Ferrater Mora Oxford Centre for

Review Author(s): Bernard E. Rollin The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments by Andrew Knight Source: Journal of Animal Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 2013), pp. 110-112 Published by: University of Illinois Press in partnership with the Ferrater Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.3.1.0110 . Accessed: 24/04/2013 14:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Press and Ferrater Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Animal Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.174.138.193 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:43:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 110 Journal of Animal Ethics, 3 (2013)

The Costs and Benefits of Animal Ex- the most powerful sanction—self-interest— periments. By Andrew Knight. (London, the anticruelty laws were only there for so- England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 254 pp. ciety to manage sadists and psychopaths Hardback. £50. ISBN: 978-0-230-24392-7). unmoved by self-interest. As society began to worry about animal suffering attendant Bernard E. Rollin on “normal” animal use, such as intensive Colorado State University agriculture and animal research, both of Andrew Knight’s book The Costs and Ben- which created animal pain and suffering efits of Animal Experiments should be re- that did not fall under the anticruelty ethic, quired reading for anyone concerned with society was forced to create a new societal the ethics of invasive animal experimenta- ethic for animals going beyond cruelty. This tion, regardless of what side of the issue one need is evidenced by the fact that in 2004, is disposed to defend. The book provides over 2,100 bills pertaining to a well-documented account of an inescap- were promulgated across the United States able part of the debate that has hitherto in state, federal, and municipal legislatures. been lacking. Presuppositional to the creation of Certainly, conditions for and treatment legislative safeguards for animals used in of animals used in research have improved research is a basic ethical question: What since the passage of new laws in the United entitles humans to use animals in ways that States and Britain in the mid-1980s. A re- harm, hurt, kill, and distress them in re- cent literature search for “analgesia for search for human benefit? The logic of our laboratory animals” revealed almost 12,000 societal ethic for humans does not allow papers, rather than the zero papers I found humans to be used in such a way. We can- in a 1982 search. But it is doubtful that not use prisoners, developmentally disabled even today animal researchers fully un- persons, unwanted children, dangerous psy- derstand societal expectations regarding chopaths, or other socially disvalued human animal care and use, nor can they provide beings in invasive ways for the benefit of a well-formed defense of using animals in the majority or of society as a whole. The ways that harm them. researchers responsible for the Tuskegee Historically, society did not have a robust experiments in the United States involv- ethic for how animals should be treated. ing the study of syphilis on black prison- The only laws constraining animal use in ers without informed consent argued that society historically were the anticruelty laws such people were “worth less” than normal forbidding sadistic, deviant, purposeless, citizens, and thus their interests could be deliberate, unnecessary infliction of pain sacrificed for the good of the majority. It is and suffering on animals or outrageous well known that these arguments were cat- neglect. These laws, both by statute and egorically rejected when the nature of the by judicial interpretation, did not apply to study was revealed during the 1970s and, in socially accepted animal uses, such as re- fact, prompted detailed federal restrictions search or agriculture. Because the use of on the use of human subjects in research. animals in society was overwhelmingly ag- The only plausible argument in defense ricultural, aimed at providing humans with of such use of human beings is the utili- food, fiber, locomotion, and power, and tarian one arguing that such use generates because the key to agricultural success was more benefit than cost, a claim that society good husbandry and good care, enforced by has unequivocally rejected. But perhaps,

This content downloaded from 128.174.138.193 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:43:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Book Reviews 111 in the case of animals, such an argument is panzees, Knight found that fully half of them socially acceptable. If that is the case, we had never been cited in other scientific pa- are led to another level of ethical concern pers. (Number of citations is a standard about the use of animals in scientific ex- indicator of the importance of research re- perimentation. If the only justification for ports.) And because a significant number of such use is the benefit it provides, which research reports are never published at all, allegedly far outweighs the cost to the ani- one can obviously question the value of the mals, then it follows that the only allow- majority of work done on chimpanzees. able animal use in experimentation would A proponent of research on chimpanzees be that which patently and demonstrably could always respond that Knight is ignor- provides greater benefit than the cost to ing the fact that in some cases invaluable the animals. And as Knight clearly shows, results emerge from a given piece of such this is not the current state of affairs. Ani- research. But this is a non sequitur. After mals are deployed in painful ways in myriad all, his point is not to deny that on certain experiments that do not provide significant occasions valuable information comes out benefit. As I have illustrated in the past, of such experimentation. Rather, he is re- these experiments range from toxicological sponding to the claim that in general the experiments that only provide some legal benefits of such research exceed the costs protection for corporations from lawsuits to the animals. regarding product liability to experiments In his discussion of toxicity and carci- in pursuit of new weaponry, to inflicting nogenicity testing on animals, Knight again learned helplessness on animals, to seeing levels devastating criticism against relying how many bites an “intruder” animal into on such tests. In particular, he shows that an established animal colony suffers, to animal work of this sort generates many numerous other experiments augmenting false positive results, rendering such ani- knowledge that appears to be of no practi- mal testing unsuitable to serve as a basis cal value. Fully documenting the limited for creating regulatory standards. benefits in a systematic way based on the In a later chapter, Knight details some scientific literature is the task of Knight’s inherent general limitations to animal book, a work that at the very least should studies that render such studies of lim- prompt advocates of the moral acceptability ited value for extrapolation to human of animal research on the basis of benefits it health. He points out that in many cases provides to rethink their arguments. the animals differ significantly in numer- Every claim made in this book is ex- ous biological characteristics from the haustively documented. In one very timely humans they allegedly model. Routes of chapter, the issue of using chimpanzees is exposure to toxicants may and do differ examined. The United States is one of the greatly between humans and laboratory few countries that continue to allow invasive animals. Subtle (and not-so-subtle) stress- use of these highly evolved animals, humans’ ors can markedly affect animal responses. closest relatives, a policy that is extremely (Small changes in ambient temperature, controversial. Once again, supporters of for example, can make a large difference such use claim that it is essential to making in toxicity of certain substances.) And as I progress in the battle against major human have pointed out in some of my writings, diseases. Yet in his own research examining too many people doing experiments on 95 papers reporting experiments on chim- animals know virtually nothing about the

This content downloaded from 128.174.138.193 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:43:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 112 Journal of Animal Ethics, 3 (2013) animals they use, save that they model a Animals and Social Work: A Moral In- particular disease or syndrome. troduction. By Thomas Ryan. (New York, Other sections in this book are equally NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Hardback. valuable—for example, Knight’s lucid and $85. ISBN: 978-0-230-27250-7.) realistic accounts of alternatives, discuss- ing all three of Russell and Burch’s classic Christina Risley-Curtiss accounts of replacement, reduction, and Arizona State University refinement. As is the case with the rest of Thomas Ryan, a social worker who has Knight’s book, he writes in a crisp, clear, and worked in rural communities in Australia approachable style that can be read with for 18 years and who is an associate fellow profit by experts and laypeople alike but of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, that at the same time does not oversimplify has written a groundbreaking book on the or patronize. moral right of “other” animals (humans are One of the most important chapters of also animals) to be included in the concep- this book deals with the use of animals in tualization and practice of the social work education. In many cases, the alleged need profession. to hurt or kill live animals is less a peda- Animals and Social Work: A Moral Intro- gogical necessity than it is a rite of passage duction is a book that will be met with both wrapped in an ideological carapace that profound agreement and disagreement. implicitly affirms, “I was trained that way, With that said, it is important to note that I and I am perfect,” coupled with the belief am a social worker from the United States, that there is no room in science for morality, and I strongly concur with Ryan’s premise sensitivity, or compassion. This was vividly about a social work profession that is inclu- illustrated to me during my first year of sive of other animals. I especially agree that teaching in a veterinary school curriculum. we “owe it to animals to treat them in ways At that time, students were taught surgery that respect their inherent value, individu- through use of the same animals for nine ality and subjectivity, as something due to successive surgical procedures over three them” (p. 160). I have been long swimming weeks, with no provision for analgesia or against the strong current in social work that aftercare. As Knight skillfully relates, such Ryan aptly describes as being inextricably brutal approaches to teaching can and often human-centered. I have been told by a fel- do have lifelong traumatic psychological ef- low social work professor that social work is fects on students. not about animals but about humans, have In sum, this is a very brief but very com- had my manuscript submissions to social prehensive book primarily directed at the work journals labeled as unconventional or utilitarian benefits argument that attempts irrelevant, and have had master of social to justify invasive animal research. But it is work students criticize in course evaluations a good deal more than that and should be my inclusion of other animals in my social required reading for all animal advocates work practice class (e.g., “less dog, more hoping to speak with an informed voice people”). Therefore, I welcome Ryan as a and, ideally, for all nascent animal research- fellow social worker who “gets it” and ap- ers as well. plaud the publishing of this book as a step forward in the struggle to move the profes- sion forward in considering other animals as part of its moral purview.

This content downloaded from 128.174.138.193 on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:43:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions