Animal Research

• animal experiments- overview

  used to develop new medicines to treat human diseases like penicillin from research on rodents or cancer tumor rats and test the safety of other products like cosmetics. many cause pain or reduce quality of life in some way. if it's morally wrong to cause animals to suffer then experimenting on them is a moral issue
• animal experiment example

  in 1997 dr vacanti grew an ear on the back of a mouse bruh
• in favour of animal experiments


  experimenting on animals is acceptable if

  • suffering is minimised
  • human benefit is gained, in a way otherwise impossible

  the case for animal experiments relies on the calculation of gain and loss, the great benefits outweighing harming a few animals (perhaps in the same vein as a few people dying for a good cause is morally okay)
• against animal experiments

  experimenting on animals is unacceptable because

  • it causes suffering
  • the benefits aren't proven
  • any benefits to humans could be produced through other methods (tissue testing/ human testing)

  the level of suffering and number of animals required to produce successful results is too high, the human benefit can't provide sufficient justification
• drug safety


  • some argue banning animal testing would mean an end to testing new drugs or using human beings
  • animal experiments aren't done to see if a drug is safe and effective to use on humans, its used to decide if it should be tested on people. some are eliminated as ineffective or toxic and the others move on to small scale testing
• drug safety William D H Carey

  there's 4 possible new drugs to cure HIV. A killed the rats, mice and dogs. Drug B killed the dogs and rats. Drug C killed the mice and rats. Drug D had no ill effect. Which should we give to some healthy young human volunteers as the first dose to humans? two answers: d or none because even drug D could cause damage to humans. That is true, which is why Drug D would be given as a single, very small dose to human volunteers under tightly controlled and regulated conditions
• are animal experiments useful?


  • they only benefit humans if their results are valid and can be applied to humans
  • not all scientists are convinced they're valid and/or useful
  • jane goodall- not critical to advancement of medicine, a great deal of it has been misleading and resulted with either the withholding of useful drugs or release of drugs which contribute to human suffering
• moral status of experiments

  • extremists often portray experimenters as cruel and forfeited morality
  • john p gluck "lack of ethical self-examination is common and generally involves the denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subjects"
  • if we accept animals have rights the answer becomes, no its morally wrong rights should never be violated.
  • philosophers like singer argue that some things might just never be discovered/learned and that okay
• the double bind problem

  • experimenters are in a double bind
  • the animals must be sufficiently human like for an experiment to be useful
  • but if they are then it unethical to treat them in a way unethical to human beings
  • if the animals insufficiently like a human, its unethical to experiment because its a pointless waste of resources

  however biological similarities required for experimentation may not require morally relevant features which would make the experiment unethical
• cloning and dolly


  the first animal cloned from an adult mammal. her creator wimut hoped humans would never be reproductively cloned, only therapeutically to help transplant patients.
• christian perspective

  christian thinking downgrades animals for three main reasons:

  • god created them for our use, so we're entitled to use them how we please
  • animals are inferior, worth little moral consideration as they dont have souls or reason
  • anthropocentrism means animals are only considered in relation to humans, not on their own terms
• christian perspective- saints


  some saints demonstrated that viruetous christians should treat animals respectfully and kindly, like St francis of assisi preached to the birds
• christian perspective- modern


  • largely sympathetic to animals and less willing to accept there's an unbridgeable gap between them and us
  • dont accept they have rights but acknowledge soe display sufficient consciousness and self awareness to deserve moral consideration
  • the growth of the environmental movement has moved christians closer to stewardship
  • few think nature exists to serve, a general acceptance dominion should be partnership and stewardship, not dominion and exploitation
• for animal experimentation- more!

  • animals arent people/worthy of moral consideration or have rights
  • humans take priority over animals (speciesist views) like hierarchy of souls, biblical dominion, humans as the 'dominant' species evolutionarily
  • the benefits outweigh the suffering caused
  • mills distinction between higher and lower pleasures
• against animal experimentation- more!


  • singer and speciesism
  • bentham and the idea animals are capable of pain and pleasure, thus worthy of being taken account of in moral decision making
  • biblical stewardship
  • bad habit forming behaviour/ desensitisation
  • not beneficial enough to make up for suffering
  • any suffering at all is unjustifiable
  • drug safety is unecessary
  • double bind
• animal cloning


  refers to the process of producing genetically identical copies of an individual. the technology has a number of applications like preserving endangered species; improving animals by making them disease resistant or increasing yield; therapeutic cloning of cells to undestand disease and test medicines; mass production of animals for research
• ethical issues

  • the moral right of humans to do research without consent on animals who possess sentience, social organisation and cognitive skill
  • there are many scientists who do not try to limit suffering like using no anaesthetics
  • duplication of experiments internationally, there's no coordination to lessen the impact
  • for cloning, the slippery slope idea it could end with animal human hybrids like the pigs growing human organs
• natural moral law- primary precepts

  worship god and preserve innocent human life would encourage it, live peacefully in an ordered society can be twisted to prohibit it
• natural moral law- secondary precept


  using animals in scientific procedures is wrong because it can involve excessive animal suffering, desensitising scientists into becoming cruel, negatively impacting society
• natural moral law- secondary precept

  cloning animals is wrong because it could deviate animals from the design that god intended for them, going against the precept worship god
• natural moral law- catholic church


  
  

  • says theres a place for research including cloning which would bring significant benefit but there needs to be rules protecting animals and a respect for biodiversity.
  • could imply that trying to improve animals and crops by making them disease resistant or increasing there yield is wrong.
  • but a distinction could be made between experiments which enhance god's creations and those which modify and deviate from his plan
• natural moral law- aquinas


  he would accept necesarry pain but condemn unecessary pain because the experimenter might "go on to do the same to men", which is picking up on the bad habit forming behaviour put forward by aristotle. its less concern for animals than for human character
• natural moral law- hierarchy of souls


  would suggest that using animals in scientific procedures is actually a okay since they are lesser than us and exist to be used
• situation ethics- bad habit


  situation ethicists may take a similar approach to nml and virtue ethics by thinking about bad habit forming behaviour and cruelty towards animals inciting cruelty towards people via desensitisation
• situation ethics


  fletcher was personally involved inc cloning research thus most definitely endorsed animals being used for scientific produres as a means to improve human welfare and a pragmatic way of saving human lives by development of vaccines and drugs
• situation ethics


  it could be argued that using animals in scientific also cannot be agapeic since they are often subjected to very cruel procedures, some times without any anaesthetic
• situation ethics

  apply the four working principles: pragmatism, positivism, personalism and relativism to potential examples of animals in scientific procedures such as

  • vaccines/cures developed to treat deadly diseases
  • cancer research
  • penicillin
  • human animal hybrids
  • therapeutic cloning to benefit disease research
  • saving endangered species
• virtue ethics- virtues


  • virtues to consider could be compassion and the pursuit of knowledge/intellect
  • aristotle said the highest thing in us is reason, our intelligence, as we use it to do science and discover what the world's really like and theres no greater acheivement than that. using animals in scientific procedures extend that so is virtuous.
  • the ability to develop drugs and medicines to help diseases like hiv and cancer as well as use cloning to control specific diseases and conditions shows compassion towards humans so may be morally good.
• virtue ethics- vice


  animal pain not being properly controlled is callous, a virtuous passion would not cause animals unecessary pain. also repeated exposure to situation where you basically torture animals is bad habit forming behaviour.
• virtue ethics, aristotle


  aristotle himself was involved in scientific research so would regard such things as compatible with a virtuous character.
• virtue ethics- hurstehouse


  • hursthouse argues experiments on animals are generally unecessary and are out of proportion with the suffering we cause.
  • the exercise of virtues like charity, generosity, justice and friendship necessarrily involve focusing on the good of other human beings and the avoiding of vices involves focusing on the good of animals, there needs to be balance for experimentation to be morally neutral/good