Advances in Neuroscience Imply That Harmful Experiments in Dogs Are Unethical Jarrod Bailey,1 Shiranee Pereira2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JME Online First, published on July 24, 2017 as 10.1136/medethics-2016-103630 Current controversy J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2016-103630 on 24 July 2017. Downloaded from Advances in neuroscience imply that harmful experiments in dogs are unethical Jarrod Bailey,1 Shiranee Pereira2 1Cruelty Free International, ABSTRACT environments (common features of most laboratory London, UK Functional MRI (fMRI) of fully awake and unrestrained kennels), kennel noise and restricted sight lines are 2People for Animals, Chennai, India dog 'volunteers' has been proven an effective tool to acknowledged stressors, and together these factors understand the neural circuitry and functioning of the lead to well-characterised stereotypies—repeti- Correspondence to canine brain. Although every dog owner would vouch tive, invariant behaviour patterns with no obvious Dr Jarrod Bailey, Cruelty Free that dogs are perceptive, cognitive, intuitive and capable goal or function, which include circling, pacing, International, 16a Crane Grove, of positive emotions/empathy, as indeed substantiated whirling, jumping, wall bouncing, and repetitive London, N7 8NN, UK; by ethological studies for some time, neurological grooming or self-biting—as well as other abnormal ja rrod .bailey@ c rueltyf reeinte rnat iona l. org investigations now corroborate this. These studies show behaviours such as polydipsia or polyphagia (eating that there exists a striking similarity between dogs and drinking to a great degree), compulsive staring Received 18 April 2016 and humans in the functioning of the caudate nucleus and excessive barking, for example (see ref 5). Revised 18 May 2017 (associated with pleasure and emotion), and dogs Such welfare concerns constitute a large part of Accepted 9 June 2017 experience positive emotions, empathic-like responses the ethical objection to dog experimentation. A and demonstrate human bonding which, some scientists variety of ethical approaches exist (recently and claim, may be at least comparable with human children. elegantly summarised in a report by the Oxford There exists an area analogous to the 'voice area' in the Centre for Animal Ethics,6 and, eg, the works of canine brain, enabling dogs to comprehend and respond Peter Singer,7 Tom Regan8 and others). One is to emotional cues/valence in human voices, and evidence instrumentalism, in which dogs are viewed as scien- of a region in the temporal cortex of dogs involved in tific instruments, a means to an end to be used in the processing of faces, as also observed in humans experiments for the benefit of humans, or even to and monkeys. We therefore contend that using dogs in increase knowledge, usually providing there is no invasive and/or harmful research, and toxicity testing, unnecessary cruelty. Although it may be argued that cannot be ethically justifiable. no dog experiments are absolutely instrumentalist, as the welfare of the dogs is considered alongside human benefits (see below), it may be argued that INTRODUCTION some dog experiments are—or almost are—prac- More than 200 000 dogs are used worldwide in tically instrumentalist because they are approved ‘harmful’ research and toxicity testing (experi- and conducted even in the face of low likelihood ments likely to cause pain, suffering and distress, of success, and/or low benefit and/or high severity http://jme.bmj.com/ not conducted for veterinary purposes, and often (based on animal welfare scientist Patrick Bateson’s terminal) every year, with much of these used as the 3D Cube9). Another is an approach based on dogs’ non-rodent species in the evaluation of the safety of rights to life and to not be harmed, precluding their new drugs and chemicals. This continues in spite of use in scientific experiments at all, or at the very opposition by the majority of the public, and also least in invasive research that is likely to infringe formidable scientific and ethical arguments against these rights and to cause them pain and suffering. it. For example, recent analyses have shown that This approach is based on societal morals, increas- on September 24, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. the testing of new human drugs in dogs has little ingly underpinned by scientific knowledge, that, it or no scientific basis or justification, because canine is argued, afford rights to and acknowledge attri- data are not significantly predictive of the efficacy butes in non-humans such as dogs, which include and safety of new drugs in humans.1 This is due, in intrinsic worth as individuals, with lives deserving part, to major differences in the cytochrome P450 of respect, and therefore a right not to be harmed ‘CYP’ enzymes that metabolise drugs.2 These differ- (unless it is for their own good, such as in remedial ences, in level, activity and amino acid sequence, surgery). Such attributes include the capacity for occur even between breeds and strains of the same various emotions, feelings and cognitive abilities, species, meaning extrapolation of data between including pain, shock, fear, foreboding, trauma, species, such as between dogs and humans, is unre- anxiety, stress, distress, anticipation and terror, liable (see ref 3). Ethical concerns are based on the as well as positive attributes such as pleasure, joy, stressful nature of the laboratory environment, anticipation, rewards and so on. These elevate the and experimental manipulations and procedures ethical status of dogs and challenge moral anthro- that often may also be painful and terminal (see, pocentrism (that humans should always have eg, ref 4). Dogs are known to react to unfamiliar absolute priority in our moral thinking), instru- To cite: Bailey J, Pereira S. objects, sounds, people, situations and manipu- mentalism (that animals exist for human beings, J Med Ethics Published Online lations, as well as restraint and association with to serve their interests) and dualism (that humans First: [please include Day prior unpleasant experiences, with reactions known should be distinguished and separated from other Month Year]. doi:10.1136/ animals).6 There are also utilitarian or ‘greater medethics-2016-103630 to reliably indicate conflict and stress, as well as anxious postures (see ref 5). Barren, restricted good’ approaches of variable ‘stringency’, in which Bailey J, Pereira S. J Med Ethics 2017;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103630 1 Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2017. Produced by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd under licence. Current controversy J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2016-103630 on 24 July 2017. Downloaded from the harms caused to the dogs in experiments are weighed against surge in canine cognition research generally, both neuroscientific the benefits they provide to humans (involving a ‘harm:benefit and behavioural, there is now substantial evidence to support the analysis’ (HBA)). While a rights-based approach, rather than a contention that dogs are able to perceive, feel and understand utilitarian perspective, is the standpoint taken by the authors, much more deeply than previously thought. Examples include the latter is the dominant form of reasoning within science,10 the activity of the brain’s caudate nucleus, which is associated and therefore is the rationale we use to argue against dog exper- with pleasure and emotion; the comprehension of language and imentation in this review. emotion in human voices; and the processing of faces and facial In assessing harms to dogs from experimentation—central to the expressions (see ref 17). HBA—it is clearly of paramount importance to attempt to correctly In this brief review, we discuss recent evidence in this field, establish and appreciate the genuine level of suffering the dogs including claims by some researchers that canine cognition and experience. This is heavily dependent on an accurate comprehen- sentience are much more advanced than previously accepted. We sion of their sentience—something we argue is not done currently, argue that scientific evidence demands we reassess and redefine and which therefore, along with general exaggeration of human the way we treat dogs, and give dogs the protection they conse- benefits, leads to the HBA being greatly skewed and biased (see quently deserve from any act or procedure that would cause Discussion and Conclusion). Efforts to better understand canine pain, distress or harm. sentience, however, continue and are more powerful than ever. Alongside this growing concern about the use of dogs in harmful Recent research on canine cognition experiments, there have been increasing efforts to understand the The caudate nucleus shows important similarities in humans and canine mind. For many years, this has been elucidated via ethological dogs research, which, while elegant and greatly informative, may suffer The caudate nucleus is a structure deep in the brain (part of the from inherent vagaries and inconclusive inferences, and can only basal ganglia), which, among other things, is associated with go so far.11 Such limits and caveats, however, are inherent in any positive emotions and expectations, enjoyment, social rewards, approach, and these should not negate or detract from the weight of learning and memory (see ref 17). For the first time, in 2012, evidence. Simply applying Occam’s razor, it is abundantly obvious Berns et al reported on fMRI studies of fully awake and unre- that animals behave as though they feel pleasure. For instance, they strained dogs showing similarities in caudate activity in dogs and play—something not restricted to primates and, for example, dogs, humans. Dogs presented with human hand signals that were but which extends to many species, including many birds, reptiles, associated with a food reward showed a response in the caudate fishes and cephalopods (see refs 12 13). They also appear to take nucleus that was not present with hand signals associated with great pleasure in food and sex, act as though they enjoy touch and no food reward, in a manner similar to experiments on both physical sensations such as sunbathing, seem to experience various humans and non-human primates.16 A subsequent investigation emotions and many more (see refs 13–15).