Should-we-ban-animal-testing-是否應(yīng)該禁止動(dòng)物試驗(yàn)

Should-we-ban-animal-testing-是否應(yīng)該禁止動(dòng)物實(shí)驗(yàn)

THISHOUSEWOULDBANANIMAL

TESTING

Animalshavearightnottobeharmed.

POINT:Thedifferencesbetweenusandothervertebratesareamatterofdegreeratherthankind.Notonlydotheycloselyresembleusanatomicallyandphysiologically,butsotoodotheybehaveinwayswhichseemtoconveymeaning.Theyrecoilfrompain,appeartoexpressfearofatormentor,andappeartotakepleasureinactivities;apointcleartoanyonewhohasobservedthebehaviourofapetdogonhearingtheword“walk”.Ourreasonsforbelievingthatourfellowhumansarecapableofexperiencingfeelingslikeourselvescansurelyonlybethattheyresembleusbothinappearanceandbehaviour(wecannotreadtheirminds).Thusanyanimalsharingouranatomical,physiological,andbehaviouralcharacteristicsissurelylikelytohavefeelingslikeus.Ifweacceptastrueforsakeofargument,thatallhumanshavearightnottobeharmed,

simplybyvirtueofexistingasabeingofmoralworth,thenwemustaskwhatmakesanimalssodifferent.Ifanimalscanfeelwhatwefeel,andsufferaswesuffer,thentodiscriminatemerelyonthearbitrarydifferenceofbelongingtoadifferentspecies,isanalogoustodiscriminatingonthebasisofanyothermorallyarbitrarycharacteristic^suchasraceorsex.Ifsexualandracialmoraldiscriminationiswrong,thensotooisspecieism.

COUNTERPOINT:Animalsdonothavesucharightnottobeharmed;eveniftheyaresimilartohumansintermsoftheirfeelings(thatoppositiondoesnotconcede)thisrightisimpossibletoarguefor.Therightofahumannottobeharmedisapartofaquidproquothatwewillalsonotdoharmtoothers.Animalsareunabletoengageinsuchacontracteithertousortootheranimals.Animalsarenotabouttostophuntingotheranimalsbecausetheanimalthatishuntedfeel'spainwhenitiscaughtanditevenifanimalexperimentationwastobeended

itisunlikelythathumanitywouldstopkillinganimalseitherforfood,topreventoverpopulationorbyaccidentallofwhichwouldhavetobethecaseifanimalsfeelingofpleasureandpainandresultingrightshadtobetakenintoaccount.

Animalresearchnecessitatessignificantharmtotheanimalsinvolved.

POINT:Animalresearch,byitsverynaturenecessitatesharmtotheanimals.Eveniftheyarenotmadetosufferaspartoftheexperiment,thevastmajorityofanimalsused,mustbekilledattheconclusionoftheexperiment.With115millionanimalsbeingusedinthestatusquothisisnosmallissue.Evenifweweretovastlyreduceanimalexperimentation,releasingdomesticatedanimalsintothewild,wouldbeadeathsentence,andithardlyseemsrealistictothinkthatmanybehaviourallyabnormalanimals,oftenmiceorrats,mightbereadilymoveableintothepettrade.ltisprimafasciaeobvious,thatitisnotintheinterestofthe

animalsinvolvedtobekilled,orharmedtosuchanextentthatsuchkillingmightseemmerciful.Eveniftheoppositioncounterargument,thatanimalslackthecapacitytotrulysuffer,isbelieved,researchshouldnonethelessbebannedinordertopreventthedeathofmillionsofanimals.

COUNTERPOINT:Firstly,duetoourlargerandmoresophisticatedbrains,onewouldexpecttheaveragehumantohaveagreatmanymoreintereststhananyanimal,forthoseintereststobemorecomplexandinterconnected,andfortheretobeagreatercapacityforreflectionandcomprehensionofthesatisfactiongleanedfromtherealisationofsuchinterests.Thus,wecanascribegreatervaluetothelifeofahumanthanananimal,andthusconcludetheretobelessharminpainlesslykillingananimalthanahuman.Secondly,totheextentthatresearchonanimalsisofbenefittohumans,itisthuspermissibletoconductexperimentsrequiring

euthanasiaoftheanimalsubjects.

Researchcanbedoneeffectivelywithoutexperimentingonlivingcreature.

POINT:Asexperimentingonanimalsisimmoralweshouldstopusinganimalsforexperiments.Butapartfromitbeingmorallywrongpracticallywewillneverknowhowmuchwewillbeabletoadvancewithoutanimalexperimentationifweneverstopexperimentingonanimals.Animalresearchhasbeenthehistoricalgoldstandard,andinthecaseofsomechemicalscreeningtests,wasformanyyears,bymanywesternstates,requiredbylawbeforeacompoundcouldbereleasedonsale.Scienceandtechnologyhasmovedfasterthanresearchprotocolshowever,andsothereisnolongeraneedforanimalstobeexperimentedon.Wenowknowthechemicalpropertiesofmostsubstances,andpowerfulcomputersallowustopredicttheoutcomeofchemicalinteractions.Experimentingonlivetissueculturealsoallowsustogaininsightastohowlivingcellsreact

whenexposedtodifferentsubstances,withnoanimalsrequired.Evenhumanskinleftoverfromoperationsprovidesaneffectivemediumforexperimentation,andbeinghuman,providesamorereliableguidetothelikelyimpactonahumansubject.Thepreviousnecessityoftheuseofanimalsisnolongeragoodexcuseforcontinueduseofanimalsforresearch.Wewouldstillretainallthebenefitsthatpreviousanimalresearchhasbroughtusbutshouldnotengageinanymore.Thusmodernresearchhasnoexcuseforusinganimals.

COUNTERPOINT:Mostdevelopedcountries,includingtheUnitedStatesandthemember-statesoftheEuropeanUnion,haveregulationsandlawswhichrequiretheresearchmethodsthatdonotinvolveanimalmodelsshouldbeusedwherevertheywouldproduceequallyaccurateresults.Inotherwords,scientistsarebarredfromusinganimalsinresearchwherenon-animalmethodswouldbejustaseffective.

Further,researchanimalsareextremelyexpensivetobreed,houseandcarefor.Developedcountrieshaveverystrictlawsgoverningthewelfareofanimalsusedinresearch;obtainingthetrainingandexpertadvicerequiredtocomplywiththeselawsiscostly.Asaresult,academicinstitutionsandmedicalorpharmaceuticalbusinessesfunctionunderconstantpressuretofindviablealternativestousinganimalsinresearch.Researchershaveastrongmotivetousealternativestoanimalmodelswhereverpossible.Ifwebananimalresearchevenifresearchadvancescontinuewewillneverknowhowmuchfurtherandfasterthatresearchcouldhavegonewiththeaidofexperimentsonanimals.Animalresearchconductedtodayproduceshigherqualityresultsthanalternativeresearchmethodologies,andisthusitislikelynecessaryforittoremaininorderforustoenjoytherateofscientificadvancementwehavebecomeusedtoinrecentyears.[1]Precisely

becauseweneverknowwherethenextbigbreakthroughisgoingtocome,wedonotwanttobenarrowingresearchoptions.Instead,alloptions-computermodels,tissuecultures,microdosingandanimalexperiments-shouldbeexplored,makingitmorelikelythattherewillbeabreakthrough.

Somegroupsofpeoplehavelesscapacityforsufferingthanmostanimals

POINT:Itispossibletoconceiveofhumanpersonsalmosttotallylackinginacapacityforsuffering,orindeedacapacitytodevelopandpossessinterests.Takeforexampleapersoninapersistentvegetativestate,orapersonbornwiththemostsevereofcognitiveimpairments.

Wecantakethreepossiblestancestowardsuchpersonswithinthisdebate.Firstlywecouldexperimentonanimals,butnotsuchpersons.Thiswouldbeamorallyinconsistentandspecieiststancetoadopt,andassuchunsatisfactory.Wecouldbemorallyconsistent,andexperimentonbothanimalsandsuchpersons.Commonmoralitysuggeststhatitwouldbeabhorrenttoconductpotentiallypainfulmedicalresearchontheseverelydisabled,andsothisstanceseemsequallyunsatisfactory.Finallywecouldmaintainmoralconsistencyandavoidexperimentingonthedisabled,byadoptingthestanceofexperimentingonneithergroup,thusprohibitingexperimentationuponanimals.

COUNTERPOINT:Wedonotneedtojustifythemoralvalueofseverelycognitivelydisabledpersons,althoughifwewantedto,wecouldinvokenotionsofkinship,andfamilyasprovidingajustificationforactinginanapparentlyspecieistmanner.Rather,itissufficienttohighlightthepoint,thatexperimentingonhumansofanycognitivefunction,carrieswithitcertainnegativeexternalities.Suchpersonsarelikelytohaverelativeswhowouldbeharmedbytheknowledgethattheirlovedonesarebeingusedinmedicalexperimentsforexample.Eveninthe

caseofsuchapersonwholacksanyrelatives,broadersocietyanddisabledrightsgroupscouldbeharmedbyapolicythatallowstreatingsomedisabledpersonsdifferentlytotherestofourmoralcommunity.

Suchexternalitieswouldmakeexperimentingonanimals,ratherthansuchpersons,bothpreferableandmorallyconsistent.

Wouldsendapositivesocialmessage,increasinganimalwelfarerightsmoregenerallyinsocietyPOINT:Mostcountrieshavelawsrestrictingthewaysinwhichanimalscanbetreated.Thesewouldordinarilyprohibittreatinganimalsinthemannerthatanimalresearchlaboratoriesclaimisnecessaryfortheirresearch.Thuslegalexceptionssuchasthe1986Animals(ScientificProcedures)ActintheUKexisttoprotecttheseorganisations,fromwhatwouldotherwisebeacriminaloffense.Thiscreatesaclearmoraltension,asonegroupwithinsocietyisabletoinflectwhattoanyothergroupwouldbeillegalsufferingandcrueltytowardanimals.Ifstates

areseriousaboutpersuadingpeopleagainstcockfighting,dancingbears,andthesimplemaltreatmentofpetsandfarmanimals,thensuchgoalswouldbeenhancedbyamoreconsistentlegalpositionaboutthetreatmentofanimalsbyeveryoneinsociety.

COUNTERPOINT:Wedonothavetojustifycockfightingandotheractsofanimalcrueltyasmorallypermissible.Thesearedifferentactstoanimalresearchinanimportantrespect.Itisnottheintentionoftheresearcherstoharmtheanimals,butrathertoproducehighqualityresearchforthebettermentofhumanlives.Whilstitistruethatinsomecasesharmtotheanimalsisareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceoftheresearch,thisisminimisedwhereverpossible,withpainkillers,anaesthesia,andattemptstouseotherresearchmeans.Therearemanyexceptionsinlawwhichmaintainmoralconsistencyduetotheintentionbehindtheact.Forexample,killingsomeoneformoneywouldbemurderandillegal,whilstanexceptionmight

bemadeifyouwerekillinginwar,orself-defence,astheintentionbehindtheactisheldtobebothdifferentandmorallyjust.

Animals'rightsareoflessmoralworththanhumanrights

POINT:Humansarecomplexbeingswithlargewelldevelopedbrains,thatformsizeablesocialgroups,havesignificantabilitytocommunicatewithoneanother,possessinterconnecteddesires,preferencesandinterestsabouttheworld,haveanawarenessoftheirownexistenceandmortality,andassucharebeingsworthyofmoralconsideration.Animalstooexpresssomeofthesecharacteristicstosomedegreeandthusanimalstooareworthyofmoralconsideration.However,animallivesandhumanlivesareofunequalvalue.Thisisduetothefactthatnoanimalpossessesallofthesecharacteristicstothesamedegreeastheaveragehuman,orevencomesparticularlyclose.Thusanyrightsascribedtoanimalsshouldbetruncatedrelative

totherightsweascribetohumans.[1]Thereforeanimalsshouldnotrightlypossessthesamerightstonotbeexperimenteduponashumansmight.Totheextenttowhichcausingsomeharmtoanimalsbringsgreatbenefittohumans,wearemorallyjustifiedincreatingsomemoralharm,toachieveafargreatermoralgood.

COUNTERPOINT:Toarguethattheendsjustifythemeansdoesnotjustifyresearchuponanimals.Firstlywedonotknowtheextenttowhichanimalsarecapableofholdinginterestsorexperiencingsuffering,astheyareunabletocommunicatewithus.Oursharedsimilaritiesgiveuscausetobelievetheymusthaveatleastatruncatedexperienceoftheworldtous,butwecannotknowthelevelofthattruncation.Thusinordertoavoidcommittingasignificantmoralharmuponabeingwedonotfullyunderstand,aprecautionaryprincipleofnon-experimentationwouldbewelladvised.Secondly,evenifwewouldbeachievinganetgainontheutilitariancalculator,thatis

insufficientjustificationonitsown.Bythatsamelogic,experimentingononepersontosavethelivesofmanycouldbejustified,evenifitcausedthemsuffering,andeveniftheydidnotconsent.Commonmoralitysuggeststhatthisisanobjectionablepositiontohold,asthemoralprinciplewouldallowustotreatanybeingasameanstoanendratherthanexistingasabeingofindependentvalue.Inshortsuchlogicwouldallowustoexperimentnotonlyonanimalsbutalsoonnon-consentingpeople,andwepositthattobeanunreasonablepositiontoholdinthisdebate.

Peoplewoulddieandsufferneedlesslyundersuchapolicy

POINT:23newdrugsareintroducedeachyearintheUnitedKingdomalone.Whilealmostallofthesedrugswillhavebeenbroughttothemarketafterextensiveanimaltesting,thenumberofanimalsusedtochecktheirsafetyonlyseemstobeahighcostwhenthebenefitsthateachdrugbringstoitsusersareinadequatelyconsidered.

Newdrugsthatareapprovedformedicalusehavethepotentialtorelievehumanpainandsufferingnotonlyforthefirstgroupofpatientsgivenaccesstothem,butalsoforfuturegenerationsofsickandsufferingindividualstoo.Considerallthelives,allovertheworld,thathavebenefittedfrompenicillinsinceitsdiscoveryin1928.Ifdrugscostmoretoresearchanddevelop,thenthatreducespotentialprofitmargins,andsomedrugsthatwouldhaveotherwisebeendiscoveredandreleasedwillfallbelowthenewthresholdoflikelyprofitsnecessarytofundtheresearch.Adoptingthispropositionwillleadtomorepeoplesufferinganddyinginthefuturethanwouldhaveotherwisebeenthecase.

COUNTERPOINT:Firstlythevastmajorityofdrugsreleasedtoday(around75%)aresocalled“metoo”drugsthataddlittle,ifanygenuineinnovationtotheexistingbodyofpharmaceuticalsinproduction.Rather,theyrepresentonlyaslightmoleculartweakonanexistingdrugline.Suchdrugsrarelysavelivesorevenrelievemuchsufferingupontheirrelease,astheyareonlyveryslightlybetter,foronlysomepatients,thanthedrugsavailablepriortoitsrelease.[1]Nonetheless,thedevelopmentofonlytechnicallynovelcompoundsisusedasajustificationforresearchonanimals,evenwhenthebenefitfromsuchresearchismarginalatbest.Secondly,eveniftherewasasmallincreaseinfuturehumansuffering,relativetoafuturewheresuchapolicywasnotadopted,itwouldbeworthitduetothesavingofsomuchanimalsuffering,andthemoralimpermissibilityofinflictingthatforourowngains.

Allthisisnotwithstandingthepropositionpointthatmuchoftheresearchdoesnotnecessitateanimaltesting.

Animalresearchisnecessaryforthedevelopmentoftrulynovelsubstances

POINT:Undoubtedlythen,themostbeneficialresearchtomankindisthedevelopmentoftrulynoveldrugs.Evenaccordingtothepropositionthisrepresentsaboutaquarterofallnewdrugsreleased,whichcouldbeseenassignificantgiventhegreatpotentialtorelievethesufferingbeyondourcurrentcapacitythatsuchdrugspromise.

Aftertheeffects,sideeffectsandmorecomplexinteractionsofadrughavebeenconfirmedusinganimalandnon-animaltesting,itwillusuallypasstowhatiscalledaphaseIclinicaltrial-testsonhumanvolunteerstoconfirmhowthedrugwillinteractwithhumanphysiologyandwhatdosagesitshouldbeadministeredin.TheriskofahumanvolunteerinvolvedinaphaseItrialbeingharmedisextremelysmall,butonlybecauseanimaltests,alongwithnon-animalscreeningmethodsareahighlyeffectivewayofensuringthatdangerousnoveldrugsarenotadministeredtohumans.IntheUnitedKingdom,overthepasttwentyyearsormore,therehavebeennohumandeathsasaresultofphaseIclinicaltrials.

Novelcompounds(asopposedtoso-called"me-too"drugs,thatmakeslightchangestoanexistingtreatment)arethesubstancesthatholdthemostpromiseforimprovinghumanlivesandtreatingpreviouslyincurableconditions.However,theirnoveltyisalsothereasonwhyitisdifficultforscientiststopredictwhethertheymaycauseharmtohumans.

Researchintonovelcompoundswouldnotbepossiblewithouteitheranimaltesting,ortremendousrisktohumansubjects,withinevitablesufferinganddeathonthepartofthetrialvolunteersonsomeoccasions.Itisdifficulttobelievethatinsuchcircumstancesanyonewouldvolunteer,andthateveniftheydid,pharmaceuticalcompanieswouldbewillingtoriskthepotentiallegalconsequencesofadministeringasubstancetothemtheyknewrelativelylittleabout.Inshort,developmentofnoveldrugsrequiresanimalexperimentation,

andwouldbeimpossibleundertheproposition'spolicy.

COUNTERPOINT:Thisagainhighlightssomeoftheproblemswithanimalresearch.IntheUKexamplecited,animaltestinghadbeendone,andthedosegiventothehumanvolunteerswasatinyfractionofthedoseshowntobesafeinprimates.Animalresearchisanunreliableindicatorofhowdrugswillreactinthehumanbody,andassuchalternativesshouldbesoughtandimprovedupon.

Animalresearchisonlyusedwhereotherresearchmethodsarenotsuitable

POINT:Developedcountries,includingtheUSandallmembersoftheEU(sinceEUDirective2010/63/EU)havecreatedlawsandprofessionalregulationsthatpreventscientistsfromusinganimalsforresearchifother,non-animalresearchmethodswouldproduceequallyclearanddetailedresults.

Theprincipledescribedaboveisalsoenshrinedinthe"3Rs"doctrine,whichstatesthatresearchersandtheiremployershaveadutytoidentifywaystorefineexperimentsconductedonanimals,sothatyieldbetterresultsandcauselesssuffering;replaceanimalsusedinresearchthenon-animalalternativeswherepossible;andreducethenumberofanimalsusedinresearch.Notonlydoesthe3Rsdoctrinerepresentapracticalwaytoreconcilethenecessityofanimalresearchwiththeuniversalhumandesirenottocausesuffering,italsodrivesscientiststoincreasetheoverallqualityoftheresearchthattheyconduct.Governmentsandacademicinstitutionstakethe3Rsdoctrineveryseriously.InEUcountriesscientistsarerequiredtoshowthattheyhaveconsideredothermethodsofresearchbeforebeinggrantedalicenseforananimalexperiment.

Thereareahugenumberofwaysoflearningaboutourphysiologyandthepathologieswhichaffectit,includingtocomputermodels,cellcultures,animalmodels,humanmicrodosingandpopulationstudies.Thesemethodsareusedtocomplementoneanother,forexampleanimalmodelsmaywellproducedatathatcreatesacomputermodel.Nonetheless,thereissomeresearchwhichcannotbedoneanyotherway.Itisdifficulttounderstandtheinteractionofspecificsetsofgeneswithoutbeingabletochangeonlythesegenes-somethingpossiblethroughgeneticallymodifiedanimals.

Finally,asnotedabove,giventhehighcostofconductinganimalresearchrelativetoothermethods,thereisafinancialincentiveforinstitutionstoadoptnon-animalmethodswheretheyproduceasusefulandaccurateresults.

COUNTERPOINT:Theopposition'sconclusionscanbeattackedinthreeways.First,countriesthatarelesseconomicallydevelopedthanwealthyNorthAmericanandEuropeanstatesarenotlikelytosupportrulesorlawssimilartothe3RsdoctrineorDirective2010/63/EU.Inthesecountries,lowanimalwelfarestandardsoftenmeanthatanimalresearchischeaperrelativetothecostofnon-animalmethodssuch

ascomputermodelsorcellcultures.

Second,acrosstheworld,researcherstendtospecialiseincertainfields.Animalresearc