Animal Experimentation

Research and Presentation by Paul J. Kelly, BS

• Animals are often used in medical research to:

– Investigate the progression of diseases

– Test new drugs

– Test new surgeries

• Animals are also used in cosmetic research to test for allergic reactions and other potential side-effects caused by cosmetic products.

Animals in Research

• Much like the reason why we should study biomedical ethics generally, we should study the ethics of animal research because of the appalling history of medical abuses involving animal test subjects.

• Only by studying how we ought to conduct research can we avoid unprofessional, unscientific, and needlessly repetitive studies that bring about unnecessary harm to laboratory animals.

Why Be Concerned?

• About 20 million animals are experimented on and killed annually, three-fourths for medical purposes and the rest to test various commercial products.

• Rats, mice and other rodents make up 85-90% of all research animals.

• Only 1 to 1.5% of research animals are dogs and cats.

• Only 0.5% are non-human primates.

• There has been a 40% decrease in the numbers of animals used in biomedical research and testing in the US since 1968.

Animal Research Statistics

• A study of animal testing conducted in 2003 showed that:

– 61% of animals used suffer no pain

– 31% have pain relieved with anesthesia

– 8% experience pain, as alleviation would compromise the validity of the data

Animal Research Statistics

• We will attempt to answer:1) Are human

interests morally superior to the interests of other animals, and if so why?

2) Is the use of animal research subjects morally justified, and if so under what conditions can it be conducted ethically?

Objective of Presentation

• Attempts to Justify Moral Uniqueness of Humans

– Biological Make-up

–Unique Capacities

– The Kantian Deontological Approach

• Utilitarianism and Objections

– The Utilitarian Approach

– Peter Singer and Speciesism

– The Problem of Non-Paradigm Humans

–Carl Cohen and the Case Against Animal Rights

• Conditions for ethical animal experimentation

Presentation Outline

• Many philosophers have argued that there is no way to distinguish human moral statusfrom animal moral status, and thus no justification for denying animals moral consideration.

• Others argue that humans do have a unique moral status that justifies the use of animals in medical experimentation.

The Moral Status of Animals

• Some assert that our biological make-up as human beings makes us morally special.

• Philosopher Lori Gruendisagrees, arguing that species membership is morally irrelelvant.– “Species membership is a

morally irrelevant characteristic, a bit of luck which is no more morally interesting than being born male or female, Malaysian or French. Thus species membership itself cannot support the view that members of one species, namely ours, deserve moral consideration that is not owed to members of other species.”

Biological Make-Up

• To further illustrate this point imagine an alien comes to earth and claims that Homo sapiens are not worthy of his moral consideration because we are not of the same biological make-up as himself.

• How would we try to convince the alien otherwise?

Biological Make-Up

• Others have argued that human beings have unique capacities that grant us special moral status, such as:– Use of technology

– Use of language

– Intelligence

– Emotional connections

• However research shows that none of these capacities are uniquelyhuman.

Unique Capacities

• Animals not only use their own language, but some can even learn human language.

• Animals engage in complex problem-solving, and use tools to overcome obstacles.

• Non-human primates, wolves and elephants maintain kinship ties, and experience grief.

• The presence of these characteristics in animals indicates that they can neither serve as a basis for giving human beings special moral status, nor for giving animals less moral consideration.

Unique Capacities

• Kant argues that even though animals are not persons themselves, animal cruelty violates our duties to other persons. – “If a man shoots his dog

because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.”

Kant on Non-Persons

• However, this approach does not allows us to say what we want to say, namely that cruelty to non-persons is wrong because of what is done to the non-person.

• As David DeGrazia puts it:

– “To brutalize a horse is wrong because of the harm inflicted on the horse, not simply because the horse is someone’s property or because animal lover’s feelings may be hurt. The idea is that gratuitously harming the horse wrongs the horse.”

Kant on Non-Persons

• Utilitarians approach the issue by focusing instead on whether or not a being is capable of suffering.

• As Jeremy Bentham put it:

– “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they suffer?”

The Utilitarian Approach

• Utilitarian Peter Singer believes in “The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests”:

– The notion that the interests and desires of animals are morally comparable to human interests and desires.

• He argues that our inattentiveness to animal suffering constitutes a form of “speciesism.”

– The belief that the interests of one’s own species are morally superior to the interests of any other.

Peter Singer and Speciesism

• As a result of “The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests,” Singer argues that animal experimentation can only be morally justified if the experimenters:

• “…would be prepared to carry out their experiments on human beings at a similar mental level such as those born with irreversible brain damage.”

• Singer argues that we have no justifiable reason to reject this proposal aside from an appeal to speciesism.

Peter Singer and Speciesism

• Additionally, Singer notes that attempts to identify that which makes human beings uniquely human have historically failed because of “The Problem of Non-Paradigm Humans.”

Peter Singer and Speciesism

• Singer states:

“We may legitimately hold that there are some features of certain beings which make their lives more valuable than those of other beings; but there will surely be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans. A chimpanzee, dog, or pig, for instance, will have a higher degree of self-awareness and a greater capacity for meaningful relations with others than a severely retarded infant or someone in a state of advanced senility. So if we base the right to life on these characteristics we must grant these animals a right to life as good as, or better than, such retarded or senile humans. “

The Problem of Non-Paradigm Humans

• Philosopher Carl Cohen argues against the animal rights view.

• According to Cohen, only human beings have moral rights, and thus speciesism is justified to protect human subjects and benefit future human patients.

• Furthermore, Cohen believes that we have a moral obligation to increase the total amount of animal research to reduce the amount of human research.

Cohen and the Case Against Animal Rights

• Cohen argues that rights can only exist within a community of “beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims.”

• Consequently, Cohen believes that human beings are the only beings capable of rights.– “Humans confront choices that are purely moral;

humans – but certainly not dogs or mice – lay down moral laws, for others and for themselves. Human beings are self-legislative, morally autonomous. Animals… lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none.”

Cohen and the Case Against Animal Rights

• Edwin Converse Hettinger objects to Cohen’s view, claiming that even if we concede that rights are granted on the basis of a “capacity to comprehend rules of duty,” we still leave out many non-paradigmatic humans.

• For example, infants, the senile, and some severely mentally handicapped humans lack the capacity to comprehend “rules of duty” and engage in moral reflection.

• Do such individuals lack rights?

Cohen and the Case Against Animal Rights

• Furthermore, Cohen rejects The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests, claiming that humans and animals have important qualitative differences, and, as a result, believes that the potential long-term benefits of animal research for humans outweighs the short-term harm done to animal research subjects.

Cohen and the Case Against Animal Rights

• Both sides agree that animal research should only be used when all alternatives have been exhausted.

• If they have been, the merits of proposed research should be evaluated concerning:1) The degree of animal

suffering2) The number of animals

involved3) The quality of the

research4) The potential medical

benefit

Ethical Animal Experimentation

• Animal research cannot be rejected outright or embraced wholesale.

• The merits of individual studies should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Conclusion