Animal Experimentation: Is it Ethical?
Hello and welcome! Today’s blog will be breaking down the topic of animal experimentation and whether it is ethical. Since this topic is ambiguous, I shall develop arguments for either case and then propose my normative claim. This way, I avoid any “side-bias” that may alter my judgement.
To preface, many of the following arguments concern only the use of animal experimentation for medical discovery, not for food or clothing purposes. The moral implications of the respective subjects differ greatly from one another, so it is best we narrow our focus to avoid overlapping discussions.
Let’s begin.
Why animal experimentation is ethical:
Many animal-rights groups have misconstrued the idea of animal experimentation. Failing to understand the true nature of research, many sources overstate findings and leave out experimental limitations. When the new drug thalidomide was linked to a series of birth defects, many were quick to question the effectiveness of animal-testing. Regarding the debacle, The American Council on Science & Health reports the drug “did not cause congenital disabilities in many animal species but did in humans” (Goldhaber, 2022).
Why is this misleading? For one, the teratogenic properties of the drug failed to appear because non-pregnant subjects were used. Proper testing later showed the same defects in animal foetuses as in human ones. Thus, the issue was hardly reflective of animal-experimentation, but rather the negligence of drug developers. To grossly misconstrue the mishap denies pharmaceutical corporations the blame for distributing an under-tested drug related to 80,000 deaths. The ACSH is an accredited source claiming to ensure “evidence-based science”. So clearly, it is not only small incongruities that are contributing to the problem. Furthermore, the public is generally too far removed from animal-experimentation to fully grasp its benefits.
Teva Harrison, who once opposed the use of animal subjects, felt relieved knowing the experimental treatment she was receiving had gone through numerous rounds of testing prior.
Objectively, it is easy for people to be morally righteous when ignoring the significance of animal testing in the development of modern medicine. Insulin is a life-saving hormone used by over nine-million Americans. It was originally extracted from dogs but is now manufactured technologically. How crucial animals were in its discovery!
The reality is all forms of animal-experimentation reflect some level of speciesism. Most institutions are transparent and acknowledge this. The difference is what defines an entity as being deserving of rights. Simply put, animals are not rational, intelligent, and capable the way humans are. Here, that is enough to deem them less than.
Why animal experimentation is somewhat non-ethical:
In the counterargument, cognitive differences are said to differentiate animals and humans. In this regard, babies and those suffering from neurodegenerative disorders or mental disabilities are equally incomparable to a functioning human adult. Yet it is intuitively unethical to suggest these individuals should not be extended the same rights. It would be more accurate to assume an inclusive criterion for who or what deserves protective rights. English philosopher Jeremy Bentham deems this the entity’s capability to suffer. As we can infer through the similarities of our nervous systems and the physical reactions in response to pain, animals are undeniably capable of suffering.
Seen as both humans and animals deserve rights, their discrimination can be considered equally unjust as that based on sex or race. Time and time again, history has proven that the impact of social atrocities can only be understood after the damage is done. Take, for example, the experimental studies conducted on prisoners by Nazi Germany during World War II.
'No tears left': Mengele victim returns to Auschwitz
Supremacism within the country had conditioned physicians to dehumanise other races in vile experiments for the aim of increasing military potency. Many were left permanently scarred. Similarly, many forms of animal testing enable humans to subject another species to harm and distress to advance their own kind.
My view.
At first, I firmly disagreed that animal-testing was ethical. Upon researching, I now believe animal-testing is needed for the advancement of medical treatment, but it is by no means ethical. What do you think?
Sources:
Archer, S. (2015, June 29). Animals in biomedical research: What they have given us and what we owe them. Department of Medicine | School of Medicine | Queen’s University. https://deptmed.queensu.ca/dept-blog/animals-biomedical-research-what-they-have-given-us-and-what-we-owe-them
CBC/Radio Canada. (2015, April 30). An animal lover’s 180 on animal testing | CBC Radio. CBC news. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/animal-testing-gender-wage-gap-ecomodernist-manifesto-1.3052639/an-animal-lover-s-180-on-animal-testing-1.3052651
Goldhaber, S. (2022, November 14). Time for Change. American Council on Science and Health. https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/11/08/time-change-16650
Gruen, L. (2017, August 23). The moral status of animals. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/#Sent
YouTube. (2015). “No tears left”: Mengele victim returns to Auschwitz. YouTube. Retrieved October 25, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZswZwcSmUQ.
