species and it makes no sense to allow our own species to suffer so that we can limit the suffering of other species, I would suggest that Singer hit the nail on the head, so to speak with his point that animals do not require equal or identical treatment – but equal consideration.
An Ipsis Mori survey (2002) found that 90% of the general public were okay with animal research, suggesting that we are perhaps biased towards our own species. But does animal research really have great validity? The Royal Society have kindly laid out a comprehensive argument for the continuation of animal testing, which is well worth your time. In it they give three examples of how animal research has benefited the world, with regards to: the polio vaccine, kidney dialysis and transplants, and a possible future cure for cystic fibrosis. The success of animal testing must surely be testament to the fact that although animal testing does not always translate to human response, it is capable of changing lives. Now let us consider psychological research, would the birth of behaviourism occurred (Pavlov; Skinner)? Would we know that lack of sleep, and increased stress kills (Jouvet, 1967; Brady, 1958; Warren & Marshall, 1983)? And would we know how important the mother is to a child’s personal development (Harlow, 1958)? Imagine the research that may have been lost, not to mention the research that sprung from these seeds, would we be where we are today without them? Would scientific development be retarded? Whether it was ethical or not we cannot dispute that science would have been worse off, perhaps it could be contested that our societal welfare would also be poorer without these scientific discoveries.
So I shall wrap up! Take this blog as an exploration of what this debate means for the future, and why I think that animal experimentation is essential to scientific progression. Though the rights of animals must be considered and debated so as to ensure the optimum crossover between animal safety and scientific progression; we must not fall into the trap of thinking that animal rights are more important than our own. Singer said himself that if he were to see a human and a lion fighting, he would shoot the lion; rationalising that a man has a malleable future, whilst the lion could only live for the moment. My rationale is rather more simple, I cannot justify to myself that it is any worse to actively harm animals than it is to passively allow people to die because we do not do everything possible to help them.
psychopolemic 