Animal testing, without the screaming November 27, 2006Posted by smiffy in Ethics, Medical Issues.
Fans of angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin philosophical internet discussions (you know, the ones that usually end up with a virgin being thrown into a volcano, and admitting that cannibalism isn’t so bad after all) could do worse than checking out a documentary on BBC2 tonight, entitled “Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing”.
As I won’t be watching it myself (the video recorder doesn’t work, and I want to watch the programme about British science fiction on BBC4), it might be worth quoting from the Observer blurb at length:
If there is a defining moment in this outstanding documentary, it is the sight of young Sean Gardner – crippled since childhood with the neurological disorder distonia – taking his first hesitant steps from his wheelchair. Only the heartless would not be moved by the delight on his face. The means by which Sean’s mobility was restored is clear from the programme’s title, of course: he was the beneficiary of an operation perfected through animal experiments. Thus we meet the men and women who experiment on animals to help the crippled and sick. Take Oxford’s Tipu Aziz. He drives electrodes through monkey’s brains to develop techniques like the one that saved Sean. Thousands have benefited, he says, while only about 100 monkeys were sacrificed.
These scenes – presented in unflinching detail – are then counterpointed with footage of the ragged army of fanatics who have pledged to end animal experiments in Britain. Their activities are focused on new Oxford 18m animal laboratory, now the country’s key anti-vivisection battleground. Every week dozens gather to howl obscenities at construction workers. ‘Why don’t you do something worthwhile, scum?’ screams a protestor who clearly thinks hanging around a building site intimidating people defines ‘worthwhile’.
Certainly, it is hard to find much sympathy for those people, though director Adam Wisehart tries. He makes no secret of his unease about monkey experiment, but in the end accepts their justification. Thus he provides answers to two key questions: does the alleviation of human pain justify harming laboratory animals, and does these creatures’ suffering justify the tactics of campaigners? It is ‘yes’ to the first and a definite ‘no’ to the latter, says Wisehart, and I suspect most viewers will agree.
Sounds fun, no? I might even choose to watch it, instead of something about robots. If so, however, I hope the programme is better than its description, which doesn’t really do justice to the complexity of the debate on scientific experimentation on non-human animals.
In an argument which is often presented in terms of heartless clinicians teaching Beagles to smoke, or violent crusties digging up corpses because they hate humanity (no prizes for guessing which stereotype the Observer’s reviewer tends towards) perhaps I might try to sketch out briefly some of the key points which are often overlooked in a struggle which generates a lot of heat, but very little light.
I don’t want to prejudge the programme itself, but it seems fair to say that it’s hardly going for the hard cases with the example of a child taking its first steps to illustrate the benefits of animal testing. Surely only a monster would want to deny Sean Gardner the ability to walk simply because a few monkeys get hurt in the process. Perhaps, but one should look at how broad the field of animal testing is, not just in Europe (which has some of the strictest codes of conduct in the world) but also globally. It’s quite straightforward to make the argument that experiment A leads to outcome B, and that outcome B (child walking, or cancer patient surviving) justifies the suffering caused to non-human animals in the process.
What this ignores, however, is the extent to which practical benefits of experimentation can rely as much on basic research, with no specific objective as on more focused research. If animal suffering is justified by positive outcomes for human individuals, then experiments with no clear beneficiaries are, surely, much harder to defend, if one is to avoid simply defending all experimentation, no matter how seemingly outlandish, on the principle that it might, one day, be useful for something (Harry Harlow, anyone?).
This approach to the argument also tends, from the pro-testing position, to a kind of a-la-carte utilitarianism. The example used in the review is a typical one. About 100 monkeys dying are worth thousands of people walking. Let’s assume that’s a fair trade. What happens, however, if we start playing around with the numbers? Are 100 monkeys dying worth 100 people walking? What about 100,000 monkeys against 20 walkers? What basis does one use to make such a calculation in the first place? If I’m in a wheelchair, how much suffering am I entitled to cause to benefit myself?
Taken a step further, it would be interesting to see how far those who justify the suffering of animals on the basis that the gains it produces are so great are willing to pursue that line of thought. How many of those who argue that they only support or participate in animal testing because there’s no alternative, and that the suffering of animals is regrettable but necessary are vegetarians or vegans? Surely if one is going to endorse the utilitarian position, and reluctantly allow suffering so children might walk, one must realise that the amount of suffering caused by factory farming in no way justifies the pleasure one takes in eating meat (or, to be specific, the additional pleasure one takes in eating meat over eating something else). This is particularly true when one considers that the production of meat is a massively inefficient use of natural resources, as well as being extremely damaging to the environment.
A more fundamental basis for supporting testing on animals is the simple belief that humans are intrinsically more valuable than other species. It is this principle that underlines all animal testing, indeed, all uses of animals (very few, I’d guess, would support the experiments above if it was 100 humans sacrificed to allow hundreds, or even hundreds of thousands, to walk). However, it’s not a principle that, I think, can survive real scrutiny.
One can easily point to certain characteristics that, on the whole, humans possess and non-human animals don’t: a wide range of emotions and desires, capacity to empathise with the emotions of others, ability to think in terms of abstract concepts, an understanding of oneself as an entity existing in time. These are all, I would argue, valuable characteristics and tend to make the existence of one who possess them ‘superior’ (for want of a better expression) than that of one who doesn’t. If one wants to avoid irrational, quasi-religious justifications for our superiority, these are the kind of attributes one might evoke.
Two main problems arise with this line of reasoning, though. Firstly, we now know that many species of non-human animals do possess these characteristics, to greater or lesser degrees. The Great Ape Project, which argues that basic rights, akin to ‘human’ rights, should be granted to particular groups of primates, is founded on this very premise. If the kind of qualities listed above are what make us human, and therefore entitled to specific protections (including protection against being experimented on) then how can experiments on non-human animals who share the same characteristics possibly be justified?
The second point is a linked one: the kind of qualities cited to distinguish humans from non-human animals could equally be used to distinguish between different humans. Humans who have suffered severe brain damage, or who were born with serious neurological abnormalities may very well lack some or all of the abilities listed above. Although we may consider their quality of life to be poor, or inferior to the norm, there’d be very few who would seriously argue that they’re fair game for experimentation. And if we’re appalled by the suggestion that someone with a lower mental capacity than, say, a pig could be used for organ donation while still alive, why does the idea that genetically modified pigs could be used for the same purpose in humans not fill us with the same revulsion?
That is not to say, however, that I’m unequivocally opposed to animal testing. In fact, intuitively I’d tend support it in many circumstances (including the sacrifice of the 100 unfortunate monkeys). This is the same moral intuition that doesn’t allow me to support the use of the profoundly mentally-impaired in the same kinds experiments. Luckily, though, I don’t think moral intuitions are always necessarily correct, and I’d be of the view that if one is going to support scientific testing on ‘higher’ animals, one should also be prepared to support testing on human animals of the same capacity.
That’s, of course, only dipping my toe in the greatly complex debate on the subject, the nuances of which tend to get suppressed in favour of a good old punch-up, which each ‘side’ screaming at the other. The public face of the anti-testing position, if it isn’t violent or quasi-violent organisations like the ALF, unfortunately tend to frame the debate in terms of the reliability of animal testing. This seems a bit absurd, if not dishonest. While there is a case to be made for the alternatives to animal testing, certain activists would have you believe that animal testing is completely worthless and done pretty much just for kicks and giggles on the part of sadistic scientists who care less about achieving results than about inflicting pain and suffering. This kind of disingenuous scaremongering does nothing to progress the anti-testing argument, and serves only to cloud the fundamental ethical issues at stake.
On the pro-testing side (or one of the ‘sides’) we seem to be seeing the emergence of an odd coalition, led by the Little Atoms/Revolutionary Communist Party view of the world, which defends animal testing in the name of defending ‘science’ and ‘inquiry’ as if this were some kind of freedom of speech issue (although, of course, for the nutters at Spiked, everything is a freedom of speech issue). While they might acknowledge that there is a reasonably plausible argument against animal testing, they tend not to engage with it, preferring to spout vague platitudes about ‘the Enlightenment’, forgetting that the overthrow of the theistic view of the world led not just to a revolution of scientific understanding, but also of ethical reasoning.
Let’s hope that tonight’s programme tackles the thornier aspects of the argument, rather than being an excuse for a bunfight. A little more honesty, a little more reflection and a little more debate from all involved would be nice.