Differences of Opinion on Using Animals for Research

A liberation movement is for the "expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality" (Peter Singer). Over the course of human history there have been many such movements by oppressed groups campaigning for equality. After the publication of Darwin's theories and his ideas of the descent of man and species people realized the genetic similarities and differences between man and animals. This realization led to the debate of the superiority and dominance of humans over other species and the morality of the treatment of animals by humans. Peter Singer, a philosopher, pioneered the campaign for the equal treatments of nonhumans (animals) and ever since there has been an ongoing debate of the use of nonhumans in research for human gains. Peter Singer and his followers are all utilitarian and fans of John Locke's idea of equality among all, and want to extend the human rights to all living creatures. There are plenty of arguments made by the so called "animal lovers" to attack the scientists and researchers for using the animals in their experiments and researches. They are all valid arguments, but each protestor seems to overlook how current their arguments are and the benefits of animal research while only focusing on the cons.

Most animal rights or liberation theorists only point to the cons of animal research and suggest that the researchers don't view animals having "the ability of sensing pain and pleasure" (Peter Singer) and therefore are treated inhumanely in researches/experiments. According to Peter Singer we use animals for our own benefits because as humans we feel superior to them. He states that the scientific community does not see the animals as valid candidates for moral judgments as they do not possess the higher capacities and qualities that humans do. Even though this view/statement may have been true once, it has to be understood that over the course of history this statement has been proven wrong. Individuals in the scientific field have realized that adult animals have the same senses and abilities that a human infant possess, if not more. The less educated protestors and arguers fail to realize that the scientific community has since taken steps and measures to assure that the animals used in research are treated as humanely as possible. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) have been developed to oversee the rights of these animals and their treatment during the research. Developed in the 1970s, the IACUC consists of members of society that are both aware of the scientific method as well the "ethical justification for and limits of the use of nonhuman animals in research" (IACUC). Researchers have to first assure to the IACUC that during the research he/she will minimize the pain and suffering that the animals will experience, before receiving permission for using animals in their research. In order to comply with the IACUC standards, the animals used for surgery must be given the same treatment that a human would receive (use of anesthesia, after surgery therapy, etc). This also benefits the researcher in achieving an even closer research model to mimic human physiology and reaction to his/her study. Ever since the development of this institutional committee, the utilitarian approach of extending the equality rights to animals has seeped into and is executed with rigorous approach in the scientific community. Thus the argument presented by the protestors, that science fails to realize that animals have feelings is quite old and does not hold true to today's scientific community.

The second argument made by the animal liberation theorists is that "the animals are subjected to appalling suffering, including lifelong confinement in spaces so small the animals can hardly move, routine mutilation or surgery and later slaughter without first stunning them or using any other methods to minimize pain and suffering" (Geoffrey Becker). Before even another contest is made for this argument, it must again be reminded to the activists that since the development of IACUC, such living conditions for research animals have been mostly (if not completely) eradicated. The strict rules of the IACUC will not allow any researcher to treat the animals in a way that would cause significant pain and suffering to the animals. Some of the requirements for obtaining permission for the use of animals in research by the IACUC include: "Requires extensive record keeping on the environment of the animal rooms", "Requires separate rooms or areas for separation of species, isolation of individual projects, quarantine, and routine specialized housing" (Sect. 1.1.3.3, IACUC). Next, the researchers who do utilize nonhuman animals in their research personally take extreme care and caution in the care of the animals. A good researcher would never want an animal that is not healthy to be used as a representation of a human model in his/her study. The main purpose of the animal research is to provide a model that is similar to humans and observe/study the effects of the potential medical treatments before implementing them on humans. As an example, if a scientist was conducting a study on the long term effects of a cardiac vessel transplant in a pig (that has a physiology similar to humans), why would he want to ill treat the research animal by torturing and not providing proper living accommodations and exercise. The experiment is conducted to simulate the same situation as in humans, and the researcher would like to treat the animal with the same care and precautions as he/she would show to a human patient. If for no other moral reason, the researcher would not be willing to jeopardize the money, the possibility of the product/study being successful and translating results to humans, and his/her career. Therefore, Geoffrey Becker's statement is completely false and does not hold true to the current time and the present governmental standards for the use of animals in research.

Many protestors of animal research would agree and accept the standards placed by the government in order to protect the rights of nonhuman animals. But they would argue that it is still inhumane to perform experiments on animals that one would not perform on humans. Tom Regan is one such philosopher who simply states that "what is wrong isn't the pain, isn't the suffering...The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us". The protestors of animal research go as far as to say that "if the experimenter is not prepared to use an orphaned human infant, then his readiness to use nonhumans is simple discrimination" (Peter Singer). Isn't this just taking a little too far and trying to advocate the experimenting on orphaned human infants to a point? Yes this may be an extreme view that Peter Singer is pointing at to prove his point on experimenting with animals. But again he fails to realize the benefits of the animal research focusing only on the cons and attacking the scientific community. Animal research has been conducted since as far back as the 18th century to understand the mechanics of human physiology. Through these studies there have been massive advances in science and medicine that have helped save the lives of millions of humans. If this was a utopian world that consisted of no suffering and diseases than research using animals (both nonhuman and human) would not be necessary. But this is not the ultimate utopian society we live in, and such experiments and research allows scientists to systematically study the diseases that plague us. It is a known fact that many animals have physiology that is similar to humans. As students of scientific method, the researchers utilize these similarities in order to prove (or disprove) theories that can affect the quality of human life. Current technology does not allow the scientists to perfect their theories before starting to implement them on humans. Therefore, until the technology provides another option the use of animals in research is currently the only best way to test the medical theories before implementing them in humans. As humans, the scientific community would prefer not to utilize live humans as test subjects before their theories have been tested and considered safe for the use in humans. Unlike what Peter Singer says, the question of immorality does not exist here. It is better to use one animal's life to save thousands of human life rather than the alternative.

Medicine and quality of human life have always progressed together and there is no argument that the current quality of life has greatly improved mainly because of the advances in the science of medicine. Animal liberation theorists and activists may argue all they need about the cruelty of animals and their inhumane treatment in researches. They do make some good points that animals are moral agents, they feel happiness and unhappiness, pain and pleasure, therefore inhumane treatment of animals by humans is morally and ethically wrong. One should not abuse the animals only because of their inferiority to the human species. But their arguments are outdated and do not provide a valid reasoning for their goal of "abolishing the use of animals in science". Through their arguments and protests, the governing bodies have developed laws and committees that protect the rights of research animals, because the animals cannot stand for their own rights. The current system prevents the researcher in abusing the animals for the sake of his/her scientific theories. The various animal rights theorists and activists do not understand the benefits and the need of using animals as a research model before applying the products and theories to humans. They fail to see that though the con of such research is the death of certain number of animals whereas the pros include the improved quality of life of thousands, possibly millions, of humans. No decision is made without completely considering the pros and cons of the situation. It just happens that in the matter of whether or not to use animals in research, the pros greatly outweigh the cons.

Bibliography:

1. Peter Singer, "All Animals Are Equal," Annual Proceedings of the Center for Philosophical Exchange 1, no.5 (1974): 103-11, State University of New York College at Brockport, 1974.

2. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), http://www.iacuc.org/aboutus.htm

3. Geoffrey Becker, "Humane Treatment of Animals: Overview and Issues," Congressional Research Service Report RS21978, 18 November 2005 (Updated 14 August 2006).

4. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/noawicpubs/educ.htm5. Tom Regan, "The Case for Animal Rights", In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 13-26.