The Ethics of Animal Experimentation

One huge issue in modern industry, especially the medical, pharmaceutical, and cosmetics industries, is the need to ensure that all products meet certain quality standards—animal experimentation is one of the primary methods of choice both for product research and experimentation, and for determining product quality. It has a long history too, since anatomical studies were performed on pigs as early as the 2nd century. This is an extremely unpleasant business for the animals involved, however, which raises several ethical questions for many, both business-people and customers alike. Specifically, is the systematization of what is effectively animal torture morally acceptable, given the enormous benefits it provides? Or is it simply barbaric, similar to atrocities such as the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, or the Stolen Generation in Australia? Put in much simpler terms, is animal experimentation good or bad? Obviously, one’s moral compass will strongly affect one’s opinion on this matter, but language turns out to play a key role in analysing the ethics of this situation. The main areas of knowledge that are involved in this are Language and Ethics; one could, however, consider it from a more mathematical perspective.

Language plays a huge role in this issue, specifically when it comes to defining the word ‘animal’. Humans are biologically categorised as being a subset of animals, but the word 'animal' in common usage has come to mean those animals which are specifically not human. This definition plays a key role in whether one views animals as being on a level beneath that of humans, or on one parallel to humans. It is also a definition which is hotly disputed, adding to the uncertainty around this issue. For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘animal’ as both ‘any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things…’ and ‘one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings.’

The role of ethical decisions and judgement is paramount in evaluating the morality of animal experimentation. Whether or not animals are on par with humans naturally affects one’s ethical outlook. The problem of whether one species exploiting another is ethical is also hard to define, as it depends on one’s interpretation of the word ‘animal’. If animals are regarded as inherently inferior, then the question to ask is ‘Is the exploitation of a weaker species by a stronger species ethically acceptable?’ Similarly, if one regards humans as yet another type of animal, then the relevant question becomes more similar to ‘Is the exploitation of one species by another acceptable?’ Clearly these two questions are very different and are biased differently; this demonstrates the great importance of the words one chooses to use. As Jean-Paul Sartre once said, words are more treacherous and powerful than we think.

Another similar ethical issue that arises when one considers more closely the definition of ‘animal’ is animal rights. For example, if humans are on par with animals, and slavery is regarded as immoral, does that imply that a huge multitude of animal based industries are also unethical, even industries such as free-range egg farming? In such a case, one has to balance the relative freedom of animals at such farms, with the fact that they are still in some sense prisoners.

This problem could also be considered purely from a mathematical or economical perspective. This would involve assigning a certain value to animal life and suffering, which is an ethical nightmare in its own right. The problem then simplifies down to the summation of profit and loss, and, according to such logic, if there is a net profit then animal experimentation is good for business and therefore good in general. Although such an excess of logic is seen as extremely cruel by most, it is also an unavoidable part of a multi-million dollar industry, and is undeniably a valid approach that gives a clear answer. Professor of Neuroscience at Oxford University Colin Blakemore summed up the necessity of eventually balancing one’s checkbook when he said in a newspaper interview ‘I hate working with animals, I think it's wrong, and I think it's evil, but I think for now it's a utilitarian equation, it's necessary, and a scientist must have honesty and integrity and be accountable’.

Another related issue that involves the same issues of language and ethics is the use of animals for food. Regardless of the ethical quandaries surrounding the automated farming, butchering and processing of animals, whether or not one should even eat another animal is debatable. Again this depends on some level on the interpretation of the word ‘animal’, since eating some creature essentially on the same ‘level’ as a human would be, I’m sure, slightly unpleasant to most cultures that frown on cannibalism and the like. One argument against eating animals is that recent studies have shown almost all animals are highly sentient, and therefore experience suffering. It could also be argued, however, that one needs to consume some source of energy, and it is extremely difficult to find such a source that was not originally alive—plant matter and vegetables are a good example.

Clearly, many questions surrounding the use of animals in the twenty-first century are extremely difficult to answer. One common misconception surrounding animal testing is that the practice has not contributed much towards medical knowledge as a whole—on the contrary, penicillin, antibiotics, hormone treatments, insulin, vaccinations, and many other incredibly important medical technologies would simply not have been possible without medical experimentation on animals.^[1] Medical testing on animals clearly has immense usefulness, and alternatives are, for the time being, very thin on the ground. The ethical issues surrounding the use of animals as a food source are slightly more straightforward, however—while a vegetarian diet also consumes plant matter that was once alive, it is easy to see that such life is sentient to a much lower degree than that of commonly eaten animals such as cows and pigs.

 [1] Bragg, Melvyn. ‘Animal Experiments and Rights.’ BBC Radio 4. 18 Mar. 1999. BBC. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00545f8>