Earlier this week I saw this Studlife article featuring
people protesting the use of cats as a tool for students at Washington
University School of Medicine to learn how to perform intubations. This led me
to reflect on my own struggles with whether or not it is ethical to perform
scientific research on animals.
I have worked in a lab studying liver regeneration in
zebrafish for the past three summers and I had always wondered why PETA was not
more vocal about shutting down animal research labs. Animal lovers boycott
cosmetics tested on animals, but do they similarly boycott pharmaceuticals that
were tested on animals? I can only imagine that the vast majority of PETA would
be unwilling to forgo treatment on the grounds that nearly every procedure and
drug they would be given would be associated with animal testing in some way.
While I am certainly not a vegetarian, I still cringe at the
thought of animals being treated inhumanely. When I first gained access to the
Biological Resources Unit (BRU) at the Lerner Research Institute of Cleveland
Clinic, I was given a tour of the facilities. On the tour I saw all types of
animals from mice and rats, to dogs, cows, and sheep. I suppose I felt the most
sympathy for “man’s best friend” due to owning a dog as a pet for a large
portion of my life. One of the aspects I found most troubling was that, as
expected, the BRU has no windows (can’t have PETA protestors snapping photos!),
and animals brought to the BRU will never see the light of day again. I won’t
get into the details of the types of treatments being done on the animals since
I am sure there are restrictions to the information I’m allowed to divulge, but
I’m sure you all can use your imaginations or have had personal experiences
working in a lab.
So the question remains: Should animals be tested on despite
all of this? Does the human benefit outweigh the cost on animals? I personally
think the answer is “yes”. This may be a result of my own selfish desires or my
belief that human life is worth more than the lives of animals. Nevertheless, I
feel that the alternatives and reasons why we should not test on animals listed
on PETA’s website are incredibly shortsighted. They fail to understand that all
the alternative technologies that science now has and our basic understandings
of physiological processes are due to animal models. It would be nearly
impossible to develop a drug that can be tested on human tissues without a
proper understanding of the biochemical processes underlying the pathology a
drug is targeted to treat.
What do you all think about this issue?
The question of using animal models in pharmaceutical and other testing has always been a sensitive one for me. Studying within a scientific discipline, I see the countless advances that have been made due to this practice. However, I still am not able to use this knowledge to completely ameliorate the moral unease I feel as result of using another species for the benefit of our own. Yet, my unease is not so great that I would advocate against using animals, rather I think it important that when they are used, it is done in a way that is as humane as possible – using anesthesia and pain medication whenever necessary.
ReplyDeleteOne of my biggest struggles with this issue is in my own practical experience; one of my classes this semester revolves almost entirely around our dissection of cats. I didn’t realize when I signed up for the course that this was involved, and when I learned that it was, I initially was quite uncomfortable with the idea. Strangely enough, actually working with the cat is not as difficult as I imagined, and I certainly have come to appreciate the difference of working with real tissue as opposed to artificial models. Still, though I have undoubtedly learned innumerably, I personally do not feel that my education is worth the price of the life of the cat. To me there is the critical question of whether the ends justify the means – in my case, I don’t know if I can say that they do.
This question is one that governs my opinions about all uses of animals in scientific testing, and I do think that, much of the time, the knowledge garnered does justify the price of an animal’s life or comfort. Many vaccinations we have today are due to their testing on animal models, and these discoveries cannot be discounted as anything less than incredibly significant and important.
Annie, I agree with your critical question of whether the ends justify the means in determining if a particular research project should be conducted. On one hand it emphasizes that animal life is valuable and should be taken into consideration, but on the other it still shows that their are circumstances when we place the life of a human over that of, say, a rat.
ReplyDeleteI think that most research facilities follow protocols for the ethical treatment of the animals. However, I think it may be difficult to know whether or not certain animals are experiencing pain. I can definitely understand your struggle with dissecting cats (ASIDE: if you don't mind me asking, what class is this? Did the cats meet a natural end?). The fact that I worked with fish allowed me to not care much about their eventual fates, likely because they exhibit no noticeable personality, but I know that working with mammals would be much more difficult.