animals in research

Counterpoint: Animal Testing Is Cruel and Immoral Regardless of the Benefits Associated With It

Thesis: The use of animals for medical experiments amounts to questionable and immoral practices.

Talking Points • Many people question any moral difference between

humans and animals.

• It is unethical to inflict suffering on other living creatures.

• Even if one believes that some animal experimentation is acceptable, many examples of outright cruel and inhumane treatment have been exposed.

• There are feasible alternatives to animal testing, especially for non-necessary products such as cosmetics.

Introduction The heart of the issue is whether animals should be used for medical research. One should also ask whether the human species is more deserving of inclusion in research than other species.

Humans' domination of other species invites detailed justifications for animal use in research projects. In 2003, Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, wrote in the New York Review of Books: "Despite obvious differences between humans and nonhuman animals, we share with them a capacity to suffer, and this means that they, like us, have interests. If we ignore or discount their interests, simply on the grounds that they are not members of our species, the logic of our position is similar to that of the most blatant racists or sexists who think that those who belong to their race or sex have superior moral status, simply in virtue of their race or sex, and irrespective of other characteristics or qualities."

Animal Cruelty There are, of course, scores of examples of cruelty inflicted upon animals, not just in the name of medical research but also in the name of corporate profits. A leading fast-food chain has been challenged for its use of animals—chickens and pigs, mostly— confined for their entire lives in dire conditions (pigs forced to live standing in their own feces in pens so narrow they cannot turn

around, for example). These practices are frequently justified in the name of economic efficiency in the production of agricultural products and retail food.

Most people would likely consider scientific research to be held to different standards than agribusiness's drive for profits. Yet throughout history there have been countless examples of cruel and unusual treatment of animals in the name of science. And while it may be true that some experiments have contributed to significant medical breakthroughs, many others have little practical value or are so blatantly cruel that few people would consider the results worthwhile. One infamous example was an incident uncovered in 1983 (and subsequently shut down) at the University of Pennsylvania in which 150 baboons suffered brain damage as a result of hydraulic equipment smashing against their heads to simulate whiplash, such as humans might suffer in a car accident. Many critics note that even if the intention behind a study is to prevent human injury or death, results from studying animals can never truly predict human conditions, and therefore are of dubious value.

Science or Cruelty? People who own pets may hold a different view regarding species differentiation than those who do not own them. Furthermore, geographic location may be another factor. For example, someone who lives in an urban or suburban environment without a pet could underestimate the greater value of animals. Additional perspectives may surround the issue of whether animal use is more justifiable for medical purposes than for food production.

An overarching and important question seems to be: What and who justifies the use of animals in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals? Consider this question in the context that millions of animals killed each year worldwide for experiments and drug research though exact numbers are impossible to confirm. Common uses of laboratory animals include testing for toxicity, brain research, dental research, and surgical experiments.

Some defenders of animal experimentation seek to ease their guilt by suggesting that animals may, in some way, experience less pain than humans. The basis for saying this, though, is obscure;

Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 1

mammals all have similar nerve structures for feeling pain. Does the squeal of a pig or the yelp of a puppy indicate less pain than the "ouch!" of a human?

Ignoring the Problem Another problematic issue is the fact that experiments on animals are, for the most part, carried out behind locked doors, hidden from publicity. Organizations such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have exposed some hideous scenes of animal experiments, sometimes through unauthorized video recordings on private premises. For those who think using animals for medical experiments is acceptable: why not show the public exactly how animals, ranging from laboratory mice to dogs to chimpanzees, are treated? After all, if these activities are legal (which they are for the most part) and for the benefit of the human species, why should they not be conducted in the open like other legal, beneficial activities?

Participants in discussions about the benefits of animals to research usually face an assertion that many valuable drugs and medical procedures derived through such research are responsible for saving many human lives (or at least making life more pleasant for human recipients). This rationale merely brings us back to the initial question: Is the human species more deserving than other species? In essence, most people when asked to choose between curing a disease that afflicted them or saving the lives of a dozen mice wouldn't hesitate to involve animals in the research project. Would the mice agree? Or the chimpanzees?

A major difference between animals and humans in their use as subjects in research is that the latter provide consent to their inclusion. More importantly, it is important to be mindful that regulations governing the use of animals in research acknowledge that key difference. Furthermore, those regulations are more stringent due to that difference. Benefits from those regulations and research projects accrue to parties with varied interests whether one opposes, favors, or remains indifferent to the use of animals as subjects in research.

Apart from self-interest, perhaps use of the word "animals" helps alleviate feelings of guilt since "animals" suggests a distinction between humans on one hand and all other creatures on the other.

Conclusion Perhaps it is time to ask a bigger question: Given the closeness between animals and humans in the DNA sequence, should we seriously consider breeding humans for the purpose of medical experiments? They could be raised the way other laboratory animals are raised—say, to age three or four from about-to- be aborted fetuses—just as we now do with mice while being mindful that their purpose is to serve as reality-based test subjects for new drugs or surgical techniques. (To some extent, this is already being done when prisoners are given a chance to volunteer for medical experiments, though a set of regulations govern their use in research projects.) The fact that such an idea seems outlandish highlights the ethical problem that underlies all testing on animals.

Matters of taste and religion aside, are there fundamental differences in the use of animals versus humans as research subjects in terms of morality, ethics, and so on? What is it about those details of the genome—the four percentage points in the DNA sequence that separate the two species—that make it acceptable to conduct tests on chimpanzees, but unacceptable or immoral to do the same thing on humans?

Ponder This • The author has presented the fundamental positions for

this perspective in the debate. Outline the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective.

• If asked to begin forming an argument for this position, what sources would you need to build your case? What fundamental information do you need? What opinion leaders in this debate would you look to in solidifying your argument?

• What are the weakest aspects of the position outlined by the author? How might those weaker arguments help you prepare a counter argument?

• What additional Talking Points could you add to support this position?

These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

Adler, Tina. "Keeping up with the Voles." National Wildlife, vol. 48, no. 2, Feb. 2010, pp. 12-3. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=f5h&AN=47759131. Accessed 4 Feb. 2014.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, www.aspca.org/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

"Animal Welfare Act." National Agricultural Library, United States Department of Agriculture, www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act. Accessed 27 June 2008.

Balls, Michael, and Martin Stephens. "Timer for Alternative Action." Soap, Perfumery and Cosmetics, vol. 79, no. 2, Feb. 2006, p. 32.

Dagg, Anne Innis. "Animal Experimentation in Cancer Research: A Citation Analysis." Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, vol. 3, no. 13, July 2000, p. 239-51. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1207/ S15327604JAWS0303_5. Accessed 27 June 2008.

Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 2

Goldberg, Alan. M., and Thomas Hartung.. "Protecting More than Animals." Scientific American, vol. 294, no. 1, Jan. 2006, pp. 84-91. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1038/ scientificamerican0106-84. Accessed 27 June 2008.

Kluger, Jeffrey. "Inside the Minds of Animals." Time, vol. 176, no. 7, Aug. 2010, pp. 36-43.

Lemonick, Michael D., et al. "Honor Among Beasts." Time, 11 July 2005, p. 54.

Medical Research Modernization Committee, 13 Dec. 1999, www.mrmcmed.org/crit2.html. Accessed 27 June 2008.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), www.peta.org/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

Singer, Peter. "Animal Liberation at 30." The New York Review of Books, 15 May 2003, www.nybooks.com/ articles/16276. Accessed 27 June 2008.

Starobin, Paul. "Animal Rights on the March." National Journal, May 2010, p. 13. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=pwh&AN=50874895&site=pov-live. Accessed 4 Feb. 2014.

Twomey, D. Vincent. "Experimentation on Animals." Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 2, June 2004, pp. 157-75, doi:10.1177/002114000406900204. Accessed 27 June 2008.

By George Wright

Co-Author: Steve Hoagland

Steve Hoagland, Ph.D., served as a research administrator, a regulatory compliance officer, and as a member of boards overseeing the use of animals and humans in research for almost a decade. A large portion of those functions involved educating board members, researchers, and students about the regulatory environment and the long history of atrocities that gave rise to them. In addition, he facilitates learning in economics on a part- time basis. He earned both a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts in economics from Old Dominion University.

Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 3

Copyright of Points of View: Animal Experimentation is the property of Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of Points of View: Animal Experimentation is the property of Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.