INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC lWFORMATION@ 3501 MARKET ST PHILADELPHIA PA 19104

Animal Rights and Wrongs: An Ethical View of Animal Experimentation from Graham Mitchell

Number 15 ADrii 9, 199(

The use of animals in research continues to be a divisive issue for the animal-rights movement and the biomedical community. Animal-rights activists are adept at working with the media and in politics to advance their viewpoint. Although researchers have begun to explain their position, there remains a strong nt%d to publicize the benefit derived from animal experimentation. The primary need, however, is for more open communication between both sides of the debate. In an article reprinted from the Sourh Ajican Journal oj Science, Graham Mitchell, professor of physiology, University of Witwatersrand Medical School, Johannesburg, SoUtb Africa, presents a balanced view of the ethicaf aspects of this complex issue.

The perpetuafbattle over the rights of an- on the surviving monkeys, but the issue re- imals is stronger and more emotional than mains unsettled. ever. Animal-rights advocates have not wa- The animal-rights controversy is not new vered in their quest to reduce and, in some to Curreru [email protected] In 1977 I re- cases, totally eliminate animaf experimen- sponded directly to a Science reporter who tation. On the other side of the issue, bio- used Science Cit&’on Indd data to’ ‘assess medical researchers have begun to become the impact” of Lester R. Aronson’s research more active in promoting the role that ani- on cats at the American Museum of Natural maf research plays in the advancement of History, New York.3 Aronson’s research and practice. involved the removal of glands, nerves, and Readers may recall the 1981 case of the tissues in order to study animal sexual be- “, ” which became havior. Animal-rights activists claimed that a symbolic rallying point for the animal- Aronson was cmelly abusing the animals for rights movement. Edward Taub, a research- research that had’ ‘no value, ” and eventual- er at the Institute for Behavioral Research, ly the museum was pressured to abandon the Silver Spring, , was charged and research. 4 Our citation analysis showtxl that convicted of animaf cruelty. Afthough the Aronson’s work was reasonably well cited conviction was later dropped on a technicali- in his field and, by this measure at least, had ty, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) some “value.” withdrew its grant and retained custody of Recently, a researcher’s laboratory at the the monkeys. Recently, People for the Eth- School of Veterinary Medicine, University ical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a radical of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, was burglar- animal-rights organization, secured a tem- ized.s Adrian Morrison, a professor of porary restraining order to prevent eutha- anatomy who uses cats to study sleep-depriv- nasia. After the order was lifted, researchers ation, is a vwal supporter of animaf models experimented on and subsequently eutha- in biomedical research. His research is be- nized one of the monkeys. I NIH scientists lieved to have led to the identification of the say the research performed on the ‘6Sifver human rapid eye movement sleep behavioral Spring monkey” could help who disorder and to have implications for the suffer from nerve injuries. PETA intends to treatment of seizures and diseases such as return to court to prevent experimentation epilepsy. 6 Animal-rights activists have ac-

114 cused Morrison of using improper anesthe- Drug Abuse, and Mentid Health Adminis- sia and have said that his research is not ben- tration within the Department of Health and eficial to humans. The Human Services, discussed the issue, Be- Front (ALF) claimed responsibility for the lieving that the passive approach taken by break-in, while a spokeswoman for PETA the scientific community has fostered the said that the action should “be taken as a growth of the animal-rights movement, he mild warning.”3 This is an example of the urges clinical researchers to publicize ex- terrorist tactics used by some extremists in amples of the human benefit of their animal the animal-rights movement to intimidate re- research. searchers and the public through brute force, Goodwin also feels that scientists are rather than to persuade them through ratio- time-pressured by their research responsi- nal debate. bilities and fmd it difficult to meet the public This is not to say that all animrd-rights ad- challenges of the animal-rights movement. vocates are extremists. Most work within the He proposes incentives for getting involved system and are both politically aware and in defending and promoting animal experi- media savvy. For example, Trans-Species mentation—national awards, scientific fel- Unlimited (TSU) was instrumental in pres- lowships, and so on. 10Scientists could then suring Michiko Okarnoto, professor of phar- make a contribution to the animal-rights macology, Cornell Medical College, New cause without derailing their career advance- York, to terminate 14 years of research on ment. This idea has merit and deserves se- barbiturate addiction using cats.T They rious consideration by professional sccieties picketed the laboratory, passed out litera- and private foundations. ture, got Congress involved, sent letters, and The main organization speaking for bio- made phone calls. Finally, in September medical researchers tcday is the National 1988, Okamoto gave up her $600,000 Association for Biomedical Research federal grant from the National Institute on (NABR), formed by the 1984 merger of tie Drug Abuse. Association for Biomedical Research (orga- Animal-rights groups have not only be- nized in 1979) and the National Society for come much more influential, but have Medical Research (1945). NABR tries to ed- grown considerably in number. These ucate the public and legislators on the sci- groups range from radical to moderate in entific and societal value of animal research their approach to the animal-rights cause. and lobbies against bills that would restrict Radical groups, such as PETA, TSU, and or ban animal research.g Other organiza- the International Society for Animal tions are also speaking out in favor of us- Rights4 are most often in the news. ALF, ing animals in research. Patients who have in particular, openly supports violence and profited from animal research are forming destruction and has been identified by coalition groups like the Incurably Ill for An- Scotland Yard as an international terrorist imal Research (iiFAR) in Bridgeview, Illi- group. 8 These uncompromising groups in- nois. 1I While this is a positive sign, more tend to stop animal research altogether, im- needs to be done to explain the human cost mediately and at any cost. More moderate of limiting animal research. groups, such as the American Society for NABR points out that medical research is the Prevention of slready being affected by restrictions on an- (ASPCA), the Institute, rhe imal use. Compliance with amendments to Humane Society, and Inter- the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, passed in national, are not primarily concerned with 1985, and new US Department of Agricul- quick and drastic bans on animal experiment- ture rules will cost an estimated $2 bil- ation. They simply want to ensure humane lion. 12Medical costs are sure to rise as a treatment of anirnals.4 result. And worse, work on life-saving and The biomedical community itself is not life-enhancing medical research may be without vocal advocates of its position. In impeded. a recent article in fie Scientist”,9 Freder- The fact is that animal research has been ick K. Goodwin, who directs the Alcohol, vital to breakthroughs in cancer, mental ill-

115 ness, and heart disease.7 According to a re- placed by alternative methods in the near fu- cent iiFAR report, using animals in research ture. has enabled scientists to develop antibiotics to fight infections and to discover insulin to Graham Mitchell: A Brief CV control diabetes; to raise the cure rate for children with acute lymphocytic leukemia In the following article reprint, Graham from 4 percent in 1965 to 70 percent in Mitchell, professor of physiology, Ursiver- 1988; and to develop immunizations against sity of Witwatersrand Medical School, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, and polio. 11 Johamesburg, South Africa, discusses the Work with dogs and other animals has led ethical aspects of the animal-rights issue. to open-heart surgery, the cardiac pace- Born in 1944, Mitchell possesses a strong maker, and organ transplantation. And, in background in veterinary science. 15 In the monumental fight against AIDS, the use 1971 he became a registered veterinary sur- of appropriate animrd models is critical to geon and is currently a member of the South the development of vaccines and thera- African Veterinary Association, the Royal pies. 13 College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British The scientific community has shown its Veterinary Association, the Physiological willingness and initiative to change. Recent- Society of South Africa, and the Zoological ly, two international drug and Society of Southern Africa. In 1972 Mitchell firms, Avon Products Inc. and Revlon Inc., began lecturing at the University of Wit- announced that they would no longer use the watersrand MedicaJ School, where he pres- controversial lethal dose 50 and Draize ently serves as Ad Hominem Professor of tests.g Colgate-Palmolive has developed a Physiology and honorary professor of med- test to screen new substances on egg mem- ical education. He is also chairman of the branes, and Noxell Corporation has decided Animal Committee. to test new cosmetics on mouse-tissue cul- Mitchell describes two highly divergent ture.4 views of the use of animals in research: that According to a recent article in the Econ- animals are to be considered instruments omist, 14 the number of laboratory animals with their lives having no moral si@~crmce used in the US and the UK has halved since and that animals, like humans, do indeed its peak in the mid-1970s. Much new re- have rights and ought not to be subjected to search can be conducted on cells rather than needless pain and suffering. His conclusion animals. Laser fluorimetry, a molecular is shared by many involved in thk contro- tednique that can measure the biological ac- versy: some middle ground must be reached tivity in a single cell, has improved the quali- whereby both animals and humans are pro- ty of data collected from in vitro tests. Neu- tected. Some animal activists shotdd rely on ropharmacologists no longer need to study more rational means to make their point. lrXillygrOUpSOf-S tOtt3t 03tlill drugs. More scientists should stress the importance Now they can measure the chemical and of using animrds to advance medicat re- electrical signals that pass between isolated search and health care. And, perhaps most nerve synapses within one animal. Several impmt, ~tb the a-rights movement new’ ‘test-tube” methods have also been de- and the biomedcrd research community veloped: the reassociation of dispersed should learn to communicate better-to embryonic cells can predict possible birth debate this crucial issue openly and fairly. defects, the coagulation of crab’s blood can monitor fever-causing potential, and skin ***** cell cultures can screen for probable aller- gy causes. But it is unlikely that direct ani- My thankrto Cynthia Miller for her help mat experimentation will be completely re- in the preparation of this essay. ~,w H

116 REFERENCES

1. Andersan G C. Fight over Maryland monkeys. Nature 343(6256):297, 25 January 1990. 2. Garffeld E. Anirnat experimentation-when do the ends justi~ the means? ,%ays of cm in~ormndon sciendsr.’ dre awardr of science nnd other essays. Philadelphia: 1S1Press, 1985. VOL7. p. 26-36. 3. ------Citation analysis and the anti- controversy. Parts 1 & 2. Jbid., 1980. Vol. 3. p, 103-8; 316-25. (Reprinted from: Current Contents (17):5-10, 25 April 1977; (48):5-14, 28 November 1977,) 4. Fader B J. pressuring Perdue. New York 7imes Mug. 26 November 1989. p. 324; @, 72. 5. Rosenberg A S. Vet schnnl break-in denounced. Phifndelphia Inquirer 16 January 199Q. p. l-B; 3-B. 6. Mnhowatd M & Schenck C H. Letter to cdhor. (TWO views on Pem researcher.) Phikrdelphia Inquirer 31 January 1990. p. 14-A. 7. Lyatl S. Pressed on animat rights, researcher gives up grant. New York Times 22 November 1988. p. Bl; B5. 8. Smith S J, Evans M, SullJvan-Fowler M & Hendee W R. Use of aninrafs in biomedical research. Arch. Inrera. Med. 148:1849-53, 1988. 9. Mervis J. U.S. ofticiek defend animal research. J7re Scienris/ 4(l): 1; 4, 8 January 1%0. 10, Animal research versus humane use: the struggle to sustain our research advances. (Jnterview with Frederick K. tkodwin.) FASEB J. 3:2 S63-4, 1989. 11. Meet aur members: Royarme Holtins-Sacramento, California. iiFARsighterJ Rep. 2(4):2-3, November 1988. 12. Carey J. Witl refief for lab animeds spell pain for consumers? Bus. Week (3131):43-4, 30 Drtuber 1989. 13. Gardner M B & Luciw F’ A. Animal models of AIDS. FASEB J. 3:2593406, 1989. 14, Alternatives to animals. Economis/-London 313(7631): 135-6, 2 December 1989. 15, Mltcheff G. Persoaat communication. 7 March 1990.

Reprinted with permission from S. Afi. J. Sci. f?%2E5-S.May 19tt9.Copyright 1989 by Asmcistcd Scientificand TechnicalSocieries of 8QuthAfrica.

Guarding the middle ground: the ethics of experiments on animals

“Graham Mitchell

Opposition to the ways in which anima!s are treated, whether in factory farming or scientific research, is growing. The users of animals should be aware of the moral dilemma that their activitiespose, so that theprocesses used to resolve it become an accepted part of academic and public Ilfe.

There is a view that there is no ethical or laboratory animals.3 At the other, less morall issue involved in using animals for democratic extreme, a dozen threats of experiments. If so, there is no more need death or violence to individual scientists to seek alternatives to animal experiments, and 15 raids on research institutions have or to regulate animal experiments, or, even, occurred in the USA since 1983.3In South to comment, than there is to seek solutions Africa, representations to amend existing for any moral dilemma.2 This view is laws governing animal welfare to include plainly wrong. Opposition to the ways in animal experimentation are being made, which animals are treated, including op- and, although 1am unaware of any acts of position to their routine use in factory violence, opposition to animal experimen- farming and scientific research, is growing. tation is highly visible. For example, since 1980 in the , more than 35 bills and resolutions Prnfessor Mitchell is in the Department of Physiology and is Chairman of the and Contrnl have been introduced in the US Congress, Committee, University of the Whvntcrsrand, Whs 2050 calling for restrictions on the treatment of South Africa.

117 — animals which usually are the epitome of Table 1. Animal images of childhood cruelty or aggression, for example leopards and tigers, are in other circumstances held Idealised pictures of farm animals Cartoons featuring cats and mice up to be examples of courage. An exten- Idealised freedom of animals in national parks sion of this is the introduction of a theo- Pet keeping logical component, evident in the use of Beatrix Potter books/ B/ack Beau/y phrases like ‘Don’t be a beast, bean angel’, Nursery rhymes which imply a qualitative difference between Horror of dog/cock fights man and animals, which sets man apart from other animals. That there is an issue, and that there is a moraI dilemma which bears ethical exam- ination, seems plain. It follows that users Tabte 2. The reality of adulthood, of animals should be aware of the di]em- Killing of farm animals for food ma, so that the processes used to resolve Factory conditions of modern farms it become an accepted part of academic and Artificial of public life, are not seen to be obstructive A “kill” as the highlight of a visit to a national to the process of discovery, and take into park account public fears and concerns. Glorification of fox Understanding the origins of the issue Glorification of bull fighting would undoubtedly be of value. The psy- Euthanasia of old~ ill animals — chological basis of the dilemma, however, is not well understood, and moreover is Perhaps even more confusing is our poorly researched. For example, it is not ambivalent attitude towards our pets. We known why some humans form emotional bring them into our homes, give them prx- bonds with animals, bonds which vary in sonal names, groom them, and take them strength, and yet are happy to use animals to expensive doctors for treatment. But we in experiments that they would not subject a Iso suppress their natural sexuality and their companion animals to. What is aggression, ignore the parasites they bring known is that the inconsistency has its roots into our homes, and the faeces they deposit in childhood. Indeed, it has been said that in our gardens, parks and streets. And we for children there is no field of morality as punish them for acts that are not acceptable inconsistent.4 For example, Table 1 lists to us, and kilI them when they are lost, ill,, images which most of us will recognise as old or develop unacceptable traits.zg Can being part of childhood. All these images we realistically expect a rational attitude to are designed to heighten sensitivity to ideal develop in these circumstances? It seems values, values shared by humans and other unlikely. Furthermore, the chance of animals. These images do adults credit regaining some perspective is receding as because they reflect the awareness that urbanisation proceeds. [t is safe to say that adults have of the reality, shown in Table the overwhelming majority of people in 2. Given these conflicting images, however, westernised societies have never known any it is not surprising that adults have no animals other than pets. The people in our coherent, generally accepted basic moral society who do not protest about the use reference point from which they can develop of animals, and who know them best, are an attitude to animals, This confusion finds farmers and veterinarians. 30The group of expression in the everyday use of words like people who protest most are 700i’ofemale, ‘lamb’ to convey pleasurable messages, as overwhelmingly white, aged between 21 in ‘Oh, be a lamb and fetch me so and so’, and 49 years, live in suburban areas, and implying meekness, gentleness, helpfulness are wealth y college graduates. 1 Such per- and so on, and use of words fike ‘pig’ to sons are effectively insulated from the real convey something different. Perhaps even world where pestilence, famine and early more confusing for a child is that some death dog and man.

118 One response to this confusion is to cate- opposite views of the experiment being gorise animals: the result is that we find it done. easier to use in experiments animals of low This first view receives tacit support from esteem like mice and rats; vermin, pests and the notable absence of prolonged examina- the carriers of plague. Indeed about 80%’0 tion of the case by professional ethicists. of experimental animals used in experi- Ethicists examine human experimentation ments are mice and rats,s and by and large cIosely but generally ignore animal experi- people are comfortable with this. Not only mentation. Thus a 79-page-long biblio- is knowledge being generated but a poten- graphy of the most pertinent references on tial threat is being removed. On the other society, ethics and life sciences includes no hand, it is more difficult to experiment on references on animal experimentation.8 dogs and cats: experiments on dogs and This lack of attention by ethicists is striking cats were forbidden in the original 1876 ver- because in a numerical sense animal experi- sion of the Cruelty to Animals Act in the ments (compared with human experiments) UK. are an enormously greater enterprise. The The final outcome of our vacillation is number of animals involved is estimated to that most humans have highly elaborate be 140 million per year (Table 3),9 the attitudes to animals, made up of contradic- number of researchers has been estimated tory and inconsistent subsets. The conse- by Garfield10 to be greater than a million, quence of this confusion, which directly and it needs many expensive hoIding facili- affects people who use animals in experi - ties and an almost incredible concentration ments, is that two distinct, clear-cut views of intellectual expertise. Moreover, animal have gelled. Holders of the first view experiments touch every aspect of human believe that an animal is a delicate and ex- life to the extent that it has been said that pensive piece of equipment used in scien- the only things in our society not tested on tific experiments. Given a few arbitrary animals are jokes. In short, it is the sheer limits, the lives of the animals have no normality of animal experiments that makes moral significance.b Once these minimum them invisible. Besides, the benefits to man standards or limits have been met (for of animal experiments are freely recognised example, provided that wilful cruelty or to be immeasurable and continue to grow. ignorance are avoided, or once the require- Sanctioned and sustained by these power- ments of being Ucensed to perform experi- ful arguments, holders of the first view see ments on animals have been met, as in the campaigns against the use of animals in a UK), then no further issues arise. Holders clinical, scientific way. They see the cam- of this view often quote the theological paigns as reflecting a deep-seated psycho- perspective mentioned above, that humans logical need in their antagonists to prevent are unique, and different from animals, discovery of knowledge, and an animosit y and have, therefore, some moral authori- to application of the fruits of discovery. 11 ty in doing so. Furthermore, the argument They point out also that the antagonists are is sustained by considering that any other drawn from that section of society pro- attitude necessarilyy destroys the first view. tected from the consequences of ignorance. For example, compromise is seen to be un- Further, the attacks suggest that the moral thinking weakness which will lead to the standards and ethics of researchers leave idea that animals have rights.’ If animals much to be desired. Thus the attacks have rights, they would become subjects denigrate the researchers, question the rather than objects, with needs, a pattern value of their research, and support the of life, a world view, and as such could not idea of a conservative, limited world of be experimented upon and then disposed knowledge that can be coped with. This of. With this perspective most users of view is frequently published in the media. animals could not reconcile the idea that For example, Neville Hodgkinson, of the they and the animals they are using have London Sunday Times,’2 reports that the separate, different and almost certainly British government inquiry into human fer-

119 tilization, chaired by Baroness Warnock, workers in factories, to categorise people urged that a statutory body be set up to by race or skin colour. And it is easy to see regulate and govern all aspects of infertili- how it is that workers ‘sell their labour’ or ty and related issues. The body (it was said) ‘have a work capacity’ and people are refer- should be chaired by a lay person with red to as productive units or consumers several lay representatives, so that ‘doctors with turnovers or consumption calculated and scientists working in the field could be per capita. And I can understand why my subjected to the moral views of the public, university can contemplate seriously the [because] science and medicine are moving idea that students should be identified by xo fast that the need for such regulation k a number only rather than be recognised becoming more important by the day’. as individuals with a name, world view and Thus, antagonists to animal experimenta- so on, and this, remarkably, under pressure tion can be seen to be blaming current from the students themselves. This idea political, social, health and economic ills also helps to explain the mentality that con- on such a rapid supply of knowledge that demns single acts of destruction, like mankind cannot distinguish basic moral murder, while collective acts of cruelty or reference points any more.13 So societies murder, like war, are condoned. will become, if they are not already, un- Holders of this second view argue retro- governable. Mankind will be, and is being, spectively that, since the use or categorisa- dragged unwillingly to its doom by the wild tion of humans is abhorrent, so is it to use horses of knowledge. It is surely not a coin- animals similarly, Animals, thus, do have cidence that scientists usually are depicted claims, they can feel pain and can suffer, in comic books and films (for example, and these attributes cannot be dismissed. Superman or James Bond) as being drunk The idea, however, that there is a cause and with power, if not deranged or out and out effect relationship, say, between animal ex- mad. periments and war seems very far-fetched. The second view, that of informed anta- Rather, the point is that if we were to be gonists,14 is far more coherent and less so sensitive to callousness and brutality or arrogant than that which I have depicted. inhumanity that we could not conceive of This second view hinges on whether it is allowing the use of animals in experiments, ethical to use animals in experiments, and then nor could we, to give an example, con- in so doing (in a proportion of experiments) ceive of waging war. knowingly inflict pain, distress and suffer- Holders of the second view suppon their ing in pursuit of knowledge. If it is not argument by pointing out that, contrary to ethical to do so, then the use of animals the theological perspective, humans are not must be limited increasingly until it is unique. In this, Darwinian, view humans eliminated. An important buttress of this do not have attributes or a single view is the Kantian idea that use of animals characteristic that makes them different as objects rather than subjects leads to a from other animals. The attributes often hardness and insensitivity to suffering in considered to be unique to humans are human societies, which in turn leads to a an ability to make tools, a capacity for cheapening of life and exponential increase language, rationality, intelligence and in the wanton abuse, ultimately, of people. culture, especially a culture that is Lamarc - As an example, holders of this view draw kian.’t But all these attributes are present, the parallel that animals were once employ- although perhaps less refined in animals. ed, prized and protected as machines to pull The characteristic nature of a particular ploughs and drive mills. As man replaced animal then becomes the peculiar, complex these uses with machines, he exploited arrangement of attributes it has. Indeed, animals increasingly as raw material to be to expect a single differentiating quality is processed into food and to be experimented an absurd notion. Humans, in other words, J5 po55ibly for similar reasons it was upon. are not different from other animals and easy also to keep slaves, to use children as therefore have no moral authority to ex-

120 Table 3. Use of experimental animals in the world.

Number of animals Population Population + Country x Id x I@ animals

United States 90 250 2.8 Japan 13 120 9.2 Austria 8 7.5 1 Australia 8 15 2 5 55 11 France 4.4 54 12 Holland 3.0 14.4 5 South Africa 2.0 35 17 Canada 2.0 24 12 Finland 1.6 4.8 3 India 1.0 700 700 Sweden 0.9 8.4 9.3 Israel 0.5 4.0 8 Norway 0.09 4.1 46

Totals/average 139.5 12%.1 10*

* excluding India ploit them. It is life itself which is unique Resolution of the conflict lies in the crea- and must be protected, not its discrete tion of a middle ground that is comfort- parts. ” able, consistent and sustainable against No-one can suggest that one or other of pressure from both sides. A key starting these two views is the more rational or point is to accept that both animals and aesthetically pleasing such that only one humans have interests, Interests, not logically should be dominant. Nor is the rights,27 [t is then a relatively easY steP to argument substantially changed by in- argue, using the utilitarian approach and eluding the most distinctive characteristics in the framework of the inexactness of an of humans: the ability to record the past interest, that there may be circumstances and to have the prospect of a future. There in which interests of animals may have to are only the two views. Animals fit into be over-ridden in order to meet human in- either the delicate instrument -to-be-used terests. in other circumstances the reverse category or the people-with-claims cate- may be true. It would be most easy to do gory. Given this, it is plain why the issue this if a simple equation existed for calcula- of animal experimentation generates mas- tion of the weight of relative interests and sive emotional argument with no apparent another for the calculation of cost: benefit winner in sight. It is the archetypical con- ratios. No such equations exist. Similarly, flict situation and we might best be content there is no logically robust criterion for if we were to let it rest. We cannot make drawing +ines between what is permissible brutalities less brutal, nor can we see and what is not. The range of experiments without light. Such a response, though, is and of motives behind the experiments is inappropriate. As rational agents with too large. some control over our lives and an ability A more intellectual and second-level ap- to arrange our institutions to minimize pre- proach to resolution is the use of the per- dicaments of moral conflict, we should.}a suasive moral argument. This tactic is the Any other approach would simply per- one most favoured by participants because petuate rather than resolve the conflict. of its inherent characteristic of allowing full

121 expression of views and feelings. Thus it human experiments as set out in the Tokyo is common experience, highlighted by revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. media debates, that holders of the first The principal importance of guidelines view, that animals are objects, point out is that they define the middle ground. There the glaring inconsistency of opposition to is no requirement, however, that research- use of animals in experiments when animals ers follow them and no way of enforcing are exploited for so many other things as them, as they do not have the force of law. well. This inconsistency is especially Moreover guidelines, by emphasizing the irritating because animal experimentation general, avoid the judging of issues on their is the only use of animals which can lead specific merits. Thus a natural extension of to something tangible, obvious and of im- these informal guidelines is the construc- mense value. All other uses of animals are tion of formal laws to govern animal ex- either destructive or for the gratuitous perimentation. In the past it has been pleasure of humans. It is worth noting, thought that laws governing cruelty to however, the flaw in the idea that consisten- animals were sufficient. However, under cy has moral value. If consistency had in- the British Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876, trinsic moral value, if one saw a leopard a law in existence for 110 years in a coun- about to attack a child it would be inappro- try in which some five million animals are priate to intervene unless a consistent effort used by more than 10000 researchers was made to intervene every time the annually,zo not a single successful prosecu- leopard attacked any animal it might wish tion of a medical scientist has occurred. to attack. Plainly, consistency is not rele- Attempts in the USA to prosecute under vant in a moral dilemma. There is only the their Animal Welfare law have also been immediate dilemma for which consistency unsuccessful .2] Laws defining and con- is inconsequential. The level of interest of straining acts of cruelty are, in any event, both parties in the outcome is the deter- not designed to protect animals but to pro- minant of action. tect human sensibilities. 18 And laws have On the other side, holders of the second never been useful for deciding moral dis- view attempt subversion of the first view putes. All that the law can do is provide by emotional and moralistic arguments, ap- guidelines as to what society will tolerate proaches which massage the values embed- and to state the relative abhorrence socie- ded in childhood (Table I). While this ap- ty feels at transgression, by listing penalties, proach is useful for allowing the airing of The failure of laws and informal guide- an opposing view, the process is useless for hit3 to resolve the conflict has had the im- resolving the conflict, because no middle portant and serious consequence of threats ground is established, while the chasm is to prosecute journals which publish articles highlighted, that seemingly transgress limits. It has even The usual, familiar reaction to the frus- been suggested that journals should be tration generated by failed moral argu- punishable by law.20 This threat has ments is recourse to law. Two types of legal adjusted the views of editors. At a recent approach have developed, The first is the meeting of the Physiological Society in the construction, usually at international con- UK, the chairman of a session spoke ferences, of conventions and guidelines against the publication of results reported which attempt to define the limits of use, in his session, because the use of animals and what is permissible and what is not. showed cruelty. The report was not pub- Typical of these are the CIOMS guiding lished by the society’s journal. Similarly, principles for biomedical research involving the editor of the journal Pain refuses to animals, which were formulated with the publish any report which indicates that help of holders of both views. 19This type animals are unable to indicate or arrest the of effort has followed attempts of the onset of suffering. While attractive to World Medical Association to control holders of the second view, and very threat-

122 ening to holders of the first, censure of done, ethics committees must consider journals is unlikely to be generally suc- whether or not the problem is trivial or cessful. It is likely to be arbitrary, costly, worth solving. That is, they must consider time consuming, not even-handed, and the quality of the science. Scientists whose authors simply will avoid ‘fingered’ jour- moral standards are already under attack nals. (see above) resent even more attacks on These comments refer best to the princi- their scientific integrity. Consideration of ple issue under discussion, that is, whether the quality of the research is seen as a direct performing an experiment on an animal is attack on academic freedom. Moreover, in itself an act of cruelty as defined in law. the establishment of an ethics committee The international experience is that use of admits that there are two views of animal animals in experiments is acceptable, and experimentation, an idea not attractive to is sanctioned by law provided that all either the holders of the first or second reasonable steps are taken to prevent un - view. A side effect of this conflict is the necessary or unjustifiable suffering at the resistance to inclusion of non-scientists (lay- time of experimentation.22 !23 [n other men) on committees to provide ba1ance,2b words, the issue is not whether animal ex- because their presence highlights the point periments should be conducted but that that more than science is at stake, when they be conducted humanely, Humane ex- scientists argue the contrary. periments prevent or minimise suffering. The over-riding value of an ethics com- The notions that the basis of legal deci- mittee is, however, that it underscores the sions is that of ‘have all reasonable steps idea that all reasonable steps have been and been taken to prevent misuse or abuse’, are being taken to protect the interests of that experiments should be humane, that both animals and researchers. Evidence of whim is no basis for rational decision this is the increasing demand by journals making, that prosecutions by disinterested and statutory funding bodies, both here persons are probably illegal, and that even and overseas, for acknowledgement of indirect legal sanction as implied by puta- clearance of the use of animals by ethical tive prosecution of jourrsals is unlikely to committees. This requirement is also to be be successful, has suggested that defence found in standing orders for higher degrees of the middle ground, and the resolution at my university. of the conflict, should pass to a body of Of course, it can be argued that true safe- individuals who by training, experience and ty, proper sensitivity to the needs of animals interest can arbitrate, The cornerstone of and respect for academic freedom can be this suggestion is that no general justifica- retained and the need for an ethics com- tion for experimentation exists and, there- mittee dispensed with, by relying on the fore, each case should be treated on its conscience of researchers, proper super- merits. The implication goes further. The vision of the work by their seniors, and consideration of separate cases properly critical appraisal of methods and results by fights against a tendency to generafise (as peers. The idea that objectivity of the level licensing of individuals would), thus recog- required to allow such control can exist has, nizing the of the interests at issue. however, not found support. As Professor Moreover, consideration of separate ex- George” Rolleston, Professor of Anatomy periments allows a structured ethical and Physiology at Oxford, explained so aPProach.24 Thus ethics committees have cogently in 1876, ‘absorbing studies . . . lift been established. a man so entirely above the ordinary sphere A major criticism of this approach is that of duty that they betray him into selfishness ethics committees allow individuals to and neglect of duty’ .25Ethics committees avoid the moral issues, because, ‘as some- are free of such cupidity. one else is looking after that for me, I need These arguments make a case that ethics not’. Another criticism is that, in deciding committees are the proper arbiters of whether or not an experiment should be animal experimentation. They are ideally

123 placed to be sensitive to public concerns animal experimentation. Civifised societies and not to be obstructive of discovery. seeking to protect animals and humans Their function is to define and guard the from avoidable harm, and indeed tragedies, middle ground objectively and jealously, can do little more. and thus resolve the moral dilemma of

References and notes

1. In this article 1 have used moral and ethical inter. 12. As reported in the Star (Johannesburg), 5 Sept. changeably. Strictly, morality refers to moral 1987, p. 8. choice and conduct and to those considemt ions 13. As in ‘When men play God’, Sunday Sfar (Johan- such as values, interests and commitment which nesburg), 6 %pt 1987. shape them. Ethics is a secondary activity of 14. The idea of a first and second view is that of Cora reflecting on, justifying and cri[icising such con- Diamond, Associate Professor in the Department duct and considerations. See Camenish P .F. of Philosophy, University of Virginia, Charlotte - ( 1986). Goals of applied ethics courses, J. h!gh. ville, Virginia, USA. In Animals m Research. Educ. 57, 493-509. Wiley, New York; 1981. 2, White R,J. (1971). Anti -vivisection: the reluctant 15. See Berger J. ( 1977). Vanish]ng animals. In New hydra. The American Scholar 40, 503-507, Society 39, 664-665. 3. From an address to the Physiology Society in Cam- 16. Medawar P.B. (1976). Does throw any bridge, England, by WM. Samucls, published [n IIght on human behaviour? [n Growing Points in The Phymologisf 29, 43- 44; 1986. Erhology, edit. P.P.G. Bateson and R.A. Hinde, 4. fsaacs S. (1930). intellectual Gro wfh m Young PP. 497- 5W. Cambridge University Press, Children. Rout[edge, London. Cambridge. S. Experiments on living antmals, Siotr.ctws— 1977, 17. As explained by Chesterton G. K, In Orfhodoxy, Cmnd 7333, HMSO, London; 1978. PP. 46-47. Doubleday, New York; 1959. 6. As implied by Sir John Eccles in ‘Animal experi- 18. As argued by Marcus R.B. (1980). Moral dilem- mentation versus human experimentation’, in mas and consistency. J. Phil. 77, 121 – 136. Definrng the Laboruloty A mmal, National Aca. 19. Published by the Council of International Organ- demy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., pp. 285- isations of Medical Sciences ( 1985), Geneva. 293; 1971. 20. Goldman L. (1981). In Anima/s in Research, p. 7, As expressed by Re8an T. in All Thaf Dwell I Il. Wiley, New York. Therein. Universily of California Press, Berkeley; 21, Ttmer high. Educ. Supp/,, 3 oct 1980. 1982. 22. New Sc{en/isl, 21 Aug. 1986, p. 16. 8. The claim of pertinency is that of the publisher. 23, Vetertnory Record 117(3), 49: 1985. The reference, Sollitte S. and Vcatch R .M, Biblio- 24. Thung P.J. (1981). Mesfical Education 1S, 79-84. graphy of Society Ethics and fhe L i~e Sciences, 25. Report of the Royal Commission on the pracfice 19?9– 1980. The Has!ings Center, Has[ings-on- of subjecting hve animals to experiments for scien - Hudson, N,Y. t itic purposes. Parliamentary Papers C I397, xii, 9. Compiled from: Sperlinger D. Animals in 277. London, Research. John Wiley, London (1981); South 26. The legal principle being that one cannot bc a judge African Medical Research Council News/e//er 15(6) in one’s own cause. (1984P,Canadian Council on AnimaI Care, Animal 27. The idea (hat humans have inalienable rights is not Utthzation summary, (1982); World Book Ency- generally agreed. SW Kuhse H. and Singer P, c/opaed/a, (1982). ( 1985). Should the Buby Live? Oxford Umversity 10. Garfield E. (1977). Cifauon analysis and the anti. Press, Oxford. vivisection controversy. Currenf Comen 1s(I7), 2S 28, Karstaedt O.A. Vivisection and the law, THft H/f April, 5 – 10. 45, 349-369, 1982, I I As put by Visscher M,B. (1975). Efhma/ CotI. 29. An estlnmwd IS million dogs and cats are destroy- s[ramlx and lmperal{ves m Medical Research, pp, ed annually by welfare societies !n !he USA, 78 – 79 Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Ilhno]$, 30. S, fence 238, 880- 882; )987.

124