Animals of all kinds (humans included) are valuable parts of scientific research. The scientific community would not be as advanced without research participants to explore safety, improve methodology and allow for data collection about new products, systems, mechanisms, etc. in science. There have long been questions regarding ethical standards around the use of animals (including humans) for research and in the past there have been developments and regulations implemented to attempt to ensure that there isn’t excessive harm caused to the organism. Often these regulations don’t extend to all animals mainly focusing on humans, horses, cats, dogs and primates and sometimes not extending at all to invertebrates (Wells, 2012). The question often comes down to deciding whether or not the greater good can outweigh what is best for an individual. There are many answers to this question depending where on the animal rights spectrum you fall. One of the more interesting theories proposed by Peter Singer is the idea that humans should not be separated from other animals and thus animals deserve similar rights as humans (Singer, 2001). This idea does not exclude animal research if it is deemed ethical in the context of the greater good of society (Wells, 2012).
The issue with this idea is how do we determine what is the threshold of benefit that must be met in order to focus on the good of the society and not the individual? Also, often the greater good only refers to humans because the species being used in research will not get benefit from the study, does this mean this idea is unattainable since there must be harm in order to benefit the greater good of another species?
I do not know the answers to these questions but I am curious to know what others might think, should humans and animals be separated? Where do those lines get drawn and why?
Singer, P. (2001). Animal Liberation. 3rd edition, Harper Collins
Wells, D. (2012). Current ethical issues in animal research. The Physiological Society. https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.88.18
The use of animals in research, whether it be for medical, cosmetic, behavioral or some other use plays into an interesting ethical dilemma. We know that some species are capable of similar feelings of pain, pleasure, confusion, and fear that we humans experience (Akpan et al. 2020). Moreover, the discussion around animal ethics, rights, and the overall human exploitation of non-human species has been argued for millennia (as far back as Aristotle) (Akpan et al. 2020). I think this pertains to Peter Singer’s point of drawing clear moral lines on how we as humans feel about animal experimentation and, more specifically, research. Your question on the threshold of benefit is merited as I believe Singer does not acknowledge the advances in human medicine that have been born from the use of non-human test subjects. To further the point, if we are to draw such harsh lines of morality upon non-human entities then we are disregarding the rampant use and need for animal products in our global society; and until someone can propose viable alternatives, we must recognize our need to use them and continue to. Note, our ethical guidelines have been significantly refined in the past 50 years and with growing evidence to support viable animal intelligence, we should perhaps move forward with greater effort to reduce our use of non-human test subjects where we can (Akpan et al. 2020).
ReplyDeleteAkpan, C. O., Ogar, J. N., & Bassey, S. A. (2020). Examining the Ethics of Research in Animal Experimentation. Bulletin of Pure & Applied Sciences-Zoology, 39A(1), 230–241. https://doi-org.dml.regis.edu/10.5958/2320-3188.2020.00026.1