The ethics of animal research
Animal use has been a hotly contested moral issue for thousands of years.
The Jains (followers of the ancient Indian religion of Jainism) viewed animals as spiritual equals to humans, possessing their own conscious souls (jiva) and deserving absolute compassion and protection. This view is rooted in the doctrine of Ahimsa (absolute non-violence), with detailed ethical codes established as early as the 6th to 3rd centuries BCE.
In the 17th century René Descartes, a French philosopher, argued that animals were no more than automata and could not feel pain. This was rejected by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham who developed the ethical framework known as utilitarianism, which essentially means that the right outcome is the one that produces “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. Bentham extended his utilitarian conception of rights to include animals, arguing that the capacity to suffer was what made something of moral concern. Notably, however, Bentham was explicitly supportive of using animals in research if certain conditions are met.
A utilitarian approach was expanded by Peter Singer, in 1975, who wrote in his groundbreaking book Animal Liberation that treating human concerns and needs as being more valuable than those of animals was often simply based on an arbitrary preference for our own kind and could not, therefore, be morally justified. Instead of trying to objectively measure or quantify subjective "pleasure" or "happiness" (like Bentham), Singer calculates utility based on whether an action frustrates or satisfies an individual's explicit desires and goals and thinks it obvious that these are shared by human and non-human animals. He argued that there were cases where the use of animals for human benefit could be justified but the justification had to be founded on a rational, utilitarian calculation based on the nature of those desires and goals and the degree to which they were frustrated or fulfilled. Differences in mental capacities between humans and animals may, for example, be a non-arbitrary and ethically significant basis for differences in treatment in some cases because they affect the nature of our desires and goals. However, where an animal may have mental faculties as developed as (or even more developed than) a specific human being – comparing some animals with young children or severely cognitively-impaired adults, for example – this approach throws up difficult ethical challenges. In those situations, based on Singer’s philosophical approach, it might appear more ethical to use a human child as an experimental subject than, say, a dog or a non-human primate.
Singer’s philosophy has been criticised for being internally incoherent and has some practical issues when it comes to real-world implementation. These include situations where, for instance, the frustration of individuals’ desires and goals is necessary for the normal functioning of an ecosystem, or where different individuals’ desires and goals are in tension with one another.
Modern anti-animal research movements have often been based on the concept of rights rather than a Singerian utilitarianism. There are many varieties of animal rights philosophies but they all, to some degree, attempt to apply the concept of human rights to animals, suggesting that an inalienable entitlement to certain goods (rights) –something that we often accept for human beings in areas such as freedom of speech, or the right to life – follows from being a living sentient (feeling) animal of any kind and that there is no reason to limit it to human beings. In most animal rights based philosophies, there can be no justification for animal research in any circumstances, and they tend to call for abolition. However, these philosophies often run into the problem that rights imply obligations. A human being’s right to freedom of movement, for example, implies an obligation on other humans not to interfere with that freedom. Animals cannot be expected to adopt ethical obligations, of course, and the problem of arbitrating between conflicts of individual rights – very difficult even for humans – becomes impossible in cases involving animals.
Earlier anti-animal research movements, which described themselves as anti-vivisectionist, were initially less abolitionist in their aims. The infant anti-vivisection movement in the 1870s initially accepted that animal use could be justified if the animals were treated kindly. This hardened after the attempt to pass a law limiting research in 1875 was frustrated by scientists, among them Charles Darwin, who felt the anti-vivisectionist’s law was poorly drafted and submitted their own proposal as an alternative. Neither became law, but elements of both found their way into the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 (and today’s legislation), which was the first law in the world to regulate animal research. The anti-vivisectionist movement began to take a position drawn from an interpretation of Christian doctrine that opposed the infliction of any harm to animals even if this led to worse outcomes to the animal.
Today, the ethical framework adopted by most countries in the world resembles that of Bentham’s conditional acceptance of animal research. The limiting conditions are usually that that purpose of the research is of sufficient value to justify the harm or distress to the animals, there is no achievable alternative and suffering is minimised. In the UK and EU this precludes the use of animals for cosmetic testing on ethical grounds, although it is still permitted in some jurisdictions.
Most countries that apply such an ethical framework also have some concept of a “social contract” where civil rights are guaranteed in return for citizens observing certain responsibilities. It is central to any idea of a social contract that the state acts in the interests of its citizens. This implies an obligation on the state to do everything it can to protect the health of its citizens and to do that in the safest way it can. An example would be where citizens have a reasonable expectation that a vaccine will be produced to tackle a pandemic. This will almost certainly require animal use and in such a case the interests of citizens and animals cannot be given equal weight. Rights, in this situation, are not grounded in the inherent properties of sentient beings, but in their ability and willingness to honour the social contract. This does not imply that protections cannot be afforded to beings that are not part of the social contract, of course. It is in the gift of a nation state to grant protections to things that cannot reciprocate, whether that’s an animal, national park, coral reef or sacred rock. This is not because those things are sentient or have plans for the future but because we, as human beings, value them.
The philosophy of animal rights is often confused with the question of animal welfare, but although the concepts intertwine, they are not the same. Proponents of animal welfare argue that we must provide adequate conditions for animals in our care – a position held by the RSPCA and Understanding Animal Research among others. The scientific community has often been the driving force for these improvements, arguing that better conditions for animals are conducive to better, more replicable, scientific results. Indeed, it was animal experiments which led to the discovery that decapod crustaceans (crabs, lobsters, prawns and so on) are sentient, thus paving the way for changes in the law to offer them greater protections.
Resources
Animal Liberation (Peter Singer) was an immensely influential book which discussed the ethics of animal use (including animal research). It is often considered the forerunner to the animal liberation movement. This is, perhaps, the core piece of literature on animal rights philosophy.
- Singer, P., 1995. Animal Liberation. 2nd Ed. London: Pimlico.
Do Animals Have Rights? (Alison Hills) is an objective assessment of the case for whether animals should have rights and what rights those should be. Hills discusses their ability of mind, whether all animals should be regarded as equal, and what that means. Hills concludes with a graded scale of animals rights.
- Hills, A., 2005. Do Animals Have Rights? Cambridge: Icon Books.
The Case for Animal Rights (Tom Reagan) is another major piece of philosophical writing which argues for animal rights on the basis of their similar cognitive abilities.
- Reagan, T., 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy (Wesley J Smith) takes its title from a quote from PETA president, Ingrid Newkirk. It is a useful book covering many issues of animal rights activism and philosophy. In Chapter 18, Smith creates his argument in favour of animal research on the basis of human rights and duties.
- Smith, W.J., 2009. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. New York: Encounter Books.
The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice (Beauchamp et al.) investigates a number of difficult issues regarding the use of animals in society. Through 16 case studies, and plenty of ethical theory, the authors attempt to navigate the moral minefields involved.
- Beauchamp, T.L., Orlans, F.B., & Dresser, R. Morton D. and Gluck J. 2008. The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
An Odyssey with Animals (Adrian Morrison) investigates the relationship between humans and animals, and explains why efforts to halt animal research would be damaging to human health.
- Morrison, A., 2009. An Odyssey with Animals. New York: Oxford University Press
Online resources
Ethics (Pro-Test) looks at the question of whether animals have rights, concluding that their lack of understanding does not allow them to participate in the system of rights and duties.
- Pro-Test. Ethics. [online]Available at: http://pro-test.org.uk/facts.php?lt=a
The ethics of research involving animals (Nuffield Council on Bioethics) is an independent report on the use of animals for medical science. Although it looks at the whole issue, it pays particular attention to the ethics, specifically in chapter three.
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2006. The ethics of research involving animals. [online] London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Available at:
Animal Rights Beliefs (SR) provides a polemic disagreeing with Bentham’s basis of animal rights. It also investigates the question of whether animals should be considered “innocent”.
- Speaking of Research. Animal Rights Beliefs. [online] Available at: http://speakingofresearch.com/extremism-undone/ar-beliefs/
The Ethics of Animal Research (Simon Festing and Robin Wilkinson) provides an insight into the ethics of animal research, including a look at public opinion and the animal welfare regulations. It also has a useful and extensive references list.
- Festing S. and Wilkinson R., 2007. The Ethics of Animal Research. EMBO reports. Available at:
www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400993.html
The moral relevance of human intelligence (Dario Ringach) – this blog post by Prof. Ringach discusses the arguments made by animal rights activists about marginal cases – how do we compare the moral value of a baby, or brain damaged person to a mouse or monkey.
- Ringach, D., 2012. The moral relevance of human intelligence. Speaking of Research. [blog] 12 Sept, Available at: http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/12/the-moral-relevance-of-human-intelligence/
