The Ethics of Animal Research:

1
The Ethics of Animal Research What Are the
Prospects for Agreement? David DeGrazia
2
BIOMEDICINE AND ANIMAL ADVOCATES

• Biomedicine df. Those who work in medicine or
  the life sciences, including but not limited to
  those doing animal research.
• Animal advocates (animal protection community)
  df. People who want to protect the interests of
  animals and who think that much of the use of
  animals in medical research is unjustified.

3
THE VIEW OF BIOMEDICINE

• Because animal research is required for the
  progress of medicine and the betterment of human
  health it is morally justified.
• Those who think that it is not morally justified
  are said, by biomedicine, to be irrational,
  antiscience, misanthropic, extremists.
• Because of this, most, but not all, people in
  biomedicine think that the views of animal
  advocates should not be taken seriously.

4
PROBLEMS FOR BIOMEDICINE

• DeGrazia says that people in biomedicine have not
  engaged in the kind of prolonged and critical
  thinking that is required in order to determine
  the moral status of animals and their use in
  medical research.
• He accuses them of making philosophical and
  conceptual errors, and says that not many have
  had any ethical training and are unfamiliar with
  the literature on animal rights.
• Accordingly, few of them recognize that there is
  significant merit to the opposing position the
  position of animal advocacy maintaining that
  animal welfare and rights should be considered.

5
ANIMAL PROTECTION

• Some people in the animal protection community
  want all animal research to stop in which animals
  are harmed. Tom Regan and Evelyn Pluhar are
  examples.
• Animal research is acceptable to utilitarians
  when the benefits of the research are greater
  than harms to the animals used and the costs
  involved, but where the interests of animal
  subjects (e.g. to avoid suffering) are given the
  same moral weight that we give comparable human
  interests. Peter Singer and R. G. Frey are
  examples.
• All at least are very interested in the welfare
  of animals, and think that much of current animal
  research is unjustified.

6
DEGRAZIAS VIEW

• DeGrazia does not commit to the strong view that
  all animal research is wrong, or the utilitarian
  view, but his view shares with these views the
  framework of equal consideration of animals.
• Equal consideration for animals means that we
  must give equal moral weight to comparable
  interests, no matter who has those interests.

7
THE UNEQUAL CONSIDERATION VIEW

• DeGrazia does recognize though that there are
  arguments against the equal consideration view
  that are themselves worthy of consideration.
• The unequal consideration view gives moral
  weight to animals comparable interests in
  accordance with the animals cognitive,
  affective, and social complexity a progressive
  sliding scale view.
• This view, which is opposed to his own equal
  consideration view, is one that he thinks ought
  to be considered since he recognizes that he
  might be mistaken about equal consideration.

8
POSSIBLE POINTS OF AGREEMENT I

• DeGrazia thinks that the biomedical and the
  animal protection groups can agree on some
  important things, and have much common ground on
  which they can build.
• 1. All can agree, and should agree, that the use
  of animals in medical research raises important
  ethical questions.
• Anyone who denies that there is no ethical issue
  in using animals in biomedical research is simply
  wrong.

9
THE MORAL STATUS OF ANIMALS

• Maintaining that animals have moral status means
  that their interests are morally important apart
  from how they affect the interests of humans.
• DeGrazia The interests of an animal may be
  thought of as components of well-being. For
  example, sentient animals have an interest in
  avoiding pain, distress, and suffering. As we do
  too.
• The moral status of an animal indicates that it
  is wrong to inflict pain (misery, suffering) on
  the animal because of the pain that the animal
  experiences, and not, for instance, because the
  animal is the property of some human being, or
  because of the effect of hurting the animal on
  human beings. It is wrong because of the effect
  on the animal itself.

10
POSSIBLE POINTS OF AGREEMENT II III

• 2. Sentient animals deserve moral protection.
• An animal is sentient if it has feelings of any
  sort conscious sensations, such as pains
  emotional states, such as fear or suffering.
• At least vertebrate animals those with a spinal
  column are very likely sentient.
• 3. Many animals are capable of experiencing
  pain, distress (including fear, boredom, and
  discomfort) and suffering.
• Because these things are unpleasant, and may be
  excruciating, they deserve moral consideration.

11
POSSIBLE POINTS OF AGREEMENT IV V

• 4. Animals quality of life their experiential
  well-being deserves to be protected.
• Although talk of animal quality of life raises
  some controversial issues such as whether or
  not animals have an interest in staying alive
  what is not controversial is that animals have
  an interest in experiential well-being, a good
  quality of life.
• 5. Humane care of highly social animals such
  as apes, monkeys, and wolves - requires access to
  conspecifics. members of the same species.
• Highly social animals that are used in research
  should then have access to other animals of their
  kind.

12
POSSIBLE POINTS OF AGREEMENT VI VII

• 6. Very strong protections should be provided to
  certain animals (for instance, chimpanzees should
  not be killed to control population.)
• The lives of some animals should be protected in
  addition to their experiential well-being. If
  some animals have life interests then killing
  them is wrong. (Killing animal subjects in
  research is not normally prohibited, it is only
  expected that the killing be as painless as
  possible.)
• 7. Animals should not be used in research when
  there is another alternative, and search for
  alternatives should be ongoing.

13
POSSIBLE POINTS OF AGREEMENT VIII IX

• 8. Promoting human health is an extremely
  important biomedical goal.
• However, just because a goal is worthy does not
  justify any and all means of reaching the goal.
• 9. There are some morally significant
  differences between humans and other animals.
• DeGrazia points out that the views of animal
  advocates are consistent with that view, but he
  says that many people in biomedicine are not
  aware of that.

14
MORALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES I

• The principle of autonomy, or respect for the
  self-regarding decisions of individuals capable
  of autonomous decision making and action,
  applies to competent adult human beings but to
  very few, if any, animals.
• Respect for autonomy opposes paternalism towards
  individuals who have the capacity to decide for
  themselves what is in their interests.
• Since most? all? nonhuman animals are not
  autonomous, it is often appropriate to limit
  their liberty in ways that promote their best
  interests.
• Where there is no autonomy to respect the
  principles of beneficence (promoting best
  interests) and respect for autonomy cannot
  conflict.
• Where there is autonomy to respect, paternalism
  becomes morally problematic.

15
MORALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES II

• Even if both animals and humans have an interest
  in staying alive, killing humans is taken to be
  worse than killing animals, including those
  animals that are taken to have moral status.
• The view that it is worse to kill a human than an
  animal is typically supported by animal
  advocates.

16
POSSIBLE POINTS OF AGREEMENT X

• 10. Some animal research is justified.
• It is justified when a research animal is not
  harmed, or when it only involves minimal risk or
  harm to the animal.
• Some animal research does benefit humans.
• It may also benefit other animals, at least of
  the same species.
• Therapeutic research can benefit an animal that
  is used in such research since the point of
  therapeutic research is to benefit the subjects
  used in the research.

17
SOME POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT

• The following are points on which the biomedical
  and the animal protection communities are likely
  to disagree
• 1. The moral status of animals in relation to
  humans. 2. When, or in which specific
  circumstances, testing on animals that harms
  animals is justified to promote human health.
• 3. Current levels of protection for animals in
  animal research are adequate.
• 4. Animal life is worthy of moral protection.

18
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE I

• 1. Workers in animal research should be required
  to take courses in animal ethics. Such education
  would make them see that the issues are complex
  and important. In addition, education breeds
  tolerance of opposing views.
• 2. More militant animal advocates should
  recognize reasonable disagreement and cease
  attempting to intimidate their opponents.
• 3. The biomedical community should recognize and
  seriously consider animal suffering.

19
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE II

• 4. Animal advocates should give credit to
  biomedicine where such credit is due.
• 5. People on both sides should be educated in
  ethics so they can discuss the issues
  intelligently.
• 6. The animal protection people should recognize
  that at least some animal research is justified.

20
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE III

• 7. Animal research ethics committees should
  include at least one dedicated animal advocate
  who seriously questions the value of most animal
  research.
• 8. Housing conditions for research animals should
  be improved.
• 9. Both the biomedical and the animal protection
  groups can, and should, support ways of
  eliminating the pain, suffering, and distress of
  animals used in animal research.
• 10. Governments should invest in seeking
  alternatives to the use of animals in medical
  research.