THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN ANIMAL TESTING
PROPOSITION
In this debate "testing" should be defined as all testing on animals
including, medical research, cosmetics, toxicology testing, and
psychological research involving animal subjects. Most existing bans on
animal research, when they have been implemented, have involved some
form of disciplinary action by a professional body and the possibility of
criminal prosecution.
Medical research is the hardest case for proposition in this debate to
prove, since it has previously yielded substantial benefits for humanity,
while contemporary animal research continues to contribute demonstrably
to the speed and efficiency with which new scientific breakthroughs are
achieved. Focusing the proposition case on toxicology, or cosmetics alone
would divert the debate into an area of law and ethics that is settled in
most respects: many states around the world have instituted bans using
animals to test cosmetics and the toxicity of domestic cleaning products.
Thus the best proposition strategy is to focus on the hard case of medical
research.
Animal research has been used for several centuries as part of efforts to
better understand the world around us. Almost all states actively research
on animals at present. The total scale of all research on vertebrates is hard
to measure, but according to some estimates it could be as high as
115,000,000 animals per year, with the vast majority of these being
euthanized at the end of the period of experimentation.
The pharmaceutical industry spends a significant amount of time
conducting research on animals. Due to the relative paucity of drugs that
make it on to the market place after the initial testing phases, the global
cost of each successful new drug in terms of animal lives is around 5.75
million animals. By contrast the now shrinking industry sector on chemical
safety testing using animals, uses around 860 animals per chemical when
screening for carcinogens (cancer-causing substances).
Whilst much the research described above is categorized as causing
minimal pain and suffering, figures obtained in 2010 show that in the USA
alone 97,123 animals were used in research likely to involve pain and
suffering, where pain killers and sedatives would not be administered.
However, it should be born in mind that this figure is equal to only 8.5%
of the total number of animals used in research activities covered by the
US Animal Welfare Act - but the act does not cover mice, rats, birds or
fish.
The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree
rather than kind. Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and
physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey
meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor,
and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has
observed the behavior of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our
reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing
feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in
appearance and behavior (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal
sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics is
surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of
argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue
of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes
animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we
suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging
to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any
other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and
racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism.
Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even
if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority
of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With
115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue.
Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing
domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it
hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviorally abnormal animals,
often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. It is
prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved
to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem
merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the
capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should nonetheless be
banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals.
As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for
experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will
never know how much we will be able to advance without animal
experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal
research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some
chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states,
required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and
technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so
there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now
know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers
allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on
live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react
when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even
human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for
experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the
likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of
animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for
research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal
research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern
research has no excuse for using animals.
It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a
capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess
interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a
person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments.
We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this
debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This
would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such
unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both
animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be
abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely
disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could
maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by
adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting
experimentation upon animals.
Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be
treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner
that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research.
Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
in the UK exist to protect these organizations, from what would otherwise
be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group
within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal
suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about
persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple
maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be
enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of
animals by everyone in society.