Peggy Carlson: Why We Don t Need Animal Experimentation.

Transcription

1 Peggy Carlson: Why We Don t Need Animal Experimentation. Restita B. Pellogo and Shey Pia G. Abaya, PhD Students Wall Street Journal 1995, 8-20 Divine Word College of Laoag ABSTRACT Do animals have rights, or is it right to conduct animal experimentation? The influential article, Why We Don t Need Animal Experimentation. by Peggy Carlson argues that animal experimentation is a scientific issue, and that debated on purely scientific categories, animal experimentation is not relevant and needed. While Carlson may be correct in some instances, this review paper argues that there are more scientific reasons which back up the relevance and necessity of animal experimentation. Moreover, the issue on animal experimentation is not purely scientific. It is also philosophical (or ethical in particular). And because of a practical reason to safeguard the importance of animal experimentation, the philosophical argument posed by animal activists ought to be dealt with seriously. KEY WORDS The key words used in the article are the following: Animal Experimentation, Scientific Debate, Philosophical Debate, Animal-Activists Philosophers and Human Experimentation INTRODUCTION Animal experimentation has been a debatable issue not only among scientists but also among ethicists (whether philosophical or theological), and even between scientists and ethicists (especially the philosophers-animal activists). Even to date, proponents of anti animal experimentation quote Peggy Carlson s article Why We Don t Need Animal Experimentation (Wall Street Journal, 1995, 8-20) who argues that scientific facts do not support the view that the suffering and death of animals used for experimentation is justified. She states that animal experiment cannot accurately predict what may happen in humans, and that conflicting animal experiment results have not contributed to any progress in the treatment and prevention of cancer. In fact, most substances that cause cancer and birth defects were identified through researches on human subjects. Her thesis is that, based on scientific facts, animal experimentation is not needed, which is why the real debate on animal experimentation is between scientists, deeming as polarized and irrational the view that the debate is between the philosopher (especially the animal activists) and the scientist. 80

2 CLAIM Peggy Carlson, in her article Why We Don t Need Animal Experimentation. Claims that animal experimentation is mainly scientific in nature, which is why any debate on it ought to be in science; accordingly, such debate would reveal that there is no need for animal experimentation. Carlson s arguments may be applicable in some situations, but these cannot adequately support her view, nor make her view valid in all situations. Although the need for animal experimentation is doubted by many scientists due to its flaws and failures, however its significant contributions to human health are overwhelming, making animal experimentation ethical and a necessity in many cases. Moreover, animal experimentation can be validly and rationally debated not only between scientists, but also between the scientist and the animal rights activist, and such debate is crucial and important. REASON Carlson has a point because in some cases, animal experimentation may not be relevant to the advance of human health. But this reason is but fragmentary compared to the overwhelming scientific and ethical reasons that support the necessity and ethical validity of animal experimentation, to wit: (i) In many cases, animal experimentation has contributed a lot to human health. (ii) Without animal experimentation, we have to resort to the only viable alternative: human experimentation which is ethically very controversial. (iii) The debate between philosophers (especially animal activists) and scientists on animal experimentation is substantially rational and valid. (iv) Finally, the greater issue between the animal rights activist and the scientists is that the pressure caused by animal rights activists, and the consequence if they succeed are too crucial and vital to be ignored by scientists. EVIDENCE The pieces of evidence that support the aforementioned reasons are the following: (a) Morrison (as cited in Gluck and Bell, 2003), Ellen Franken Paul (2002) and Weatherall s study (as cited in Animal Research, 2002) claim the indispensability and inevitability of animal experimentation in the advancement of biomedical science, genetics and psychiatry and the like. (b) We are not against minimal risk human experiments which safe, legal and ethical as regulated the Research Ethics Board (REB) of Canada (Lloyd and Srebrolow, 2007, p. 51). But when the only viable option left when humans should not be put to the risk, as Paul (2002) says, we need animal experimentation. (c) Animal activists are also philosophers (like Peter Singer) who use reason to back up their advocacy, which is why it is unfair to brand their debate with scientists as polarized and irrational. (d) Finally, they pose an urgent and important issue: Matfield (2002) argues that philosophers-animal activists should be convinced of the importance of animal experimentation because they are influential, and their attack may affect the value and relevance of animal experimentation. 81

3 DISCUSSION As Carlson rightly points out, in some cases, animal experimentation may not be significant or helpful to human health. Reiss (as cited in O Neill, 2009) argues that animal experimentation is a pseudo science and its practice amounts to playing Russian roulette with our health (p. 33). He bases his argument on the fact that in the testing and assessment of the toxicity of a chemical (which Reiss does not specify), an animal model will react according to its species-characteristic biological pathways, which may be opposite, similar to or different from those of the (human) species being researched (Reiss as cited in O Neill, p.33). Reiss may be right about this particular situation, but he seems to universalize his view, which is not valid because one example may not present the whole picture. Consequently, Reiss likening animal experimentation to playing Russian roulette with human health appears to unduly frighten the public about the conduct of all kinds of animal experiment. However, in many cases, animal experimentation is significant and necessary; in fact, it has contributed a lot to human health. There are overwhelming scientific facts supporting its value and necessity. Morrison (as cited in Gluck and Bell, 2003) claims that animal experimentation is necessary for the progress of biomedical science and psychiatry (p. 9). Also, Paul (2002) states that the roster of research projects which won the Nobel Prize from 1901 to 1996 reveals just how critical animal experimentation has been to the understanding of biological functions, pathogens, genetic diseases, and their treatment (p. 8). And amidst the ethical controversy on the use of non-human primates owing to their prominent similarities to humans, Weatherall s study (as cited in Animal Research, 2002) concluded that it would be unwise to make any blanket statements about stopping work in this field (p. 591). Despite the controversy, a judicious and regulated use of non-human primates for experimentation may be justified for the greater good of human health. There is no viable alternative to animal experimentation, except human experimentation which is ethically very controversial. Granting that animal experimentation is absolutely forbidden, and we need to conduct tests on drugs, medical equipment and operating procedures, we are left with nothing but the human being to experiment on. Human experimentation is a lot more complicated and controversial, and must be avoided as much as possible. We are not against low or minimal risk human experiments which can meet ethical, legal and safety standards set by competent authorities, say the Research Ethics Board (REB) of Canada (Lloyd and Srebrolow, 2007, p. 51). But when potential and vital cures for humans, or when potential but untested medical apparatus or surgical procedures may be highly detrimental to human life and dignity during experiments, we strongly believe that humans should not be put to the risk by being used for experimentation. However, this does not mean that researches for the betterment of human health should be stopped. Research may still proceed with animal experimentation, the only viable option left when humans should not be put to the risk. In connection, Paul (2002) explains that in most cases there are no good substitutes for animals as experimental subjects, as proxies for how the human body may react to new drugs and chemical substances, and as subjects for new medical devices and surgical techniques (p. 9). 82

4 The debate between philosophers (especially animal activists) and scientists on animal experimentation is substantially rational and valid. The necessity of animal experimentation must be defended not only from the attack of scientists, but also from the attack of philosophers, particularly those who are inclined to animal rights activism. It may be viewed that the advocacy of animal rights activists is rationally pointless since animals are non-rational beings, which is why neither are they properly attributed as having rights nor capable of asserting rights. This, notwithstanding, the advocacy of animal rights activists is valid because it has a rational basis. In fact, it is based on the philosophy of Peter Singer who contends that animals can suffer, a characteristic that animals share equally with humans, which is why humans should take animal suffering into equal consideration (Singer as cited in Pojman, 2009, p. 88). We are not saying, though, that we agree with Singer and the animal rights activists. Our only point is that animal activists use reason to back up their advocacy, which is why it is unfair to brand their debate with scientists as polarized and irrational. And animal activists must be dealt with seriousness because, more than their rational advocacy, they pose an urgent and important issue. Finally, the greater issue between the philosophers-animal rights activist and the scientists is that the pressure caused by philosophers-animal rights activists, and the consequence if they succeed are too crucial and vital to be ignored by scientists. Scientists have to be more open to the public about the inevitability and necessity of animal experimentation. More importantly, they have to convince animal rights activists, who, if not well-informed and persuaded, will always attack the value of animal experimentation (Matfield, 2002, p. 152). Needless to say, their pressure is not without significant impact. If they succeed in absolutely stopping the conduct of animal experimentation, the consequence on the advancement of researches for the betterment of human health will be disastrous. We need animal experimentation so badly that we cannot afford to put it to the risk. And, we think that viewing the debate between the animal rights activist and the scientist as polarized and irrational and therefore unimportant and misleading may cause us to set aside and to fail in addressing the very vital issue as well as the significant impact posed by animal rights activists. The issue on animal experimentation is not really about its being absolutely good or absolutely bad. To our mind, in most cases, there is nothing which is perfectly good nor perfectly bad, which is why it is unwise to take absolutist positions. Something may be insignificant or bad in a certain context, but it may be good, significant and even necessary in another context. Animal experimentation is pretty much the same. Animal experimentation is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, depending on the circumstances. In some situations, animal experimentation is good, necessary or a necessary evil if you will. Certainly, in these situations, we should not be blind to the fact that we do need animal experimentation. And though our hearts break when we see a cat experimented on, this we can bear if it can spare our beloved children from suffering and harm. 83

5 REFERENCES Carlson, P. (1995). Why We Don t Need Animal Exprimentation.Wall Street Journal,8-20) Ellen. F.P. (2002). Why Animal Experimentation Matters.Society. Gluck, J. P. & Bell, J.(2003). Ethical Issues In the Use of Animals in Biomedical and Psychopharcological Research.Psychopharmacology. Springer Verlag Matfield, M. (2002). Animal Experimentation:The Continuing Debate. Perspectives. Vol. 1) McMillan Magazines, Ltd. O Neill, C. (2009). Animal Experimentation is a Fraudulent Scicence. Nursing Standard. Vol. 23, No. 23. Singer, P. (1975).The Case for Animal Liberation.Animal. Animal Liberation.Pimlio. UK Tracey, TL & Srebrolow G. (2007). Research Ethics Approval for Human and Animal Eperimentation:Consequences of Failing to Obtain Approval Including Legal and Prodessional Liability.J. Journal of Canadian Chiropractic Association. 51(1): Editorial Comment.(2007) Animal Research: The Debate Continues. Journal of Internal Medicine Blackwell Publishing Ltd 84