Examining the Ethics, Morals, and Justifications of Animal Use in Research
– Saul Ocampo Landa

The scientific community is built around asking questions.  Questions involving the human body and its diseases, the space and its stars, Earth and its history, chemicals and their elements, and any other topic worth questioning.  One motivation usually spurs these questions: improving the world as we know it.  In recent decades with the exponential growth of scientific research, more and more animal models are being used in a plethora of fields, including human physiology, psychology, behavior, and natural ecosystems. The same motivation remains: improving the world, but for humans. Despite the many ways humans explore and the many questions we ask, one very important question remains: why do we use animals?  What about animals makes it not only reasonable and acceptable for their widespread use, but sometimes even required?

The answer to this question is given quickly and bluntly by many: the feelings animals may have are simply worth less than the knowledge they will provide, and therefore it is acceptable to use them for these purposes.  Despite its superficial clarity, this answer simply raises a greater question: what is “feeling?” More specifically, what is “consciousness?” How do we define this abstract thought that seems to be the answer to so many questions?  Ultimately at the core of the debate of animal research are the penetrating questions: What is consciousness? Are humans more conscious than animals?  

“Animals are conscious and should be treated as such” – A Lead Off Viewpoint

Recently, the long-standing question of whether or not animals (non-human animals, as the following article frequently references) has taken the front stage, even beyond the context of animal research.  In 2012, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness was released, detailing several paragraphs written by prominent neuroscientists that directly propagate the knowledge that non-human animals have the capacity to have consciousness (in the neurophysiological context).  This opens the debate: if animals are conscious and we know it, why is it still acceptable to use them in research?  In his article for NewScientist, Marc Bekoff directly states we need to start treating animals like the conscious beings they are, using the Cambridge Declaration as his weapon of choice.  Bekoff’s article is filled with scientific perspectives, specifically using the evidence and conclusion of a consciousness in animals, to steadfastly advocate for ceasing animal use in research and other endeavors.  Bekoff’s article concludes with this: “We should all take this opportunity to stop the abuse of millions upon millions of conscious animals in the name of science, education, food, clothing and entertainment. We owe it to them to use what we know on their behalf and to factor compassion and empathy into our treatment of them.” Bekoff has provided his call to action in his final paragraph, but also sums up his reasoning in this last point; Bekoff’s main propaganda is consciousness.  While we may find dozens upon dozens of articles advocating for this same final call to action, Bekoff’s reasoning is what is important.  Bekoff advocates that we, as human beings and the apex species, need to provide animals with the compassion and protection their consciousness accredits them.  

This is where this debate will take us.  This is where many will be swayed to and from their beliefs.  Whether you grant animals a conscious or take it away from them, that is where we will ultimately find the core and base of the debate of animal research.

“Why do scientists use animals in research?”
An Unmoved Justification

Naturally, relating testing on humans to testing on animals is a very prevalent perspective in the animal research debate.  In another realm of the Internet, the American Physiological Society (APS) openly endorses and defends the use of animal research in modern experiments.  Here, the APS uses the consciousness lens from a different perspective; instead of asking the question of whether other animals are conscious, we are instead provided that humans are definitely conscious, and thus human testing would be wrong:   “However, the most important reason why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease.” The word “wrong” is very important in this context.  By directly attacking the same experiments on humans, the APS defends animal research.  We can ask ourselves this: why are animals not given the same protections as humans?  Once again, the answer lies in the conscious perspective.  Rather than attempting to justify a conscious (or a lack of) in animals, the APS instead provides that human beings are known to be conscious and are able to process feelings and emotions.  Therefore, it would be wrong to experiment on humans because of their conscious.  We have again seen the underlying value of consciousness and awareness in this debate: since humans are conscious and have emotions and feelings, we cannot perform the same experiments on them that we do every day on other animals.  

“The ‘Necessity’ Of Animal Research Does Not Mean It’s Ethical”
A Further Perspective

The topic of animal research has been polarizing for decades. In this sense, many have taken the stance of fighting the status quo we see of testing on animals without a second thought.  For example, NPR’s Samual Garner writes a very direct opinion piece on how (un)necessary it is to use animals in research.  Garner believes research can be complete with other alternative methods.  However, a beginning paragraph provides a large insight into how Garner defines this lack of necessity: “While nonhuman animals cannot provide consent to research participation, we have reasoned in the case of humans that an inability to consent entitles an individual to greater protection and not lesser protection.”  In this case, Garner has established that animals do not have an ability to provide consent for their use in research.  This relates back to an animal’s conscious: if an animal was obviously conscious and able to provide consent, opposition like Garner may be more willing to support its use in research.  Garner relates this back to humans: since humans are obviously conscious and can provide their consent, the same should be established for animals.  Instead, because they cannot provide consent and do not have the conscious ability to do so, the scientific community should actually provide more protections towards animals.  Garner has placed a lot of weight on the lack of consciousness and consent of animals, as this quote is the foundation for his stance and his article.  Once again, we see the thread of an underlying, deep, perhaps even subconscious value in a perspective. Animal testing is wrong because we do not see a conscious, argues Garner.

Who, what, and when to believe: An open conclusion:

           We have examined the broad, polarizing debate of animal research in science and its many caveats and justifications for the way it stands.  One can simply defend either perspective as “wrong” or “right,” but asking deeper questions provides much more meaningful answers.  In examining superficial questions on animal research, we discovered much profound, long-set justifications for such perspectives.  Who defines consciousness?  What value does a consciousness grant someone or something?  Why is consciousness such a value in this debate?  As scientific advancements (with and without the use of animals) continue to emerge, perhaps one day we will see more definite answers to the question of consciousness.  Perhaps, there will be a definite answer on what is right and wrong with animal research.  Until then, we can take solace with what we know of our own consciousness, poking and probing at superficial questions like this one and conducting experiments of our own.

Articles Referenced

Bekoff, Marc. “Animals Are Conscious and Should Be Treated as Such.” New Scientist, 19 Sept. 2012,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such/#.UcLtmhZNYRk.

“Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?” American Physiological Society > Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?,
http://www.the-aps.org/mm/SciencePolicy/AnimalResearch/Publications/animals/quest1.html.

Garner, Samual. “The ‘Necessity’ Of Animal Research Does Not Mean It’s Ethical.” NPR, NPR, 14 Feb. 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/02/14/464265210/the-necessity-of-animal-research-does-not-mean-it-s-ethical.