Of Mice or Of Men?

Of Mice or Of Men?

Animal testing has always been a pressing issue with different sides forming all the time. Is it ethical? Is it humane? Are there alternatives? One of the biggest conflicts, however, is animal rights in animal testing. Do the nonhuman animals deserve the same treatment humans would give their own, or are they just that much lower? It’s a debatable question that has lasted for decades and will continue well on into the future.

Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez take multiple standpoints on the issue in their article “Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small.” They make clear at the beginning to note that nearly twenty million animals are tested on and killed annually with three fourths for medical purposes and a quarter for the testing of various products. Continuing to set the stage, they explain that nearly eight million of the said twenty are used in painful experiments while at least ten percent of those animals do not receive painkillers (Andre, 1). It is cruel, yes, they agree. And Andre et al. poses the idea from others who are against painful experiments that “pain is an intrinsic evil, and any action that causes pain to another creature is simply not morally permissible” (Andre, 1). Following up, Andre and Velasquez put into context the words of Jeremy Bentham, a nineteenth-century utilitarian, of how even though animals cannot talk or reason, they can suffer and feel pain just as humans would if put under the some of the testing animals receive. Moreover, the animal welfare activists quarrel that all creatures’ lives have value and worth and should be treated with respect (Andre, 1). Take the case of one a group of scientists cuts off the legs of baby mice. There was no respect going on in that situation, nor was there a need for such a task to be performed (the scientists wanted to see if the mice would learn to groom themselves with the stumps of their legs) (Andre, 2).

On another spin, Andre and Velasquez take on the opinions of those in favor of the painful experimentation, who argue that “society as an obligation to act in ways that will minimize harm and maximize benefits” (Andre, 2). Scientists are not naturally cruel, sometimes the use of pain relievers would interfere with the outcome of the experiment that would “vastly improve the quality and duration of human lives” (Andre, 2). Saying such, Andre wishes to point out that sometimes pain is necessary for the benefit of human kind. And human kind does take priority over animals. After all, if a human saw a baby rat or a baby human drowning, who would he rescue? The baby of course. Humans lives essentially have more value over an animal’s because humans are highly more developed and deserve more respect. Thusly, humans have moral obligations to other humans and it is the duty to try and prevent needless human suffering, which would then advocate the painful experimentation of animals (Andre, 2).

Author of “Animal Liberation at 30”, Peter Singer, would beg to differ on the ideas that humans have more value because of their ability to reason. “Although most humans may be superior in reasoning or in other intellectual capacities to nonhuman animals, that is not enough to justify the line we draw between humans and animals” (Singer, 1). Drawing the line, indeed. Singer explains that we would never, ever, consider experimenting on humans with severe intellectual disabilities, despite the fact that some of them do have mental capacities inferior to several animals. Never would humans consider putting another human through slow, painful deaths for the testing of products, or leave them in cramped, tiny cages and then slaughtering them. Singer explains that the fact that humans are willing to perform these atrocities on animals is a sign of ‘speciesism’- a prejudice that survives because it is convenient for the dominant group, in this situation all humans (Singer, 1). Roger Scruton, an English philosopher and conservative columnist, makes a point that in addition to killing animals, we, humans, inflict suffering upon them as well. However, ‘human vegetables’ - humans who are completely and utterly unresponsive to the world- are not tested on despite their unawareness to the situation and no way to defend themselves. So why is it that animals are allowed to suffer when humans of the same or less intellectual capacity are not (Singer, 3)?

Ethics take a foothold in the midst of this conflict. Peter Carruthers, author of the “The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice”, says “Ethics arise out of an agreement that if I do not harm you, you will not harm me. Since animals cannot take part in this social contract we have no direct duties to them” (Singer, 3). Singer himself follows up that on that take humans have no direct duties to generations yet unborn. For example, he calls on the idea that if we were to dump radioactive waste in a lake that would not pollute for 150 years, we’re safe, but the future generations will suffer. Don’t we have an obligation to them then (Singer, 3)? One would think so, since it will be our children and grandchildren that will have to deal with the aftereffects and undergo the punishment for our previous behavior.

In her article, “Respect for Life- Monitoring the Ethical Practice of Animal Research,” Meghana Keshavan takes another outlook on the rights of animals, this time in terms of actual experimentation. Dr. McAllister works in a research lab at Wayne State University and uses rats to try and solve the problem of Hydrocephalus, a fairly common disorder that at one time was considered untreatable, but now has the possibility of finding successful cures (Keshavan, 1). It’s not just Hydrocephalus either- many diseases and medical problems rely on the use of animal testing. After all, McAllister says, “Using animal models to conduct research has been enormously beneficial for the progress of medical science” (Keshavan, 1). A researcher in McAllister’s lab, Deren, commented on how “we do everything we can to make sure the pups are comfortable… the animals are well-fed and hydrated, live in clean, well-maintained environments” (Keshavan, 1). On the other hand, she makes the remark that “Though because of the nature of our research, we don’t need to keep them longer than about thirty days.” Added to that comment, Deren hesitantly admitted the procedure of euphemism - a scientifically correct jargon for ‘sacrificed’ or ‘euthanized’ (Keshavan, 2). To put that in perspective, despite giving the animals a clean environment, the overall outcome is still death. The same proposal is shown by Hart and Wood in their article “Use of Animals and Alternatives in College and Veterinary Education at the University of California, Davis: Institutional Commitment for Mainstreaming Alternatives.” The authors explain that “For the past decade, veterinary students have actively pressed for developing teaching methods that would not require terminal surgery” (Hart, 1) Terminal means that the subject has no hope of actually living- terminally ill. In other words, students don’t want to operate and experiment on a patient that cannot be healed; they would much rather perform a survival surgery and make a difference to an animal. As Hart says, “Students seek to gain the best educational preparation available, yet they wish to avoid causing harm or death to animals” (Hart, 1). Since the students share different opinions on these issues, finding alternatives tends to alienate some from their peers. Finding alternatives to any situation can indeed be tough. In some cases though, it can be done. Henry Spira, for instance, took on the task of trying to find alternatives for cosmetic testing on animals. Starting with Revlon, he asked the company to take reasonable steps to find alternatives, and with his way of engaging in dialogue so as not to present the companies as evil sadists, he had success in stimulating interests for a new way to test products in less painful ways (Singer, 6). Others, such as Andre and Velasquez would disagree, noting that alternatives, such as pain medications, present problems that would interfere with the research, and in that case cannot be uses. As they put it, “the benefits to humans far outweigh the costs in suffering that relatively few animals had to endure” (Andre, 2). In an ironic twist of words, though, Andre clarifies just how many animals are tested on, and it isn’t that small of a number.

But what does this all really come down to? Why should humans care if animals undergo pain and have their rights stripped away? “There is so much unnecessary cruelty,” says Fischlowitz-Roberts, the former president of Michigan Animal Rights Society (MARS). “It baffles me why people can’t explore other options, rather than needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of animals” (Keshavan, 4). Cruelty is only part of the answer. As Bentham’s views supported, “pain is an intrinsic evil whether it is being experienced by a child, an adult, or an animal. If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human being, it is just as wrong to inflict pain on an animal” (Andre, 1). The idea of harming others is an idea many don’t want to consider, but when it comes to the ‘lesser’ animals, the nonhuman ones, many don’t balk as much as they should. It’s still pain. It’s still felt and it still hurts. On the other hand, when it comes down to it, nearly every human would hold a human’s life in higher regard, and thus testing most continue in order to benefit humans. McAllister wraps this point up nicely when he says, “But at the end of the day, animal experimentation is all about the greater good you can accomplish- no matter how others may distort it. Hell, I’d go to jail for my research. Because I think it’s crucial. And I think that it’s absolutely worth it” (Keshavan, 5). So, why do we care about animal rights? We care that animals are getting hurt. Yet we care about benefits that help us, the humans. Which one takes precedent over the other? Are we for of mice or of men? In the end, there is no real answer. Just more questions and more tests and more experiments and more people debating on what should be the answer. And the ironic thing is, there never really will be one.

Sources

1. Andre, Claire & Velasquez, Manuel. (1998). Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small. Issues in Ethics, 1, N.3. Retrieved October 2, 2007, fromhttp://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/cures.html

2. Hart, Lynette A. & Wood M W. (2004). Uses of animals and alternatives in college and veterinary education at the University of California, Davis: Institutional commitment formainstreaming alternatives. University of California Postprints, 1530. Retrieved October 2, 2007, from http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/1530

3. Keshavan, Meghana. Respect for Life- Monitoring the Ethical Practice of Animal Research. Retrieved Oct 2, 2007, from http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/Vivisection/RespectforLife.htm.

4. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation at 30*. Retrieved October 2, 2007, from www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer04.pdf.