The Ethics of Animal Experimentation

Psychologists do research on animals to learn more about behaviour and physiology. The knowledge gained can help people and animals alike. Although much research in psychology uses people as subjects, research with animal subjects continues to be essential for answering questions that require experimenting on animals, and this issue is being argued; are humans, as the dominant species on earth, allowed to conduct experiments on animals. Since Charles Darwin's work, the idea of animals evolving into people, psychologists have worked to understand the basic principles and processes that underlie the behaviour of all creatures, human and nonhuman, which has helped to develop our own species, and in doing so, help others. Psychologists want to learn how different animals learn, think and behave, because human physiology and behaviour resembles that of other animals, experiments using animals have lead to the better understanding and treatment of diseases, and discoveries of the origins of human life. The main issue over the use of animals in experiments is ‘whether it is right to place the well-being of humans above that of animals’.

Firstly, the use of animals in experiments is such a debateable subject because of speciesism, the discrimination and exploitation based upon a difference in species, and whether it is possible to justify the suffering of animals through scientific gain. Being able to justify suffering is seen as immoral, and unethical, as present society and the laws that govern it are based around the principle of equality, for example; freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial. Equality requires all suffering to be counted equally, and therefore experimenting on animals is hypocritical, and socially unacceptable, “We cannot defend our scientific work with animals on the basis of the similarities between them and ourselves and then defend it morally on the basis of differences” - Roger Ulrich (1991). However, each experiment using animals should be fairly considered and investigated, as the proper principle to apply is that the reduction of human suffering is our first priority and the prevention of animal suffering or death is secondary to that, although still important. This means that if there is a good chance that an experiment will result in an important medical breakthrough that will reduce human suffering and death then it is justifiable to allow animal suffering. This is important to ensure the survival of our species.

Although in principle it is justified to be anthropocentric, caring and centring around human life, over others, in practice it is possible, and ethical, to keep animal suffering to a minimum. It is possible to experiment on animals without being cruel to them, by using anaesthetics wherever possible and keeping animals in clean, comfortable, and healthy conditions. However, in practice, these conditions are not always kept, and animals can be abused and mistreated. This is why Bateson (1986) attempted to resolve difficult decisions regarding experiments by outlining three criteria; the certainty of beneficial impact, the quality of research (according to the British Psychological Society’s guidelines) and the lessening of animal suffering.

A network of animal protection organizations formed to create ‘Mobilization for Animals’, and declared that animals were excessively shocked, starved, put in total isolation chambers and made ‘the victims of extreme pain and stress, inflicted upon tem out of idle curiosity’. This group does imply that a lot of psychological experiments use and abuse animals, in fact it is only 7-8% of experiments, and studies from ‘Colie & Miller, 1984’ and ‘Gollup & Suarez, 1985’ have shown that none of these abuse allegations were true. Although the range of species that have been used in various studies in psychology is large, 90% of the animals used have been rodents and birds, mainly rats, mice, and pigeons. Only about 5% of the animals are monkeys and other primates, and use of dogs or cats is very rare.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (1991), some 20 million animals in the US, plus 3 million British and 2 million Canadian animals are used in experiments each year, which is less than 1% of the 6 billion animals killed each year in these countries. Researchers claim to conduct experiments on only 200,000 of these, and care for them under humane regulations. Shelters in these countries kill ten million a year. Though, this doesn’t justify experimentation, for the same reason we do not experiment on prisoners on death row, if the subject was or is going to die, they should still have rights as sentient beings, having the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness.

Past experiments have shown that advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animal subjects are the most reliable test subjects. If animal experiments were banned, modern medicine would be severely damaged, and at the worst time, because unsafe products would be forced onto the markets, or never released at all. Although, over half the drugs released in the UK and the US after animal testing have been withdrawn because they were unsafe, meaning that the most reliable test subjects were not reliable at all. Also, this argument overstates the need for animal subjects, as many alternatives to animal experimentation, including growing tissue and cell cultures in laboratories, can be used instead.

I believe, that with the advent of genetic engineering, animal experiments can be taken to extremes, and animal ethics will only become more relevant and crucial to maintaining a morally correct society. So, I think there should be definite limits to animal experimentation. Because only around 7% of experiments use animals, it should be much harder to use animals in experiments. I believe all humans are fundamentally anthropocentric, and may not admit it, but unless strong moral choices (such as having a strong religious belief that we are all equal, or making a moral pact to live in equality) are made in a persons life, they will view themselves as superior over animals, we have the power to kill or breed them as we wish, so why not the power to experiment on them? Taking all this information into account, I have decided that animal experimentation is morally right, although I do not agree with irrelevant testing, for example; testing make-up on animals is wrong on all counts, failing in Bateson’s guidelines by having suffering and little benefit. In making this choice I have decided to value my life more than a rats or pigeons, and it does not feel morally right, but because it is the lesser of two evils, the other choice being the crippling of scientific research. I believe in our society, if two choices have to be made, one is ‘good’ and the other ‘bad’, without any exceptions, this prevents us, as humans, from questioning our own morality and superiority, and this self-righteousness, ironically, has lead us to become the dominant species on Earth and have power over all other species. I am not happy that I believe animal experimentation is morally right, but, it is the best choice for humanities future, albeit an anthropocentric one.