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>

Protecting children vs. protecting privacy in the US

The Internet has always been free and relatively unrestricted, compared to our daily lives which are penned in with rules and regulations. It is no secret that the Internet has become a hive of illegal activity, ranging from unlicensed music downloads to identity theft and child pornography. Soon, in the United States at least, this might be about to change. Several new bills have recently been proposed, in order to “crack down on the…Web”. One of these bills, “The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011”, was just approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

This bill requires, among other things, that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) keep a record of every customer’s activity for 18 months, and retain customer names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card information, bank account numbers and IP addresses, and keep them available for government access. While the bill refers to pornography in its title, access to these records is not restricted to legal situations involving pornography---this has, of course, prompted fierce debate about whether this bill should be considered acceptable. Additionally, the motives behind the bill have been called into question by many, raising further discussion.

Clearly, there are many relevant questions to ask about this bill. What is its stated purpose? Does the title of this bill accurately reflect on the stipulations laid down inside, and if not, does that matter? This bill attempts to sacrifice a certain amount of the average US citizen's privacy, in return for an increase in the safety of children---does it accomplish this? Perhaps most importantly, what difference will this bill ultimately make?

This topic involves two primary areas of knowledge: ethics, and human sciences. For one, is it worth trading in the privacy of US citizens for the safety of children online? On the one hand, for Americans the right to privacy is ingrained in their legal philosophy, and makes for a large part of the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, child pornography is so socially unacceptable that to many, the loss of privacy is acceptable when placed in perspective.

Opponents of the bill cite various concerns for the ongoing privacy of US citizens. A particular point often cited is that the bill does not require that access is restricted to cases involving child pornography, and the name of the bill could therefore be misleading and inaccurate. One representative, Rep John Conyers of Michigan, said that “This is not protecting children from Internet pornography … It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a prevalent group that promotes freedom and individuals’ rights on the internet, called the bill a “direct assault on the privacy of Internet users.”

Proponents of the new bill, however, suggest that every little shred of evidence that is lost might be a vital clue, and that it is better to preserve a carbon copy of all internet activity, on the off chance that it should be needed: “Every piece of prematurely discarded information could be the footprint of a child predator. This bill ensures that the online footprints of predators are not erased.”^[1]

Ultimately, the answer depends on whether or not the bill would lead to more criminals involved with child pornography being arrested, and more children protected, and whether this compensates for the loss in privacy. Considering the limitations of the bill, the protective potential is doubtful---due to the large number of Internet users, any critical data would be extremely hard to separate from a vast pool of irrelevant clutter. Additionally, public Internet access points, such as those at Starbucks coffee shops and McDonald’s stores, are not covered by the terms of the bill, providing an easy mechanism for criminals to avoid data retention. A related situation is that of phone-lines in the US; levels of government access similar to those proposed for the Internet are already in place, and have been since the Bush administration allowed warrantless wiretapping. If one extends this removal of privacy from phones to the internet, what will be next? Where does one draw the line? Will this same constant monitoring be extended to aspects of one's daily life, such as catching the bus, or eating at a restaurant? It is therefore very important to consider the possible effect of such a precedent, not just in the US, but around the world.

References:

[1] Chairman Smith, http://judiciary.house.gov/news/07282011.html, 2011