Ethical positions on the use of animals
in research, testing and teaching
vary between the extremes of animal
rights and utilitarianism. Proponents
of “animal rights” maintain
that animals have the right to live
and die according to their own natural
order without interference or exploitation,
and, particularly, without harmful
interference by humans. Among the
animal rights groups are People for
the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF),
both of which are rather extreme in
their opposition to the use of animals.
Nevertheless, some thoughtful and
sincere scholars support the concept
of animal rights. It is not a position
held only by “little old ladies
in tennis shoes” or an over
emotional, bizarre fringe of society.
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for
Our Treatment of Animals by Peter
Singer, and The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan, present philosophically-based
arguments for animal rights. These
books have provided some intellectual
credibility to animal rights activism;
a topic previously based entirely
on emotionalism.
Animal
“welfare” supporters generally
hold the position that animals may
be used for certain purposes, provided
that they are treated humanely and
their well-being is assured. Some
oppose the use of animals in research,
testing, and teaching, but accept
use for food and fiber, while some
accept the use of animals in research,
testing, and teaching but oppose specific
uses, such as the Draize eye test,
LD5O testing, addictive drug experiments,
psychological experiments, etc. Others
support the use of some animals in
research, testing, and teaching but
demand specific exceptions such as
restricted use of “pound animals”
or primates, etc.
If
national policies and regulations
are an index of current public opinion,
the majority holds an animal welfare
position that supports the use of
animals in research, testing, and
teaching because of the benefits to
be derived. However, this support
is contingent upon two broad stipulations:
humane methods must be used in animal
care and experimentation to minimize
animal pain and suffering, and, assurance
must be given that animals are used
only in experiments that are well
designed and technically well executed
in order to provide reasonable expectation
of scientifically valuable information
or excellence in instruction. The
U.S. Government Principles for the
Utilization and Care of Vertebrate
Animals Used in Testing, Research
and Training amplifies these expectations.
(See Appendix 1.)
The
utilitarian position, in its extreme
interpretation, holds that animals
are available to be used by humans
without regard to animal rights, welfare
or sensitivities, although, there
is a lack of popular support for this
position, scientists are often accused
by animal rights activists of exhibiting
behavior consistent with it.
All
but the most extreme proponents of
animal rights would agree that the
benefits accrued to humans and animals
as a result of animal experimentation
are numerous and profound. Similarly,
few oppose the use of animals in drug
testing prior to clinical use in human
patients. The issue is less clear
when, for example, the toxicity of
cosmetics is tested in potentially
painful experiments in animals. At
issue is whether, or at what point,
the ethical cost of using animals
in experiments is justified by the
benefits derived on behalf of humans
and/or other animals.
The
use of animals in experimentation
is condemned by some critics who,
claim it violates animal rights. Carl
Cohen, Professor of Philosophy at
the University of Michigan, argues
against the concept of animal rights,
concluding that animals are not members
of a moral community and therefore
cannot have rights. He adds that though
animals have no claim to rights, there
are many grounds obligating the humane
treatment of animals. Among these
is an obligation to do no unnecessary
harm to sentient creatures. Arthur
H. Flemming, Visiting Professor of
Philosophy at Bates College, notes
that people who cause even necessary
harm to animals, as in experimentation,
bear an added increment of moral obligation
to minimize pain and distress.
Animal
rights activists claim that all or
nearly all experimentation on animals
imposes pain and distress. Cohen disputes
this view, noting that even if it
were true that all animals used in
experiments suffer, as it is surely
not, all the consequences of use and
nonuse, of animals in experimentation
need to be weighed. He concludes,
“The elimination of horrible
disease, the increase of longevity,
the avoidance of great pain, the saving
of lives (for humans and for animals)
achieved through research using animals
is so incalculably great that the
argument of these critics, systematically
pursued, establishes not their conclusion
but its reverse: to refrain from using
animals in biomedical research is
morally wrong.”
Animal
rights/welfare activism, and increased
regulatory activity related to the
use of animals, suggests that public
perception of the value of animal
experimentation and acceptance of
ways in which experimental animals
are treated has declined in recent
decades. Thomas H. Jukes, in a speech
at the dedication ceremony for Unit
B of the Hogan Animal Science Research
Center, noted that urbanization of
society has brought dramatic changes
in man’s ties with animals.
Lost are cultural, practically inherent,
knowledge of the importance of animals
to society and appreciation of the
traditional relationship between the
husbandman and the animals under his
stewardship. In their place is a cultural
experience with animals that is limited
to association with pampered family
pets and Disney characters! The level
of knowledge about animals is characterized
by an apparent belief that meat grows
in styrofoam containers in MacDonald’s
or the supermarket meat counter.
While
the history of benefits of animal
experimentation to humans and animals
alike is irrefutable, it is beyond
the interest of the public to be knowledgeable
about it. Maurice Tugwell, Director
of the Centre for Conflict Studies,
University of New Brunswick, said,
“People assume that all benefits
are there by chance, parts of the
natural order that are unremarkable,
an entitlement. They see only today’s
problems and these are often attributed
to ‘them’ or to ‘the
system’. I want you to find
a cure for AIDS, for herpes, for cancer,
and while you are about it, please
fix me up with another 25 years of
absolutely perfect health, which of
course I will take for granted as
soon as you deliver.”
Current
public perception is that most animals
used in experimentation are harmed
when, in fact, the care of virtually
all animals used in experimentation
provides for their well being as a
condition for their suitability as
experimental subjects. Although there
are important experiments, such as
those used in pain research itself,
that causes animal pain and suffering,
the experimental procedures in which
the majority of animals are used produce
no pain or distress. Unfortunately,
there are also cases, however infrequent,
in which abuse of animals has occurred
through inadequate animal care or
inhumane methods of experimentation.
There are also a few who maintain
and use sick animals in experimentation
rather than bear the costs of ensuring
animals are properly-cared for and
in good health.
Since
the early 1960’s, activism in
opposition to the use of animals in
experimentation has been increasingly
effective. The attention of legislators
and the public has been focused, in
highly sensational and emotional ways,
on cases of animal abuse and on experimentation
that causes animal pain and distress.
It is easy for the media to draw on
public compassion for these animals,
including experimental animals, by
innuendo and misrepresentation. Tugwell
notes that, “Considering mankind’s
affection for animals, there is no
real difficulty in arousing widespread
compassion when the harsh reality
of scientific animal experimentation
is exposed.... Professions and businesses
that use animals pro bono publico
are embarrassed by the paradox that
while the product of their work is
appreciated by the public, the process
is not.”
Animal
rights and anti-vivisection activists
are skilled in tactics. A National
Animal Rights Coalition Conference
on animal rights activism was held
in 1985 to coordinate the efforts
of numerous activist groups and to
train their members in effective methods
for eliminating or reducing the use
of animals in experimentation. People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’
(PETA) Tori
Gruen is quoted as saying, “The
one legitimate goal of the movement,
as endorsed by speakers and accepted
by the delegates, is to eliminate
completely the exploitation of animals
for food, for sport, for fashion,
and especially for research”
(McCabe 1986).
Among
the activities recommended in this
conference were:
-
lobbying for restrictive legislation
to increase the cost and inconvenience
of conducting animal research;
-
supporting Animal Liberation Front
(ALF) guerrilla activities (deemed
extremely useful in getting media
exposure);
-
targeting facilities for ALF raids,
preferably universities because security
is relaxed and information on research
is readily available. (Instructions
were given on selecting vulnerable
targets by using university bulletins,
NIH grantapplication listings, and
Med-line abstracts.);
-
be outrageous. Present “gory
details” to put researchers
on the defensive. (Ideas included
blocking entrances of research facilities
with animal corpses taken from local
shelters.);
-
threatening assault and break-ins
to intimidate researchers into spending
more money on security and less on
research, and
-
aggressively pursuing local and state
legislation against the use of animals.
(Their stand was that most researchers
are ignorant and apathetic about local
legislation because they get their
money from the Federal Government.
Such
sentiment generated by animal rights
and animal welfare activism have two
major results that impact directly
on MU faculty, staff, and students
involved in the care and use of animals
in experiments. The most straightforward
is the effort and expense required
to comply with government initiatives
intended to assure and enforce the
humane care and use of animals. Secondly,
scientists, previously seen as secular
priests in a technologically developing
world, are now regarded with a high
degree of suspicion.
The
major governmental initiatives that
affect MU are the Animal
Welfare Act (AWA) and the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on the Humane Care and Use
of Animals. The AWA was passed in 1966 and most recently
amended in 1985. Implemented by the USDA through a program of inspection and
enforcement, the AWA has led to a beneficial impact on
research, through forcing improvements
in facilities, animal husbandry, and
veterinary care; all which improved
the health and well-being of regulated
animals. However, the increased animal
resource operating costs related to
compliance are, to some extent, taken
from research budgets. USDA research facility inspection reports
citing violations of the AWA were obtained by several animal rights
and animal welfare groups and were
used to assemble a litany of “major
and continuing violations” that
comprised a significant body of testimony
precipitating passage of the 1985
amendment to the AWA (Improved Standards
for Laboratory Animals Act, Public
Law 99-198). The University of Missouri
was among the institutions listed.
The PHS policy was harshly
criticized in the early 1980’s
as ineffective; largely on the basis
of information “liberated”
by animal rights activists from PHS funded
laboratories. In 1985, after information
of the “Taub monkey studies”
in Silver Spring, Maryland, and the
“baboon head trauma studies”
in the University of Pennsylvania
were made public, the PHS revised its policy to increase institutional
accountability and assure that clear
lines of authority and responsibility
were established in awardee institutions.
In September, 1986 the policy was
again revised to conform to statutory
requirements in the Health Research
Extension Act of 1985. The PHS Policy still depends upon institutions
to provide assurance of humane care
and use of animals through in-house
programs such as ACUC review of protocols, review of animal
care and use programs and inspection
of facilities. The program requirements
are much more rigid in the revised
policy and there is a provision for PHS to monitor compliance
by site visits and sharing USDA reports. As is the case with the AWA,
the cost of compliance is significant.
Some of the cost directly affects
research budgets and some is in the
time and effort required of Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) members, scientists, teachers
and veterinarians in meeting the administrative
requirements of the policy. Dr. Charles
McCarthy, Director of the Office for
Protection from Research Risks, National
Institutes of Health, notes that public
perception has shifted from assumption
of innocence to a presumption that
animals are not treated humanely.
He believes that academic freedom
in sciences and the partnership of
science, government and the public,
(unique to the U.S.), are at stake.
Compliance demonstrated through accountability
is the primary way we have of assuring
the public. Therefore, in his opinion,
the effort and expense are costs well
worth paying.
The
threat of confrontation with disorderly
animal rights activists in demonstrations,
vandalism, and threats against persons
and property results in intimidation
and demoralization of scientists and
technicians involved in animal research.
A potentially devastating situation
is developing because researchers,
especially some of the most promising
young scientists, shy away from research
areas that require the use of animals.
A lack of new talent in these areas
may create a void in scientific capabilities
to resolve future health crises such
as AIDS, legionella, and thalidomide.
Polls
indicate that the majority of the
US public is not opposed to the use
of animals in research. However, as
Tugwell notes, a committed minority
can sometimes silence the majority
by making them feel insecure, frightened,
or guilty. Such minorities may mobilize
the media on their side, and convince
politicians that the price of opposing
the minority agenda is too high to
be faced. In addition, because scientists
often don’t make their work
and their objectives clear, the public
is not sufficiently informed to defend
animal experimentation and is therefore
susceptible to the misinformation
tactics of animal rights activists.
If
an experiment involving animals has
as an objective, knowledge that is
necessary to benefit humans and/or
animals; and if the experiment is
designed and conducted in a manner
that maximizes the probability of
achieving its objective, and if it
minimizes animal pain and distress
within limits of experimental necessity,
then the experiment should be done.
If the experiment fails these three
tests of necessity, experimental design
and conduct to maximize the probability
of success, and minimal ethical cost,
then its execution is unjustified.
It is obligatory that the individual
and institution responsible for the
experiment develop justification for
animal use and inform the public of
this information.
There
is little point in trying to convert
animal rights activists. The research
community must take away the availability
of support by educating and enlisting
the support of the presently-uninformed
public. The National Association for
Biomedical Research; the Scientists
Center for Animal Welfare; the Coalition
for use of Animals in Commerce, Science,
and Sports; the Incurably Ill for
Animal Research, state and local biomedical
research societies, and professional
associations are among groups actively
supporting animal use in experimentation
through education of the public and
legislative lobbying. Most of the
groups are active primarily at the
national level and have neither the
manpower nor resources to adequately
address local and state initiatives
currently in vogue among animal rights
groups. A recent appeal by the American
Medical Association to its membership
to help educate the public on the
importance of animals in biomedical
research has potential to promote
local support for animal experimentation.
Animal
rights activists compromising a small,
vocal, and well-funded minority are
attempting to eliminate the use of
animals by misappropriation of the
lobbying power of the uninformed public
and by intimidating members of the
scientific community. Failure of individual
scientists and the scientific community
to effectively inform and educate
the public against misguided animal
rights activism will surely cripple
the advance of sciences dependent
on animals. McCabe quotes philosopher,
Charles Griswold, noting, “It’s
not just a question of saving or not
saving animals. It’s a question
of saving or saving us -not just in
the sense of self-preservation, but
the understanding of what it means
to be human. The thesis that there
is no moral relevant difference between
humans and other animals constitutes
a monumental debasement of man.”
REFERENCES:
Cohen,
C. The case for the use of animals
in biomedical research. New England
Journal of Medicine 1986; 315:865-870.
Flemming,
A H. Animal suffering: how it matters.
Lab An Sci 1987; Special Issue: 140-144.
McCabe,
K. Who Will Die?. The Washingtonian/August
1986; 113.
Regan,
T. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press
1983.
Singer,
P. Animal Liberation. New York, NY:
Avon Books 1977.
Tugwell,
M. Analyzing conflicts between the
institution , the scientist, the animal
care committee, and the concerned public.
Lab An Sci 1987; Special Issue: 145-149.
|
