Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Shades of grey in the ethics of animal research

This afternoon I read Animal Research: Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights, by Walter Jessen of Highlight Health. The article addressed some myths about animal research, explaining why it is necessary and what we do to maintain the health of research animals. In many ways, it was a typical volley in the debate between scientists and animal rightists about animal research.

I have issues with the arguments used by both sides of this debate, which miss a lot of shades of gray in the question about whether it is wrong to perform research on animals. The article ably addressed some of the myths and mis-framings presented by the animal rights side of the debate. That is important communication to provide. However, it introduced some mis-framings of its own, and I’d like to address those here, while recognizing that the article is completely factually correct.

Animal rights vs. animal welfare

Jessen starts by defining his terms (“animal rights” and “animal welfare”). He chooses the most extreme position for animal rightists, describing them as people who “reject eating any animal as food, abstain from taking any over-the-counter drug and/or prescription medication, and refuse all vaccinations and/or medical treatment.”

In my experience, that description characterizes a truly extreme group. It leaves out those who take a more graded approach, such as a belief that animals shouldn’t be eaten, but may be used in some forms of research. This may be an attempt to frame the argument in terms of scientists versus fringe crazies. What about the people who fit in neither camp? Isn’t that where most of us lie, accepting medical treatments but feeling somewhat uncomfortable about animal research? Can’t scientists address that discomfort without resorting to the suggestion that anyone who feels that animal research may be wrong must reject all medical treatment?

Immoral and necessary

Jessen argues that animal research is necessary because “animal systems provide invaluable and irreplaceable insights into human systems.” That is completely true (and I would add that animal research provides invaluable and irreplaceable insights into animal systems as well. It isn’t only useful in human medicine). Jessen doesn’t go so far as to say that because animal research is necessary, choosing to perform it is also moral. But that seems to me to be the point of his article: we don’t need to feel bad about this; this is necessary. But just because something is necessary doesn’t mean we should be completely comfortable with it. Can’t animal research be both necessary and immoral? Can’t we choose as a society to do it without absolving ourselves from feeling disturbed by it? When we read about an interesting experiment that involved animal research, can’t we think how cool the results are and how we feel sorry for the animals?

A mountain climber is stranded in a snowstorm. Help won’t come for days. His companion dies. Our hero eats his friend so that he won’t starve to death himself. Immoral, but necessary. He does it, and he knows it is the right choice. But he feels terrible about doing it. Perhaps he will take care to provide for his companion’s children.

A single mother in a country that does not have welfare loses her job through no fault of her own. Her savings are gone. She loses her home. Living on the street, she steals food to give her children. She knows it is wrong, and she feels bad about it. But she also knows it’s the right choice.

Recently I had elective surgery. After the surgery, I chose to use painkillers that surely had been tested on animals. I know that animal research is wrong, and I feel bad about it. But I also know that it is the right choice to continue to learn about how to keep humans and animals healthy.

The debate about animal research is often presented as two choices: it’s wrong, and we should never do it; or it is necessary, so we shouldn’t feel bad about it. We should feel bad about it. And we should continue to do it. (But we should do it somewhat differently than we do now. Read on.)

Are research animals comfortable?

Jessen writes that  “the vast majority of biomedical research does not result in significant discomfort or distress to research animals.” I think he is addressing the misconception that research animals spend the majority of their lives in a great deal of pain, and wants to make the point that they are kept mostly pain-free. However, he writes that “57 percent of all research procedures with animals involved no more than slight or momentary pain or distress.” I note that that leaves 43 percent of procedures that do involve more than momentary pain or distress. That’s a significant fraction.

He also writes that “thirty-eight percent of the research procedures employed anesthesia and post- operative painkillers.” I should hope that painkillers were employed where indicated! But I also would like to point out that painkillers don’t remove all the pain. Would you choose to undergo an unnecessary surgery if you were offered the best possible pain relief afterwards? What if you were offered the surgery but had to recover in a hospital where no one spoke your language, and you had no way of requesting more painkillers if the standard dose was not enough for you?

I’d also like to move the discussion away from pain, which both sides of the debate are (in my opinion) overly focused on. Pain is sometimes necessary in research. What isn’t always necessary is keeping animals in cramped quarters lacking environmental enrichment. I have seen facilities where the mice and rats lack even an exercise wheel, and where there are multiple animals in a cage so small I wouldn’t feel comfortable keeping even a single pet rat in it. That’s not necessary; that’s a choice, due to the fact that more space and more enrichment is expensive.

Again, I don’t think the argument has to be so black and white. We don’t have to argue that research animals are in constant, excruciating pain (because that is untrue). But we can also admit that research animals do often (possibly 43 percent of the time) experience pain as part of the research process. We can feel bad about that, but still do it, because the alternative is so unthinkable. And we can accept that if we’re asking these animals to give up their lives, we don’t also need to ask them to live in such unenriched environments. They require mental stimulation just like we do. If they were so different from us, we wouldn’t be using them to model us.

The indifference of researchers

Jessen argues that “researchers are deeply concerned about the condition of the animals they study.” I agree. Researchers aren’t unfeeling monsters, and I wish that the people arguing on the other side of this divide would stop trying to make them out to be.

However, I think researchers often (not always, but often) subscribe to the black and white version of this particular moral dilemma: it is necessary, so I don’t need to feel bad about it. I have every respect for and sympathy with someone who is living day in, day out with animals that they know will die at the end of the experiment. It would be easier if the cages were big enough, if the animals didn’t lack enrichment, if the painkillers were always sufficient and took away all the pain, if the animals had some place to go after non-terminal experiments. But despite my sympathy for the research community, I would like to see a little more effort on their part to address some welfare issues, and to recognize the moral difficulties inherent in animal research. I do think that it is possible to do animal research, and still sympathize with the viewpoint of people out there who find the idea of animal research disturbing. It should be disturbing. Even though it is necessary.


Moving forward

Am I saying that everyone who benefits from animal research should be guilt-stricken all the time? Of course not. That wouldn’t be very productive. I am saying we should recognize the shades of grey. And that, as a society, we should feel bad enough about animal research to make improving lab animal welfare more of a priority. More of the money that goes to research could go to making the lives of research animals more comfortable. (If a pet rat lives in a bigger cage, so should a research rat!) If they are giving their lives for us, and we recognize that that is wrong, we should also recognize that it is our responsibility to make their lives not just as pain free as possible, but as good as possible. We’re doing a decent job on the former. I don’t think we are working anywhere near hard enough on the latter.

7 comments:

  1. Great post. I completely agree. People who work with animals should be worried that they're doing something immoral, because that worry will keep them on their toes and encourage them to treat research animals with more compassion. If we always consider the use of animals in research to be a real evil (of some degree,) we'll also be more vigilant about designing efficient studies and picking poignant questions to ask with them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Mike. (I really like the phrase "poignant questions.")

    ReplyDelete
  3. Readers of this article might find "The Animal Research War" of interest; it is very well referenced and deals with many of these topics in great detail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think we also should try to come up with apt ways of evaluating the conditions that we house our research animals. Often, people try to imagine what environment they themselves would prefer, rather than what would be most preferred by the animal. A case in point is the small cage for mice. Some research has shown that a large, boring cage is no better than a small, boring cage, it just takes up more space. The mice hang out in one small corner. I'll point out that this research is not comparing interesting cages to boring cages, and I think that providing more varied experiences for the mice would be a better angle for research in improving cage design. I would like for more money to be dedicated by the NIH to study animal housing, especially as modern techniques have actually increased the use of animals, mostly mice, in biological research.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alicia: thanks for the rec. That sounds really interesting.

    Mr. Duncan: yes, excellent point. I chose not to get into the problems of figuring what is actually good for the animals in this post because it is so complicated. I am with you on your call for more work on studying animal housing. Personally I think "interesting" is indeed more important than "big" -- but I also wonder about the hanging out in one corner in a small cage. Are the animals afraid of going out in the open? Would a cage with lots of tunnels be preferable? (Probably not practical, but an interesting question.) Anyways, yes, lots to think about there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But we can also admit that research animals do often (possibly 43 percent of the time) experience pain as part of the research process

    That's not even remotely true, not by any stretch of the imagination. Jesson, from your quote, is talking about "procedures". See what you did there? Now ask yourself how many animals are undergoing these procedures as he defines it. All the mice bred for genetic purposes which are euthanized humanely and painlessly being counted are they? How about all the rats and mice and pigeons being used in purely behavioral studies?

    And you wonder why some people view persons of your apparent "shade of gray" position as less than honest about the extremity of their real position?

    After the surgery, I chose to use painkillers that surely had been tested on animals. I know that animal research is wrong, and I feel bad about it. But I also know that it is the right choice to continue to learn about how to keep humans and animals healthy.

    The very large ethical problem that usually appears in your scenario is when you conveniently allow yourself to make these decisions but want to prevent others from a similar choice. Those others, of course, being those who suffer from things we haven't yet cured/fixed/helped with new discoveries. People often morph from your statement into a clock-stopping view. Until they or theirs come down with something for which the cure seems near..and then they miraculously dodge, weave and redefine themselves to be ok with more research.

    I appreciate that the OP attempts to deal with shades of gray. I do. I just think that it tends to glance off the really hard thinking about the issue. Where is the dividing line? When are you crossing from feeling bad using the results of past animal research over to preventing others from benefiting from the eventual fruits of current animal research?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Drugmonkey:

    [57%/43% procedures]
    Jesson, from your quote, is talking about "procedures". See what you did there? Now ask yourself how many animals are undergoing these procedures as he defines it.

    Ah, good catch. You are right, I was thinking of his statistic as reflecting the frequency with which a particular procedure was applied, which is not what he was actually saying.

    I'd still like some better references for the number of animals undergoing painful or uncomfortable procedures, but I understand that that is really outside the scope of Jensen's article. I just felt that he wasn't providing sufficient references to make that particular point.

    And you wonder why some people view persons of your apparent "shade of gray" position as less than honest about the extremity of their real position?

    It is absolutely your perogative to believe that I am not being honest about my position. All I can do is assure you that I am.

    The very large ethical problem that usually appears in your scenario is when you conveniently allow yourself to make these decisions but want to prevent others from a similar choice.

    I concur that preventing others from making choices is a Bad Thing. I think that where I differ from you is that I feel the right approach is to embrace the middle ground and do our best to move forward from there. It sounds to me (I hope I am not putting words in your mouth here) that you are suggesting that we avoid the middle ground for fear that some people will make bad decisions (and try to control other peoples' decisions) if we admit that a middle ground exists. I don't think that's the right way to deal with this problem, but it's fair if you.

    When are you crossing from feeling bad using the results of past animal research over to preventing others from benefiting from the eventual fruits of current animal research?

    I guess we all have to draw our own lines. My line is that I'd like to see more money spent on studies of lab animal welfare. If I write my congressperson advocating for that, one consequence might be that money is redirected from basic science to animal welfare research, even though that would not be my intended goal. There's a danger in every approach, though. We just do our best and try to learn from our mistakes.

    ReplyDelete