Is Animal Research Ethically Viable Today?

Is it ever justifiable to use sentient animals in research? If so, what kind of research justifies the use of animals? The Laboratory Animal welfare act of 1966 provides basic guidelines and protections for animals used in scientific research. However, is that enough? Interestingly, the act excludes mice, birds and fish, which comprise over 90% of animals in the lab (Ferdowsian, 2011). Does this imply that some animals are more deserving of respectful treatment than others? Why is it okay to experiment on animals but not on humans, and what are the actual differences between us?

This article aims to explore biomedical animal research as it stands today, and to further understand the ethical issues that surround it. It will examine current statistics and the status of animals in the lab. It will explore the difference between basic and purposeful research, and it will also look into the philosophical and ethical issues behind the debate by explaining the differing points of view that surround it. Ultimately the conclusion is two fold. Animal research is and has been extremely useful to society and it is not realistic to stop animal research at this moment. However, such research is so morally reprehensible that it needs to come to an end as soon as the technology exists to replace it.

Let's clarify the three basic positions in the debate. Animal rights activists are those who believe that animals are sentient beings and that we have no right to interfere with them. These activists would argue that animal testing needs to be stopped immediately because it is cruel, inhumane and unnecessary. Animal welfare advocates would argue that animals should be used in research at this point in time, but that they should have increasing rights and that we need to find ways to eradicate animal research eventually. The 3 R's dominate today's animal research landscape and are considered legal guidelines. They are an example of animal welfare; (1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices (Greek, 2010). This position essentially argues that animals need protection and that we need to find alternatives to using animals in research all together. Many animal rights activists would argue that animal welfare advocates are detrimental to animal protection, because they find excuses to propagate animal abuse under the guise of morality. The third position is pro animal research. Some would argue that animal research is completely necessary, and that the life of an animal is inherently of less value than that of a human, so there is no major moral issue when researching on animals considering all of the good it brings to humanity. Basically, if killing, or even torturing, rabbits could save the lives of human babies, then who cares about the rabbits?

Of course, in actuality many people fall somewhere in between these categories. There are not many people who truly find animal research to be a harmless endeavor and who believe that animal pain does not matter at all. This would border on psychopathy. However, there certainly are people who think that human value is so much higher than animal value, that we should not concern ourselves with their suffering in the case of biomedical research. On the other far side of the debate, there certainly are many animal rights activists who believe in completely banishing such research altogether. Much of their information is fueled by pseudoscience and rhetoric, but they are a strong force to be reckoned with and they have a strong media presence. Most people fall somewhere in between these extreme positions.

It is estimated that about 100 million animals are used in experimentation around the world every year. Over a quarter of those animals are in the US. As mentioned earlier, the Animal Welfare act of 1966 did give some protections to animals in the lab, but interestingly it does not protect rats, insects or fish, which compromise over 90% of the animals in research (Lyons, 2014). You can see where animal rights activists might have an ax to grind here. There is something to be said for the fact that the last major legislation to protect lab animals was passed in the 1960s. Also, the fact that most of the animals in the lab are not even covered by the legislation highlights an obviously hypocritical situation. It is easy to wonder whether or not the issue is really taken seriously to begin with. Fortunately, there has been a decrease in primate research and research on what many consider to be 'higher' animals such as cats and dogs. This is also interesting, because it reflects an attitude that some animals are indeed more valuable than others. While most of us in the US would be horrified by the possibility of eating cats and dogs, and we might protest to them being used in a laboratory, most of us are not as horrified by the concept of experimenting on mice. Is this because we find dogs and primates to be more like us (Greek 2010)? Is this because we see rodents as pests? It is an interesting question to ask, because clearly we value the lives of certain animals over others. We have dogs as pets, but we accept deplorable factory conditions for the pigs, chickens and cows that we eat.

At the end of the day, the legislation seems unfair because it does not protect the majority of animals used in research, and it’s dated. However, when we look at societies attitude towards animals, we are overtly speciest. We value and respect some animals and not others, and we draw the line as it suits us. Is a cow actually less worthy or respect than a dog is? No. Why would it be? But humans use animals as it pleases and benefits them, and we are historically good at looking the other way when there is something to gain. For example, no one really needs to eat stake. It has been proven by science over and over again that meat is not medically necessary in the diet on a consistent basis if at all, but most of us continue to eat meat regularly. If we had to hang out in an industrial meat factory for a day and watch the living conditions of farm factory pigs, and witness their slaughter, most people would undeniably be uncomfortable, if not sickened. But the thing is that people like bacon.

“I am not saying that factory farming is the same as the Holocaust or the slave trade, but it's clear that there is an immense amount of suffering in it, and just as we think that the Nazis were wrong to ignore the suffering of their victims, so we are wrong to ignore the sufferings of our victims.”-Peter Singer

On one hand, no one wants to think of an animal being tortured in a lab, on the other hand not many of us would be happy to give up the invention of antibiotics or the polio vaccine, so that no animals had to suffer. It could certainly be argued that the polio vaccine is more crucial to our survival than bacon is, and so it somehow makes sense that while animal research is often morally and ethically reprehensible, we cannot actually give it up at this point in time, and so we look the other way.

“It appears to us that the more informed society is--vis-à-vis more precise questions--the more uncomfortable they are over using sentient animals for non-goal oriented research.” (Greek, 2010)

This excerpt leads us to discuss the difference between purposeful and basic research in science, which is also a central part of this debate. Most people, when faced with the details of animal research, are increasingly uncomfortable with it, especially if an animal has to feel pain or suffer. However, most people are in support of it when it comes to life saving procedures (Greek, 2010). The above quote illustrates the fact that the public is also more accepting of animal research when there is a clear goal in mind. Basic research is the kind of research that is exploratory and does not have a specific goal, and many people would argue that this kind of research on animals should be stopped or curtailed. Many important breakthroughs in science have been attributed to basic research. However, should animals be subjected to potentially painful or uncomfortable experiments if that research does not even have a goal?

Of the 25,000 studies searched, about 500 (2%) contained some potential claim to future applicability in humans, about 100 (0.4%) resulted in a clinical trial, and, according to the authors, only 1 (0.004%) led to the development of a clinically useful class of drugs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) in the 30 years following their publication of the basic science finding. They also found that the presence of industrial support increased the likelihood of translating a basic finding into a clinical trial by eightfold. Still, regardless of the study's limitations, and even if the authors were to underestimate the frequency of successful translation into clinical use by 10-fold, their findings strongly suggest that, as most observers suspected, the transfer rate of basic research into clinical use is very low.

Here we see that the implications of basic research can actually be quite limiting and that statistically speaking, most basic research does not get to a clinical level or become useful to humans. While basic research has undeniably been important in the past, it does not necessarily lead to a significant decrease in human suffering as it stands, and the public is not in support of using animals in research when there is not a tangible benefit to be gained. Thus scientists should be encouraged to use other models in basic research other than animals, because it is unnecessary and wrong to subject sentient beings to pain in lieu of a goal.

Why is is unrealistic to simply end animal research today? There is no denying that many of science's important advancements have been made due to animal research, and currently there is not another alternative in place that could enable us to realistically continue research on many life saving therapies and treatments. The FDA, the EPA and the NIH all have the long term goal of finding replacements for animal testing (Hastings, 2011). There are numerous alternatives in place right now, however, they all have their limits. Animal rights activists would argue that animal testing is completely unnecessary, because of these other possibilities. All of the alternatives that are currently in place are valuable, but they have their limits. Alternative methods do cover a wide range of research and health areas. However, the general limitation is that there is no in vitro testing or computer simulation that can really tell you how an entire body will react to a treatment.

Critics would argue that animal testing is highly flawed and that animals don't resemble humans biologically and are not realistic test subjects. There are some famous instances where this has come into play. An internet favorite for animal rights groups is the tale of the morning sickness drug Thalidomide which was tested on numerous species ranging from rodents to dogs, with no ill effects. Unfortunately, when used to treat morning sickness in humans it caused severe deformity of the limbs of the fetus. This is the kind of argument that animal rights activists might use to debunk animal testing and say that animals are not like humans, so it should just end. The problem is that the story is not actually true. The animal testing performed on this drug was superficial, even by 1950s standards. Also, no pregnant animals were tested before hand. After the deformities, when the drugs were tested on pregnant rabbits, the offspring did indeed have the deformity. So, in actuality this came down to not enough animal testing (Lyons, 2014). This is just one example of animal rights activists distorting the truth in order to serve their agenda. There are many more examples of animal rights activists using emotional persuasion and pseudoscience to spread lies about the inefficiency of animal testing this ranges from their tales of insulin to morphine to vioxx.

The fact of the matter is that many medical advancements have been made due to animal research. This includes antibiotics, vaccines including diphtheria, tetanus, rabies, whooping cough, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps and rubella, cancer drugs, HIV treatment etc. The list goes on. While it is true that in some aspects humans and animals are not the same, it is fallacious to claim that animal research is a waste of time, or that it is bad science. Imagine a world without antibiotics or any of the above mentioned vaccines, and you can begin to understand just how crucial of a role animal testing has played in the landscape of humanity.

Animal testing saves human lives, and when it is not performed, many people can and do die. There are many drugs and procedures on the market today that could potentially kill people in the absence of animal testing, and there is no other alternative that is as representative of a whole body as a live animal is. Like it or not, no one would want their child taking a new cancer drug with potentially fatal consequences, because it had not been tested on mice. We cannot simply stop animal testing all together because our medical system is currently reliant on it (Ferdowsian, 2011).

Despite acknowledging the importance that animal research has played, animal research is also archaic, cruel and unfair. One reason it is acceptable today is because society accepts the inhumane treatment of animals that are useful to us. However, the fact stands that we literally torture smaller, helpless animals so that our species can be spared suffering. One day, animal research might be seen as a product of the dark ages; something like the way we currently view early research on human infants or the mentally ill. Useful or not, it is an Archaic, primitive and cruel way to take advantage of sentient beings who cannot speak for themselves.

The following is inspired by the writings of Peter Singer, an influential philosopher who summed up the difficulty of declaring who's life is important and who's is not. How is it that we define a life worthy of respect? Is it sentience? Because animals are sentient. While this is obvious in a sense, modern science has also explored the sentience of vertebrates and we know that many of their brain processes and hormones that cause awareness and emotion etc. are similar to ours. Is it that humans are able to experience emotion and pain? Animals are also capable of emotions and they also experience pain. Most vertebrates experience pain in a similar fashion to humans. Are human lives more valuable because humans are capable of logic and complex thought? If that is the case, then this would mean that human babies or human adults in a severely mentally disabled state would not count as valuable. You could argue that a cat or a dog, or even a squirrel is more aware of itself and more able to make logical decisions than a human baby is. What is it exactly that makes our human lives more valuable than that of a mouse? Is it just because we don't care about the mouse simply because it is just a mouse and we don't respect “mousehood”? When you break down the criteria, none of them really check out. It cannot be that we are more worthwhile because we are smarter, or we alone feel pain, or that we alone enjoy a life free of pain. It cannot be that we are sentient, or emotional while they are not (Singer, 1974). So what is it? What actually gives us the moral license to inflict pain and suffering on other animals when we ourselves want to avoid pain and suffering knowing how awful it is?

In conclusion. The fact is that animals can and do suffer greatly in medical research. We cannot honestly say that other sentient beings are worth more or less than we are. If we do declare them to be of less value, then we should own up to the fact that the reasons are essentially arbitrary. However, the public does condone animal research when they think that it could lead to a direct discovery that would benefit humans. Basic research is undeniably valuable, but there are other models that science can use for this kind of research. When it comes to using live animals for purposeful research, the results are undeniably important, and while alternatives do exist at this point in time there is no alternative that truly satisfies all the criteria that live animals do. Unless society would be willing to seriously halt progress in HIV, cancer research and numerous other life saving fields, then animal research is something that we need to cautiously accept right now. There is no alternative to it if we want to continue seeing key medical developments for humans, and if we do not want to see ourselves or our children used as guinea pigs. Using as few animals as possible and ultimately phasing out animal research is the ultimate goal that we should be striving towards. There is no denying that we inflict pain and suffering onto other sentient beings, so that we can prosper.

Sources

Beckwith, E. (2011). Peter singer under fire. Human Reproduction & Genetic Ethics, 17(2), 235-238. doi:10.1558/hrge.v17i2.235

Greek, R., & Greek, J. (2010). Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine : PEHM, 5(1), 14-14. doi:10.1186/1747-5341-5-14

Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views : The Official Journal of the Gulf Heart Association, 12(1), 42-42. doi:10.4103/1995-705X.81548

Ferdowsian, H. R., & Beck, N. (2011). Ethical and scientific considerations regarding animal testing and research. PloS One, 6(9), e24059.

Festing, M. (2010). Statistics and animals in biomedical research. Significance, 7(4), 176-177. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2010.00459.x

Lyons, D. (2014). The politics of animal experimentation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Singer, Peter. 1974. All animals are equal. Philosophical Exchange