Animal Testing. It’s one of the most prominent ethical issues in our society and probably one of the most talked about scientific controversies in recent history. So why do I feel the need to add to this debate? Well, it was on a rainy Sunday morning that sifting through the Vision archives, I made the rather unsurprising revelation that animal testing actually takes place in our biology department. What’s more, this practice happens mere metres away from the philosophy department, which houses some of the UK’s most respected bioethicists. The reality is that debate on the issue of animal research seems confined to one department or the other, and it is this mire that I seek to bridge.
RESEARCH
To really understand this, I first needed to explore the projects the Biology department conducts when they perform research on animals. When I met Dr Patricia S. Coulson, the Biology department’s Home Office Liaison office, she explained that much of the animal research conducted in York concerns diseases such as Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Leishmaniasis, all parasitic infections that occur in some of the poorest parts of the world. The animal research comes into the fore when rodents are infected with one of the diseases in order to track the parasites’ development inside a living organism, or in more technical language, “sequence the genome”. The results of these such projects in York have been nothing short of ground breaking and the results have been published in some of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, laying the fundamental framework for potential vaccines to be developed.
But animal research is not just about scientific accolade. Coulson enlightened me on the need for such research: “I have worked with animals for nearly 30 years, and when I went out to Africa and saw the people who were suffering from the disease that we work on; that really just puts it into perspective.”
It was certainly shocking to hear how parasitic diseases such as Schistosomiasis manifest themselves into the human body, “they just jump out of the water and get into people’s blood stream, they travel around the body and multiply in organs such as the liver.” Although the disease is not generally lethal it is crippling and can damage the liver irreversibly. The heartbreaking truth about the disease is that preventative strategies are almost impossible to put into place. “Sanitation to stop the spread can be used, but the nearest toilet might be two miles away – what would you do? Walk two miles or just urinate on the bush?” Additionally Coulson explained, there are drugs available to cure the disease, but with access to healthcare sparse, people aren’t able to walk miles and miles to the local health centre; it’s unrealistic. A vaccine seems to be the only effective solution, but to have this we need to test on animals.
It struck me that for Coulson, animal research was not just a scientific process, it was a lesser evil, a small but crucial element in disease control. Coulson was certainly very passionate about her role, and she seemed deeply affected by the extreme objections that researches are constantly exposed to. I did however find that this passion could very occasionally cast a very one-minded viewpoint. At one point I was told that objections were generally “light on facts and big on rhetoric.” But I’m not sure that’s quite true.
I’m certainly not denying that there is a lot of rhetoric out there, I did actually get in contact with campus animal testing activist about this issue, but after I emailed her, explaining that this would be an informative feature, she seems to have gone of the radar. Could that mean she didn’t really have much to justify her views on?
BIOETHICS
Dr. Tom Baldwin of the philosophy department however did speak to me about some of the more educated philosophical justifications. He explained good humanitarian results, no matter how compassionate the need, does not necessarily justify animal research. We must get to the roots of what animal research is specifically doing and the immediate suffering it causes to animals; that objection, Baldwin added “is certainly not rhetoric”.
What makes this viewpoint especially disquieting is that there is an implicit assumption in the justification of animal research, that human suffering is much worse than animal suffering. Baldwin added, “animal research depends on the exploitation of non-humans for the benefit of humans”, a powerful point when you consider that the vast majority of animal research is not for the benefit of the animal species in question.
It stuck me that the intricacies of such philosophical points, do seem to be taken for granted by researchers such as Coulson who was puzzled by the proposal that animals could have greater rights than humans. “We cannot do [animal testing] on humans because to do that would simply be unethical” – but why? Humans are able to give consent, animals are not. The human race benefits from such research, the animals involved rarely do.
Ok. If we really look at the grand scale of things the sheer necessity of animal research seems a pretty obvious, and frankly overriding justification. As Coulson explained, “cultures and synthetics could perhaps be used, but they could never, ever replicate an animal organism”.
In addition Coulson made the very reasonable point that, if there were a new medicine not previously tested on animals and instead going straight for human trials, this would never work. “Who would want to do that?” she exclaimed, and I cannot help but agree with her, I certainly wouldn’t want to be tested on.
It is fair to say that medical research is incredibly complicated, probably a lot more complicated than scientists like to make out. However, to me it appears that we can’t just abandon animal research- it seems the only practical option. What’s more, and Baldwin also agrees with this, it is the only safe and reliable means to create vaccines.
We should treat the philosophical debates as significant: they help us understand, develop and refine the procedures surrounding the practice of medical research. Such guidelines are already playing a huge role in animal testing, Coulson didn’t just acknowledge this she was passionate about some of the more nuanced philosophical viewpoints that have entered the scientific world. “When we conduct such research it is all about the animal, every aspect of its life of protected- we control the humidity, the sound, the temperature, the fire alarm is even different – all to suit the animal, because that’s the way it should be”. I was even told that animals were given time with one another to give them happier and more natural lives.
The 3 Rs
Both Coulson and Baldwin told me about the 3 Rs of animal testing increasingly coming to the fore. They include replacement (where if there is an alternative animals should never be used), reduction (where if reports or journals already exists, the use of more animals is rejected) refinement (where animals suffering is minimized as much as possible).
It’s funny really; I expected the whole ‘animal testing’ thing to be a much bigger issue, but actually what I found was a mutual understanding between biologists and philosophers. Of course, sometimes, certain issues are given a lot more emphasis and treated with much more complexity in one department than the other, but this is only natural, there will always be a knowledge gap between the two departments. But if, on our campus, we could start a bit more debate and discussion between the two departments that would bring us, at least here in York, closer to that goal of mutual understanding.
i’m a second year biologist and i must say that bar a few scientific innacuracies this was a considered and well balanced article. this makes a change from the highly posarised views (for or against animal testing) that i’m accustomed to reading.
If you think that infecting a few mice with parasites in Biology is the only example of vivisection that goes on on campus, you have much to learn.
I’m interested to know what else goes on….
yeah, because most of the time those evil scientists just skin rats alive and bathe in their blood….
I was contacted about this article by a friend when it was in pre-production but when I e-mailed Vision they totally ignored me. Hmmm. Paddy says his animal testing activist didn’t get in touch but doesn’t seem like they wanted to make use of back-up either.
Weak article. Sorry, but I feel a lot of the key arguements for and against this issue have been avoided and that this article sheds no true light on the issue.
I’m not sure what sort of explosive expose people were expecting in a one page article in a student newspaper. Obviously every area of the issue cannot be covered in one article: this is why people write dissertations and study ethics for years and years.
Animal Rights, if there is some point you wish to make about animal testing why not make it here rather than just criticising a piece just because you it does not take your particular side.
Also I know for a fact that no emails about this were ignored and that Paddy went further than many would have gone to get as many different points of view as possible – perhaps you sent it to the wrong email address. It’s [email protected] for future reference.
The article could have included some kind of reference to the
science-based anti-animal-testing arguments, as provided by all
kinds of researchers. Summaries about all this stuff, and further
info. about where to find more research material, are all on the
websites for groups like BUAV and NAVS, who tend to make a lot of
use of scientists (and often employ some). It would also have been
nice to see a reference to the non-animal medical testing supported
by foundations such as the Lord Dowding and the Dr. Hadwen Trust.
The latter is funding research by someone at York at the moment.
I know this was only a small article, but it could have been better,
and the automatic assumptions that the case for animal testing is
beyond scrutiny in scientific terms and that the only anti-testing
arguments must come from philosophers, were definitely a flaw, and
prevented this from being a more in-depth and interesting discussion.
Lord Dowding FUND, I meant to say.
Oh, marvellous. I posted a message, then added a P.S.,
and then the original message disappeared. I give up.
Testing, testing.
I have some serious issues with Dr Coulson’s reasoning:
“The heartbreaking truth about the disease is that preventative strategies are almost impossible to put into place. “Sanitation to stop the spread can be used, but the nearest toilet might be two miles away – what would you do? Walk two miles or just urinate on the bush?”
-How about rather than funding animal research, instead use the money to fund the construction of new toilets ? Prevention is better than cure.
“Additionally Coulson explained, there are drugs available to cure the disease, but with access to healthcare sparse, people aren’t able to walk miles and miles to the local health centre; it’s unrealistic.”
-Since there are drugs available to cure the disease, then the issue is with access to healthcare and for providing funding for doctors and nurses to visit villages. A single dose of praziquantel ill prevent a child from suffering from schistosomiasis:
http://www.cartercenter.org/health/schistosomiasis/treatment.html
“A vaccine seems to be the only effective solution, but to have this we need to test on animals.”
-Nonsense. We could directly test on humans. It would be far more reliable. Currently the majority of drugs that pass animal testing do not pass human testing (i.e most drugs that enter Phase I drug trials do not pass Phase II, III or IV trials either because they don’t work, or because they are deemed unsafe).
If animal research was banned tomorrow, what does she think would happen ? There would be a big rush by scientists to develop alternative means of drug development and testing, as there would be a pressure to do so. A pressure that currently isn’t that great, as they can still use animals.
“It stuck me that the intricacies of such philosophical points, do seem to be taken for granted by researchers such as Coulson who was puzzled by the proposal that animals could have greater rights than humans. “We cannot do [animal testing] on humans because to do that would simply be unethical” – but why? Humans are able to give consent, animals are not. The human race benefits from such research, the animals involved rarely do.”
-Another way of looking at it would be to ask why do we grant humans rights ? Ignoring religious reasoning of God-given rights, it comes down to several psychological qualities: the ability to suffer and feel pain (which many animals are capable of doing), and the ability to be self-aware (which some animals are probably capable of, as well as many, BUT NOT ALL, humans). For example, babies and some people with severe neurodevelopmental disorders are probably no more self-aware than many species of animals that are used for research. Yet they still have the rights to life and to not be experimented on. But animals do not have these rights. Why the inconsistency ?
Well, with the case of babies, we could argue that they have the *potential* to develop autonomous thought/self-awareness. Yet in the rest of society we do not grant rights or privileges based on *potential*. For example, a first year medical student is *potentially* a doctor. That does not grant him the full rights of a doctor. A child is *potentially* an adult voter. That does not mean the child has the right to vote. I am *potentially* an astronaut. That does not mean NASA would be willing to send me into space tomorrow, without any training.
(additionally, since human embryos and zygotes have the same potential for self-awareness and autonomous thought as babies do, then anyone who uses this potentiality argument to justify giving babies rights may wish to consider their position on abortion, though of course that also involves the rights of women)
Furthermore, even if having the *potential* for self-awareness and autonomous thought IS sufficient to grant the right to life and right not to be used in experiments, not all babies or humans even have this potential. Terminally ill babies/young children, for example. Or those with severe neurodevelopmental disorders. So is it ok to experiment on these humans ? If so, then we should do so because of the medical benefits that will be achieved (researching on humans would presumably be more medically relevant and accurate). If not, then why not, and how can we justify using animals ? What differences are there between these humans and animals ?