Is There a Need for a More Expansive Use of Ethics and Values in Reflecting on the Use of Animals in Scientific Research?

Abstract

Simple SummaryDebates about animal research are often polarized. On one side, increased knowledge, medical treatments or enhanced animal production are seen to justify harms. On the other, animals have rights constraining their use. Both sides fail to provide adequate support for this contentious use of animals. Reflecting the richness of ethics, it is suggested that empathy and respect for the animal, and greater acknowledgement of the value of experiences and care could also be considered. Along with a more informed understanding of the benefits of research and of the aims of animal rights, a more sophisticated ethic may reflect the common ground between the poles of the debate.AbstractAlthough reflecting a long tradition of moral reflection that the use of animals is acceptable as long as it is humane, the tension between causing harm to animals in research and the benefits to humans can nevertheless be troubling. Utilitarian arguments that appeal to the value of those practices in sustaining and enhancing human lives, and rights-based arguments which seek to constrain them, can be inadequate. Reflecting a more engaging, inclusive and sophisticated understanding of human activity, justification for animal use could be expanded to reflect the fullness and richness of ethical thinking. This might see more explicit inclusion of perspectives borne of virtues, caring, experiences, and respect for the essence of the animal, and different ways of understanding and knowing animals, values drawn from the middle ground of commonly acceptable human-animal relationships. Such values, already clearly evident in research, could be more widely integrated into arguments justifying animal use. A more expansive approach would not only reflect reality and acknowledge that costs and benefits are shared more widely, but it might result in more equitable, effective and humane science. It might also serve to reduce some of the tension long evident in the relationship between humans and animals.

Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties?

“…In the extreme, a rights-based framework calls for the total abolition of all animal research, as Tom Regan argued based on the idea that animals have inherent value as living creatures [ 42 ]. However, a minimalist view of animal rights would be that animals should have the right to freedom from “useless pain or misery” [ 43 ]. The usefulness of the animal’s suffering here invokes consequentialism—it is the benefit for science and health that permits the research.…”