Team Cockroach

 

This post isn't about cockroaches necessarily, but chapter 8 in Medical Ethics is on medical research on animals. As we've come to see in previous chapters, there is an abundance of unethical research that took place before regulations were put into place. This is definitely the case when it comes to medical research on animals. A few cases were cited at the beginning of the chapter involving research on primates, Gennarelli attempting to create reproducible head injuries and Taub attempting to stimulate regrowth after surgically cutting all the nerves in one limb (Pence 193, 196). The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were involved in many of these cases, exposing the researchers' work and trying to get it shut down. These organizations, primarily ALF, also struck many other research facilities and caused damage as well as stole research animals, claiming abuse and unfair treatment. The associate director of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, CA (raided in 1984), said that 36 dogs, 12 cats, 12 rabbits, 28 mice, and 18 rats had been stolen and that "we're concerned that very important research work may not now be completed" (Pence 194). ALF, activists, and other arsonists continued gutting research facilities throughout the 80's. In 1992, the Farm and Animal Research Facilities Protection Act made it a federal crime to break into a research facility on the premises of breeding animals for research (Pence 197). In 1993, a judge ordered that the 1985 Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act be enforced, demanding that the institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) were doing more to protect their institutions than the animals (Pence 198). 

Research on animals really didn't become an issue until the seventeenth century with Rene Descartes. Due to his philosophical approach, Cartesianism, he believed that animals were merely machines and that they had no soul and therefore experienced no pain. Thus, inhumane research and procedures were performed on animals without any type of anesthetic (Pence 199). Many of the ethical questions around animal research, the controversies at least, are centered around the questions of how much pain animals feel and whether their pain is like ours. Recent studies in neuroscience are taking us closer to some semblance of conclusions, but we also have to consider biases. For example, many societies throughout history (including ours) considered people of color and women to be "obviously" and "naturally" inferior to white men. This could potentially roll over into the issue of speciesism, and whether or not the equal ability to interact or suffer is equal to the rights that should be granted an individual--not all humans are equal in these things, so is it simply by virtue of being human that rights are granted? And should that always be the case?

The Official View on animals in research is that drugs must first be tested on animals to screen for toxicity and to indicate possible benefit to humans, and some researchers believe that "every major medical advance of the century has depended on animal research" (Pence 204). There are many critiques to this view, however, including the argument that the infliction of pain on animals is inherently wrong, along with claims that the Official View is based on bad science (testing drugs, devices, and techniques on animals doesn't guarantee results in humans), and whether or not the overall cost/benefit ratio is justified (results in humans justifying the suffering of animals) (Pence 205-206). 

Overall I think it's a difficult call to make. There is a massive amount of medical research (cancer, and otherwise) that has been developed using animal models, primarily mice, that cannot be replaced and would not have been discovered without the use of animals in medical research. I don't think that larger animals and primates should be subjected to extensive and harmful research in the name of advancement, especially where the results in humans cannot be guaranteed. If there is a way in the future to use stem cells and/or utilize embryonic research to look into some of this research while keeping within ethical bounds there, it would greatly reduce suffering in those animals as well as potentially provide more reliable results for humans. The respect aspect of embryonic and stem cell research should definitely remain in place, understanding that the work involves human cells, but maintaining large centers full of primates primarily for research borders on inhumane and unnecessary, as well as appearing irresponsible. 

There are also ongoing movements pushing to dissolve the use of chimpanzees in research, as well as discussions about xenotransplantation. Chimps are very similar to humans, and most developed countries (except for the US) have completely banned research involving these primates. Ethical issues surrounding xenotransplants include the worry about transferring various diseases into humans from the modified pigs (where the genetically modified organs are coming from) and discussions about a human-animal hybrid of genomes and whether or not that is ethical. On this issue, I would say that it is worth looking into from the standpoint that organs are often faulty and can't be spontaneously generated. On the other hand, it is important to consider that not all organs (even from humans!) can be safely transplanted into a human patient, so as research moves forward there are still many aspects to be actively considered.

Animal rights and animal activism has taken center stage from time to time over the last 40 years, and they aren't inherently negative. Activist groups, and others who advocate for animal rights have made many legitimate arguments against animal research. However, even though there are many important considerations, medical research in animals has contributed to many discoveries that we would not have otherwise. It's a difficult discussion, and one that I'm confident will continue developing as further research in animal behaviors and neuroscience is published. 

Textbook reference:

Pence, Gregory. Medical Ethics: Accounts of Ground-Breaking Cases. 9th ed., McGraw Hill, 2021.