Sandra Walther
Dr. Rance LeFebvre
COSMOS 2013, Cluster 7
07/31/2013
Bioethics in Animal Research
This essay will discuss the ethics behind animal research, as well as examine the case
that has been made against its use. Through extensive research done on the subject, this
essay seeks to provide the reader with a feeling for the two sides of animal research, in an
attempt to allow the reader to make an informed decision about their own position on the
subject. This essay will cover the law in effect that concerns animal research, the question of
animal rights, and the successes that animal testing has brought about in the past.
Imagine being poked and prodded with a needle, all to test for a new drug against
bacteria, without consent. Would that be acceptable if the medicine that was being produced
would eventually save countless lives? This is the basic issue behind the debate that is animal
research. Some people argue for models, taking animals completely out of the research
equation, while others advocate the continued use of animals, provided that a standard level
of care is set. This essay will follow the pros and cons of animal research, in an attempt to
show both sides of the argument.
Ever since the late sixties and early seventies, animal research has been under the
microscope. This is mainly due to a changing perspective on the relationship between humans
and the other aspects of the world that surround them. There are a few main reasons for this
change in thinking, which will be covered, but the main result is that the morals that
surrounded the use and treatment of animals in laboratories were brought into question (Fox
8).
The reasons for this growing 'caring', as it were, become more clear when the time
period is examined. Around the time when the cause against animal research was taken up,
there were huge developments in almost all areas of science, causing an increase in common
knowledge about the natural world. The spread of ideas that facilitated this was faster for the
new technological advances. This ensured that everything presented to the scientific
community was also transferred to the homes of normal people. The second factor, ecology,
came about due to a rise in popularity for the field. As the field's researchers started proving
that humans cannot “set themselves above the ecosystem of which they are a part”, it was an
easy next step to connect the ecosystem to the setting of a lab (Fox 9).
Animal research has quite a number of successes under its name, many of which are
skipped over when people attempt to bring down what happened. Some of these simply could
not have happened in a test tube, and others are much quicker and streamlined due to the
method of testing that was used. These success stories range from finding a cure for cervical
cancer among approved drugs, a project which used mice, to creating a treatment for human
children with bone growth plate problems through observation and testing of animals' bones
(UW Animal Research Achievements). Another example, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome was studied
on animal models and later tested on rats, linking the damage to a shortage of iron while the
fetus is forming. This result gave doctors something to combat the issue with, in the form of
iron supplements. Just over four million babies are born each year in the United States
(Surprising Facts about Births in the United States, par. 3). Of those four million babies,
about forty thousand are born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, making its appearance more
common than the autism spectrum disorders (FASD Center for Excellence, par. 5).
These stories are more typical than those against all animal testing would have the
public believe, including advancements in the study of Lou Gehrig’s disease, mad cow
disease, brain development, and organ transplants. Due to animal researchers, and the
animals that they worked with, the human race knows about Vitamins A and D, both of which
are now vital to our daily routines(UW Animal Research Achievements). One of the best
known successes of animal testing, the polio vaccine, removed a big disease that crippled
thousands in its course. If these are things that have happened in the past, the cure for all
cancers might not be beyond the next decade.
Do animals have rights? That depends on who you ask. However, something that most
people agree on is that humans have duties and responsibilities where animals are concerned.
If a human being uses the animal for its own, or even for the animal's gain, the animal is still
being used by the human. For that reason, the human must provide it with the basic
necessities and accept responsibility for the animal's wellbeing.
In 1966, the first and only Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was enacted. To this day, it is
the only law that regulates the treatment of animals in research. However, the way it was
written leaves out most of the research animal population. It excludes mice, rats, and birds,
which make up an estimated 90-95% of the research population. Fish and cold-blooded
species are also excluded. Specifically, the only animals that are covered by the AWA are
“dogs, cats, nonhuman primates... guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, and other warm-blooded
animals” (Laws and Regulations, par. 1). In fact, a specific side note excludes mice and rats
from 'warm-blooded animals', despite that being their rightful standing.
In the AWA, a number of conditions are set forth that laboratories testing on the
covered species must provide. Written in law, there are minimum standards for the housing,
handling, feeding, veterinary care, and for species like the chimpanzee, their psychological
well-being. According to the AWA, institutions must create an institution's animal care and
use committee (IACUC), to oversee all of the tests done on animals in that institution. The
IACUC reviews and approves or denies research protocols that use animals in their testing,
inspects the labs where the work is done as the research is going on, and goes over the
facility's care program. The IACUC holds the ultimate control in each research facility, and if
a project requires to go outside what is set out in the AWA, if the scientist can prove that it
is necessary for the procedure, and the IACUC approves it, there is no protection for the
animals through the AWA (Laws and Regulations, par. 3-4). These loopholes are some of the
turning points behind the laws, and a solid reason why new laws need to be implemented, to
ensure the safety that the AWA supposedly brought for animals.
Not all research that is done on animals is horrible, and great steps have been taken to
make sure that animals are treated well in any setting that they may be forced into. In a
hypothetical case set out by Jerrold Tannenbaum, a proposal is set before a generic IACUC
to do abdominal surgery on pigs using pancuronium, a neuromuscular blocking agent, without
administering anesthesia. Pancuronium would not reduce the pain that the pigs would feel, but
would only stop them from exhibiting it. Since anesthesia can be used without confusing the
results, and would be less traumatic for the pigs, that part of the procedure is unacceptable.
The original proposal would be rejected, as violating the Animal Welfare Act. It would not be
denied on the basis of a lack of compassion for the pigs, nor by the feelings of other
researchers at the facility. It would be denied due to the wrong done to each pig, and the
ethical obligation that the people of the research facility have to the pigs (Kraus 71-72). So,
in a manner of speaking, how the scientist's coworkers felt about the project would not be
taken into consideration, only that it caused unnecessary pain for the animals being used.
Ethical obligations are not often a factor between the two factions, except in how much
they are applied. Those that advocate animal research almost unanimously agree that people
have an obligation to make sure that the animal does not suffer unnecessarily during the
course of the study. Of course, there are those against all animal research that say animal
testing is, in and of itself, an unnecessary hardship for the animal. Who is to say that, with
the right treatment, the animals might not live better than they did before the study?
According to the Animals Used in Research article, published by the American AntiVivisection Society, most rats, mice, and fish are purpose-bred, meaning that they were bred
specifically for the research. On the other hand, dogs and cats are often adopted from
shelters that are overfull, allowing them a new chance to help humanity before they are
subjected to euthanasia.
Euthanasia is still the fate that faces most laboratory animals. Euthanasia is a humane
form of death, through a medicine injected either into the bloodstream, or directly into the
heart after the animal is anesthetized. According to the AALAS, the American Association for
Laboratory Animal Science, most of the animals used in research are euthanized (Animal
Research FAQ, par. 6). This is usually done in order to obtain pathological samples to
complete the tests. Another reason for euthanasia is that not all research projects are
successful. If a cat was in a research program for a tuberculosis vaccine which proved to be
useful in stopping the infection but left the cat contagious, one would not want that bacteria
exposed to the population. In this case, and many others where the results were not safe to
be released into the public, it is better for everyone that the animals are euthanized.
In the end, animal research has a lot of pros, but it also has its cons. Both sides of the
issue have valid footing on which they base their own arguments. Perhaps animal testing is a
good thing, but tinged with too much perceived cruelty. On the other hand, maybe it is a
matter of straightforward abuse, with over-exaggerated results being leaked to cover what is
really going on. What side everyone takes depends on their moral choices and the human
animal relationship that they see. Whatever the view taken by the lawmakers, politicians, and
the groups arguing for or against, two things stand clear: Animals should not be made to
suffer needlessly, and animal research has reached wonderful treatments that have made the
world a better place.
Works Cited
"Animal Research FAQ ." American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
. N.p., n.d.
Web. 24 July 2013. <http://www.aalas.org/association/animal_research_faqs.aspx>.
"FASD Center for Excellence." FASD Center for Excellence. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 July 2013.
<http://www.fascenter.samhsa.gov/>.
Fox, Michael Allen. The case for animal experimentation: an evolutionary and ethical
perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Print.
Kraus, A. Lanny. Bioethics and the use of laboratory animals: ethics in theory and practice.
Chester, NH: American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, 2000. Print.
"Laws and Regulations." New England Anti-Vivisection Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 July 2013.
<http://www.neavs.org/research/laws>.
"Surprising facts about birth in the United States." BabyCenter. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 July 2013.
<http://www.babycenter.com/0_surprising-facts-about-birth-in-the-unitedstates_1372273.bc>.
"UW Animal Research Achievements." Animals in Research and Teaching at UW-Madison.
N.p., n.d. Web. 24 July 2013. <http://animalresearch.wisc.edu/uw-achievements/>.