In a recent poll conducted by Zogby, 2,100 adults in the U.S. were asked the following question.
Do you agree or disagree with medical and scientific research that requires lab animals?
The results showed a similar outcome to that of other recent polls.
About 52% of the population approve of animal research in various degrees, about 27% disapprove in various degrees, 15% are neutral and 6% are unsure about their position.
Despite the many polls done on the subject it remains unclear on what grounds do some people object to the use of animals in science.
Is it perhaps that they find the work morally wrong? Is it that they believe all living beings have the basic rights to liberty and freedom?
Some insight into these questions can be gained by asking the same group of people what would the do in the following scenario.
Suppose you suffer from a leaky heart valve, and that doctors say you have two years left. You could have a valve replacement surgery that might save your life. But, in order to obtain the replacement tissue necessary for a surgery, a pig must be killed.
Which of the following statements best reflects what you would do if faces with a similar situation?
Statement A: I would have the surgery. I think it is ethical.
Statement B: I would have the surgery, but I think it is unethical.
Statement C: I would not have the surgery, but I think it is ethical.
Statement D: I would not have the surgery because I think it is unethical.
Here are the results from the same poll:
Now, if one believes animals have rights they surely ought to be respected. If you believe a pig has the same basic rights to life and freedom as your neighbor, then you ought to refuse the surgery for the same reason that you would not kill your neighbor to save your own life.
However, only a mere 3% of those asked appear ready to act in a way consistent with such a position. It is interesting to note that also about 3% of the US population are vegetarian, although most of them do it for health reasons and not ethical objections to the use of animals as food.
Thus, those that oppose research do not appear to do so because of belief that all living beings have the same basic rights to life as that of fellow humans.
Another small minority, 2%, would not have the surgery despite the fact they think such surgical intervention is ethical. It would appear this group simply is uncomfortable with the notion that pig tissue would be implanted in their human hearts.
About 12% of the group would opt to save their lives despite having ethical objections. It appears this group feels there is something inherently wrong in killing an animal to allow them to survive and yet, if faced with the situation they would nonetheless go ahead with the surgery. Arguably, this group realizes that the pig is a living being that we owe moral concern, but that when human and animal lives are at stake, opting to save the human is morally permissible. Alternatively, they may genuinely opt for behaving in an immoral fashion when it comes to saving their own lives.
Finally, the vast majority, 73% of them, will opt for the surgery without having any moral concerns whatsoever. None at all. That is roughly 3 out of 4 people in the US population.
A natural question is then why wouldn’t the same group, at the very least, be in favor of animal research that advances medical knowledge and human health?
One likely possibility is that they fail to see the direct link between research and the therapies and medicines that it produces. They fail to see that the medicine that will save their lives next time they visit the emergency room will be, in all likelihood, the result of animal research. They may wrongly perceive basic and translational research as two being completely different things. The contribution of basic knowledge to human health may be lost in translation.
So, what can be done?
Aside from scientists and physicians reaching out to educate the public on this matters, we could begin by labeling each and every single medication that resulted from basic research in animals with such basic information. Note that I am not talking about safety testing in animals — which is required by the law. Instead, I am referring to medicines developed through the identification of molecular targets or the discovery of specific mechanisms with the use of animals in basic research. In other words, I propose to label medicine as derived from animal research if it actually produced the knowledge that actually allowed scientists to understand how a particular therapy could be developed.
Shouldn’t the public be entitled to know where their medicines come from? Shouldn’t the public be entitled to understand the range of benefits produced by their tax dollars?
What do you think?