BLACK AND WHITE

Black and White

Is it ethical to use animals in scientific experiments? Is it ethical to use humans in scientific experiments? Are those two questions radically different? A lot of individuals would argue there is a large difference between those two questions. They might state that it is fair to use animals in scientific experiments, but debate that as humans we have are protected by rights. Animals should not be experimented on in any way that is considered morally wrong for a human.

Humans are part of the biological kingdom called Animalia. Most animals are made up of tissues with specialized functions, reproduce sexually, grow from sex cells to living, breathing creatures, and mature and grow through age. That sounds an awful lot like humans to me. Most animals are capable of feeling pleasure and pain, increasing their similarity to us and further shedding doubt on the idea of performing experimentation upon them. One might argue that as humans we are more intelligent beings and deserve to be ruling the world. Many animals like crows and dolphins have proved capable of using human-made tools and various monkeys have even learned to communicate with a human developed sign language.

Pause.

For those of you who know me, you may be a little confused. I am a medical professional and understand the much of the life-saving drugs and equipment I use on a daily basis has been tested on animals at some time or another. I fully support scientific experimentation on animals, within reason. My definition is a little grey, as most things in this world are not black and white. I believe that two criteria must be met in order to use animals for scientific experiments. Firstly, no unnecessary or unjust harm should be done to the animal in the experiment. Secondly, the experiment must be done with the intent to provide legitimate scientific advancement.

If you had asked me a week ago if I thought it was ethical to use animals in scientific experiment, I wouldn’t have hesitated in saying yes. Now, I’m not so sure. In writing this, I had been asked to consider the other side of the equation. At first, I didn’t even know how to begin writing about an opinion that I was so clearly against. Once I started writing it, I had to quickly reign myself in.

I listened to a TED Talk by Glenn Cohen called “Are There Non-Human Persons? Are There Non-Person Humans?” Glenn challenged me to think that there is a difference between a “person” and a “human.” He asks his audience what specific character traits they believe should qualify an individual to have rights. Most traits that come to mind are expressed by at least one species other than human. If we are to only qualify someone for rights based on their genetic makeup, we begin getting dangerously close to the ideals expressed by the controversial leaders of various genocides worldwide.

At the beginning of this module, I believed that it was ethical to use animals in scientific experiments. If I had written this blog then, I probably would have taken the stance that everything that can be done to save a human’s life should be. When reading about ancient anatomists dissecting animals to better understand the human body, I saw nothing wrong. I have since realized that this topic, like most controversial issues, isn’t exactly black and white.

One idea that I came across that has helped me find my place in the middle of these two extremes is the concept of the 3 R’s. The 3 R’s are a Replacement (methods which avoid the use of animals if possible), Reduction (strategies that will result in fewer animals being used), and Refinement (minimizing the pain and distress of any and all animals used). This concept makes a lot of sense to me. I still support the idea of animal experimentation because I have seen first hand how the resulting drugs and products can save human lives. After learning about the Nuremberg Code in this module, I believe that making guidelines and rules such as this for animals is a fair compromise to prevent excess cruelty.

This module has shown me a lot of opposing theories. We have seen the difference between teleology vs empiricism, vitalism vs mechanism, and speculation vs experimentation. Through these studies I have learned that the question of “Is it ethical to use animals in scientific explanation?” cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. Although I don’t believe any unjust harm should be applied to animals, the next time I find myself administering an antibiotic like penicillin at work, I am positive that I will be thankful for the experimentation process in place to save human lives.

RESCUE

Baldrick, P., 2010. Juvenile animal testing in drug development – Is it useful? Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 57, 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.03.009

Danza, A., 2018. Five Surprisingly Intelligent Animals. The Epoch Times, New York ed.; New York (NY) B5.

Dewey, T., n.d. Animalia – Biology Encyclopedia – cells, body, function, process, organisms, organs, cycle, life, structure, types [WWW Document]. Biology Reference. URL http://www.biologyreference.com/A-Ar/Animalia.html (accessed 10.16.18).

Lestel, D., 2002. Human/animal communications, language, and evolution. Sign systems studies 201–212.

Russell, W.M.S., Burch, R.L., 1959. The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen, London.