For the vegan in the mouse lab: Get out now. I and others I knew swallowed our ethical doubts and performed animal research as graduate students. My ethical reservations never went away; they contributed to a miserable graduate experience. Now I work on humans and am much more at ease, but if I had listened to my early doubts I could have put myself on a training trajectory that would have better equipped me to do research in a field I am comfortable with. Another researcher of my acquaintance is trying to make a late-stage shift from experimental to computational work for this reason. It's not easy. If you want to stay in science, find an area you can live with sooner rather than later.
9
I would like to dispel the misconceptions put forward in the The New York Times Magazine viewpoint, “Should I Stay at a Lab That Makes Animals Suffer?”:
Nationally recognized research institutions like ours actively support and meticulously adhere to appropriately stringent policies and regulations overseeing animal research, including mice and rats. This includes consideration of the “3 R’s” and the minimization of pain or distress. Dedicated animal care professionals embrace the responsibility of providing safe and compassionate veterinary care that comes with the privilege of working with animals. These highly trained individuals are obligated and compelled to report any animal welfare issues to the principal investigator, Attending Veterinarian, Institutional Official and/or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Chair. I strongly encourage anyone genuinely interested in the welfare of research animals to become familiar with following regulations, organizations:
¥ Health Research Extension Act of 1985
¥ Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
¥ Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th Edition
¥ Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare of the National Institutes of Health
¥ AAALAC, International
Gregory Timmel, D.V.M., M.S., D.A.C.L.A.M, Chief and Attending Veterinarian, Division of Comparative Medicine, and Associate Director, Oregon National Primate Research Center at OHSU, in Portland, Oregon.
4
If I were Mr. Appiah, I would revisit 'Euthypro'. I am not sure what truth one can get at even if the writer is aware of all the facts: those absent cannot defend themselves. I would avoid gossip and be satisfied with memories .
1
Honestly and seriously, people. Mind you own business about sexual affairs other people are having, have had or may have in the future. Are we really that bored? So many, many other important things to focus on these days especially getting the worst Republicans and Trump out of office.
5
Dear Folks-
Warning - If you dig around in your family tree long enough you may find something. My mother used to say, "The first one comes anytime, but the second one usually takes about 9 months". Your antecedents weren't always 175 years old. They dated, loved, hated cheated, strayed, obsessed, schemed, struggled, etc. If you dig around, you may find this stuff. If it is the sort of thing that bothers you, don't go there. Certainly, don't go into other people's lives and family trees with your "information". There are families which would find this troubling and it could have a serious impact their relationships while you are standing in front of the mirror telling yourself what a clever devil you are. You don't know the dynamics of their family, so this is a great opportunity to keep your little hot secret to yourself.
I finally decided that traveling 1300 miles to piddle on my grandfather's grave probably wasn't worth the effort, and I did not tell some of my cousins that he molested their mothers back in the 1920's, especially since he apparently didn't molest all of them. What a prince! Not every awful thing needs to be generally known.
11
I am frequently flabbergasted by the questions asked and the answers given. I don't understand why anyone wants to dig up information about people's sex lives and then divulge it to other people. When it's family members, it's worse. Why would a person think that every aspect of someone else's private life should be revealed to others? But perhaps I've answered my own question. Maybe I'm in the minority who believes in concepts that are rapidly becoming anachronisms: privacy, discretion, empathy.
21
Disclosing information to a good friend, where ethics, law, or moral calculus does not compel disclosure, invites the primary question how will that information affects the person to whom the information is being disclosed? In other words, will the disclosure of that information cause an adverse reaction that affects either party (or their relationship).
This is the situation letter writer 3 finds herself in. She has no ethical, moral, or legal duty to disclose the information to her friend (although she may have such a duty not to disclose it to others), but how her friend reacts or how she reacts to the party making the disclosure or others are issues that ought to be subjects of a careful risk assessment. There is a possibility that disclosure will alter, perhaps permanently, a friendship and could invite a reaction that is harmful or hurtful to either party, where there is no real benefit gained by anyone. Taking "[the information] to the grave" is the best outcome where disclosure would cause a permanent rupture in the friendship or psychic or emotional damage to recipient.
4
Re: #2 and #3: Ironic that I read this column soon after reading about the people who want to punish the restaurant for buying pretzel buns for a bakery that complied with the law. Self-righteousness must be in the air.
4
Re LW 2 and 3: Everyone today seems to believe that knowing something, anything, about anything or anyone at all, no matter how tangential, somehow means everyone else has to know it too. Hey world, I know a secret! I know a secret! and you need to know it too...? Other people's business/affair/secret love child from the past is their business, not yours. Simply being in-the-know doesn't make either LW a necessary conduit for 'news' in these other peoples' world. MYOB, for heaven's sake.
14
What a strange thing to say: "People are entitled, where there aren’t strong countervailing considerations, to know the truth about their families." So, "People are entitled to the truth, except when they aren't"! And can you even defend the principle assertion of this sentence? Entitled? We are entitled to the 'truths' we discover, but there is no serious requirement that I share any 'truths' I happen to discover about my, or your, family.
6
Re #1: "You should also make the case to the university authorities that they ought to stop or reform the work."
I may be biased -- being a university biosciences researcher -- but this is absolutely terrible advice. Any lab doing animal work has already gone through a rigorous ethics board process, and a self-righteous undergrad stirring up trouble benefits no one.
The research described by the letter writer sounds fairly run-of-the-mill and no doubt meets the ethical criteria of the university. If the student is uncomfortable, then by all means they should find a different area of research in which to contribute their talents, but don't try to shut down an entire track of scientific research.
28
Re: #1: I had a discussion in my class just let Friday about the ethics of driverless cars; what are the ethics of programming an autonomous vehicle to take out another driver or pedestrian to save yourself. But isn't that what animal testing is? We are "taking out" our fellow earthling to save ourselves. Curious, no?
3
For everyone out there who claims a right “ to know the truth “: before you threaten/tell take a really hard look at yourself. Why are you doing this? For your sister’s friend? For the child of your mother’s lover? Or is it to unburden yourself? To make yourself a “hero “ of the brutal truth? To reveal that you are the possessor of a big secret all these years? Just as a previous comment had stated in a different context, once you reveal the truth YOU are responsible for the consequences (and not the illicit lovers you might be so quick to shame). Think about that before you actually tell.
28
I do feel for the first letter writer. Some hard choices here.
As for the other 2 writers, all these busy bodies, including a black mailing one, who are preoccupied with who had affairs and who should be told years ago. Let those who are without sin cast the first stone and why don't you both stop wanting to gossip and mind your own business.
25
Another letter about whether to reveal that an unknown sibling/child/cousin exists, and whether to reveal an old affair. I think every 3rd Ethicist column has something in this genre--time for something new!
11
Regarding Name Withheld's dilemma, biological research utilizing methodologies that don't use animals is growing, and the results have improved validity, reproducibility, and reliability over methods using animals. NW should check out National Anti-Vivisection Society. NAVS supports researchers using these new methodologies through scholarships and other financial assistance. NW, you CAN conduct research without using animals.
5
@CatLady And if the LW needs to refuse to work for researchers doing animal experimentation, LW should also refuse to work for anyone who eats animals or uses animal products, to be consistent, or partake in therapies developed from such practices.
3
To letter writers 2 and 3: MYOB!! Whether or not the parent of a friend (or mere acquaintance, in the case of LW 2) had an extramarital affair is simply none of your concern. While LW 3 may feel she has some right to tell others of her mother's affair, she certainly has no right to reveal similar information about her friend's father. And in the case of LW 2, the only reason I can think of for an acquaintance to reveal the existence of an unknown half-sibling is in the unlikely case that two half-siblings planned to marry, unaware of their shared genetic history. Anything else is just taking pleasure in gossip.
27
#1, no.
#2, no!
#3, no.
Don't add to suffering or chance causing it if you can avoid doing so. All of you can avoid doing so.
12
"People are entitled, where there aren’t strong countervailing considerations, to know the truth about their families."
I can't imagine why you say this. Why should I be entitled to know if, say, my brother had an affair, or my father-in-law was in jail when he was 16? The only reason I can think of that a secret matter should be revealed is in the case of parentage.
19
Letter 3 says "I know she knew that her father cheated on her mother". Do you know it was cheating? It is very well possible that the affair was consensual for the relevant parties. If so, they probably would not have come out due to social pressure. The "traditional family" is not for everyone. Not even the politicians who sell it as part of their platform.
9
@Ken Agreed. There used to be something called "Key Parties" in American suburbia. Participating male neighbors put house keys in a bowl and participating female neighbors took a key and went home with that man. Later on, some people called it ,"swinging" and open marriage. Not all unions were exclusive, and not all unions were designed to be exclusive. One of my uncles and his wife were participants, and I still remember the expression on my mother's face when somebody explained a key party to her in the 1960's.
2
Is there any difference (besides the "yuck factor") between performing experiments on animals in a lab an using/benefiting from the results of such experiments? It's not as simple as being unwilling to slaughter an animal but still eating meat (again, besides the "yuck factor"), because the path from experimentation to benefit isn't so direct.
Simply having someone else do the dirty work and using the results of the dirty work for your own contribution would be similar to eating meat but unwilling to slaughter.
Benefiting from the results of the research, such as vaccines, artificial transplants, or other treatments, is not so clear cut. Sure, the treatments were developed using animals as research subjects, but animals are not involved in producing/performing the treatment. There is no direct marginal harm to animals by getting the treatment (although it may encourage future harm).
2
The woman who is going to "confront" an acquaintance's elderly father over an affair he had that produced a child--while the acquaintance is still caring for him....
So you're going to interfere and blow up a family. Possibly ruin the relationship between the acquaintance and her father, when both might value it deeply, especially since it will be after the wife / mother is gone.
By what right do you grant yourself such power? Who are you to insist on anything going on in these people's lives?
You are the working definition of a busybody. Mind your own business. Stay out of other people's lives when you were neither invited nor welcomed to intrude.
60
I have a suggestion for Name Withheld. If Withheld is really serious about keeping animals from suffering, Withheld should volunteer to have the experiments performed on her. The animals will be saved and she is a much better model for testing than the mice are.
Simple solution.
9
It occurs to me that you are contemplating a career in the biological sciences, considering that you are working in a biological research lab. If that is so, you probably should change you career choice, since it is highly improbable that you will find a job in this field that does not involve animal experimentation.
Although there is much talk of computer simulations of animal experimentation, I doubt that much exists. Research into this possible is probably worth the effort, or your job prospects may be as useful as researching the life cycle of the Dodo.
16
@Dirtlawyer
+1. How do the do-gooders think that they get the data to create the computer simulations. How do the do-gooders think that they get the data to confirm the computer simulations. They do it by conducting experiments on real animals.
9
there are many jobs in health sciences that do not involve work with animals. she should consider shifting your research emphasis.
6
The line "You should also make the case to the university authorities that they ought to stop or reform the work" is inappropriate for a student at an undergraduate level, especially as the letter writer does not indicate any evidence of mistreatment.
While the response is appropriate recommendations of speaking with the investigator and discussing the 3R principles, the student shouldn't question the scope or nature of the research or if it should be stopped or reformed unless they have evidence of misuse or inappropriate management and significant background on the subject of the animal research and possible alternatives. Each institution has their own IACUC that reviews the numbers of animals used and protocols in question and can withhold approval if issues are noted. Approval requires a thorough background research to determine if research is novel, statistical analysis to validate sample numbers, continued monitoring of animals from veterinary caretakers.
An investigator performing experimental research on mice has likely gone through substantial effort to minimize numbers at all costs; if the student does not have the confidence in the research or there are no cellular based alternatives, I would recommend they find a different lab. However, I would not recommend they speak with the university or other authorities to shut down or change the program merely because of the beliefs they hold regarding animal suffering unless there is substantial misuse of the mice.
19
In the USA, the Animal Welfare Act does not include rats, mice or birds in the legal definition of Animal, requiring mitigation efforts such as the UK does, and the US does for "higher" animals.
It is more than possible - it is in fact the case that serious philosophical consideration of whether any harmful use of animals can be justified by results - actual or potential.
It is also true that we live in a society in which such objections are set aside not only within the medical and research communities, but also in law: parents can lose custody of their children for supporting their wish not to benefit from harm to animals through vaccines, cancer treatment or other standard of care protocols.
As an adult, I have chosen to forego all treatments and vaccines developed through animal research.
@Katina
3
@Laurie Raymond - if "As an adult, I have chosen to forego all treatments and vaccines developed through animal research" is true then it sounds like you're under- or even unvaccinated. If that's the case, you're a danger to those around you.
3
Just to play devil's advocate here, if you reject animal research and if you are a true vegan, will you also reject medical treatments that have already been developed using research on animals? My guess is that would include all the vaccines, most cancer treatments, basically any drug ranging from antibiotics to anti-depressants to drugs for any other illness such as heart disease, high cholesterol, neurological illnesses (Parkinson's, MS, etc). I also love the comment about plants having "feelings"......and another related topic is the effect of modern agriculture on different ecosystems including animals and plants. I guess in the end different people can draw different lines of what is acceptable, but in the end we are all interconnected and nobody is completely morally/ethically pure.
36
If you are a vegan for ethical reasons, how can you go to work everyday knowing that animals in the lab are being mistreated? The fact that you are asking the question shows you have doubts about your working there,"on the slim chance of developing a therapy and the many mice that are suffering right now." Stop looking for ethical excuses, especially from Prof. Appiah, who is frequently on the unethical side of an argument. Leave.
The other two letter writers should mind their own business. People love to tell other information for "their own good." Both can live without the knowledge you are about to impart. With everyone rushing to do DNA testing, in no time at all 1000 unknown relatives will come out of the woodwork and the friend will find out about her 1/2 sibling only if she wants to pursue it.
14
If the OP does resign, don’t mention the animal cruelty aspect of the decision, especially in writing. They would not be able to “unring the bell”, and the reputation as a “mouse hugger” might destroy chances of a more desirable job.
I am a truck driver, a vegetarian, and the grocery store delivery job, with its meat content, troubled me. That situation resolved itself, since the company grossly overstated the income potential, and “poverty” was the “reason for leaving this job”.
OP may find that distancing themselves from animal cruelty is more lucrative, also.
5
Letter 2 - ANd what about the child who was conceived, the one who is now an adult? What about the consequences for them?
13
@Vanessa Hall
That that child would know his/her biological father? It seems to me that that is the only person involved who has the right to know. Granted, it would just be knowing a fact, rather than having a relationship, but people should have the right to know the identity of their ancestors.
6
@Dave well the poor woman who is caretaker to her father could probably use help of a sibling....
2
My advice to the undergraduate scientist: Get out now! A little over two years ago, I was having the same ethical dilemma while finishing my doctoral research, which involved killing mice & rats in the name of what I believed was good science. Even then, I was mostly vegan for ethical reasons. I rationalized my cognitive dissonance the same way this writer does. I told myself my work in the lab would lead to discoveries that would help humans & that all proper guidelines were being followed. Now I realize that these justifications are hollow. The official “guidelines” allow for horrific cruelty & the data gathered is meaningless for treating humans. NIH reports that 95% of novel drugs that enter human clinical trials end up failing. This is despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests. As a science major, you know how small genetic changes can have a major impact on an organism. This is the scale we’re working on to develop modern treatments. Other species cannot stand in as reliable surrogates for humans. The good news is that forward-thinking scientists are conducting animal-free research that holds promise for helping humans. You don’t have to give up your love of science to adhere to your intuitive sense of right & wrong. Get involved in labs doing work with human cells, human organs-on-chips, human -omic data, mathematical modeling, etc. You’ll not only be sparing animals but making a bigger difference in the world, all while being on the right side of history.
20
@Emily How is one "...mostly vegan"? You either are or you aren't.
4
@Sundevilpeg so if you eat and live 98% vegan, you must say you’re not vegan? Come on! That’s just silly.
3
Veganism reminds me of the following joke, by The Flight of the Conchords: the year is 2100. The bad news: elephants are extinct. The good news: no more unethical treatment of elephants.
4
The good news would be if humans are extinct, no more unethical treatment of any living creature!
1
@Stephanie Wood Given the events of the past few weeks, we are almost there.
1
Nature, red in tooth and claw.
Mice may be small and less affectionate towards us than domesticated animals like dogs and cats, but we have every reason to believe that they are sentient beings with minds of their own, and the capacity to experience pain and suffering. I believe this researcher is right to feel moral discomfort about treating them merely as a means to an end. We have long recognized that it is wrong to subject humans to harmful experimentation that has no commensurate possibility of benefit to the research participants. Over the past several decades, we have developed a sophisticated ethical framework for clinical research. Concepts of minimal harm, equipoise, and informed consent are paramount in the research process. We should extend these same basic dignities to nonhuman animals, who are like us in all the ways that matter.
I'd advise this researcher to either quit and become an outspoken advocate against vivisection, or use their unique position to quietly leak information to animal advocacy organizations that are working diligently on tearing down this cruel enterprise. Maybe consider looking into wearable hidden camera technologies.
11
Letters 2 and 3 --
Letter # 2 -
" I feel guilty for keeping the truth from her but..."
BZZZZZ!!!
Oh sorry - but assuaging your own feelings of guilt and discomfort is never an acceptable reason to betray a trust- and possibly ruin another person's life by revealing to them a fact about their parent which really has no bearing on their lives today --
Letter #3 --
"It would feel comforting to talk with her about it, but..."
BZZZZZ --
"Comforting" -- for whom ? -- You ? And - what about the other person's "comfort" - which might be seriously disturbed if you were to bring up the subject which - for all you know - they have chosen to reslove in their own PRIVATE manner -- ?
Also -
I vociferously disagree - in the strongest possible terms - with the idea that anyone has a so-called "Right to Know" an uncomfortable truth when learning that truth is nothing more than the result of another interested party wanting simply unburden themselves - relieve their sense of guilt - and finally get it off their chest --
If you're feelings are that strong - go talk about it with a therapist or clergyperson or spiritual adviser - who probably hears stories like these every day - can offer some real, helpful and objective feedback -- and - most importantly - will keep it to themselves...
65
LW#1: As an ethical vegan myself, I'm well aware of your dilemma. And of the irony that the only meat I purchase is for my cat. But as St Exupery said, when you tame something, you are responsible for it forever after; and humans domesticated an obligate carnivore.
In an imperfect world, one can never be morally spotless; when does compromise shade into collaboration? Only you can draw that line.
But a line from a movie I saw long ago echoes in my mind, of one doctor asking another, if you could cure cancer by sacrificing the life of one man ... wouldn't you have to do it?
Not long ago there was a hoo-hah in NYC to take down a statue of the doctor who used poor black women as gynaecological research subjects. But no one, as far as I know, has ever refused to benefit from the medical breakthroughs he achieved thereby, which led to his being honoured with a statue. Arguably, the number of lives his work saved far outnumbers the number of women whose agency and autonomy were sacrificed.
And is the value of this work such that you would do it for free or if the pay was poor and the prestige nil - or are you covering mercenary motives with a veneer of righteousness?
Consider getting active with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, both of which work toward the reduction and eventual end of animal experimentation and the reduction of abuse and suffering in the short term. Past that, you're the only keeper of your conscience.
17
@ACW J. Marion Sims' was morally abhorrent -- full stop. He was responsible for the exploitation and torture of slaves, who were treated as a means to an end. To learn more about this vile human, I recommend reading The Medical Apartheid. We were right to remove the statue erected in his honor in Central Park.
23
Sims was what a later generation would call a Nazi doctor. And so, I hear, was Asperger, tho' we purport to benefit from his weird ideas. I keep saying there are many Americans who should be given reparations - probably a lot more Americans, over time, even than Jewish German survivors of WW2.
2
I am delighted at the answer for " animal suffering ". Much of this "research" is reinventing the wheel, i.e. repetitive and unnecessary. Yes, right now there are times when animals must be " used " for Research, but that IS being phased out, and someday will be unnecessary. Hallelujah.
As for the letters about affairs : Mind your own business and keep your mouth SHUT. Seriously.
19
I told my students about the "fog test" in business practice when still in university work.
Every morning, when the fog clears from your bathroom mirror, can you look at that person with pride, or is the very sight upsetting because of ethical lapses?
Because there's one critic you never escape - yourself. Doesn't work with everyone. Donald Trump shed his morality instead of shaming himself into decency. But for folks who are not over-run with self love, it is a practical barometer.
Knowing what you do about animal treatment at your business, can you face yourself in the morning fog test?
8
Re: the vegan undergraduate's question. There is a growing body of evidence supporting the idea that plants are also sentient beings who communicate with each other, recognize and respond to attacks and threats and, while 'brainless', have electrochemical mechanisms through which one part of the plant communicates with others. In light of this, vegans may need to reconsider their 'holier than thou' position on which beings are used in research and, for that matter, on what we eat.
11
Tell that to the chickens, lobsters, etc, who are tortured, burned alive, boiled alive, and the animals in fashion who are skinned alive for leather and fur. As for trees, I wouldn't cut one down until it was crushing the house, and gave the wood to neighbors to burn in their fireplace.
Kwame, It is a good first step that you are considering the morality and efficacy of your work. The greater good versus the individual - a philosophical dilemma since time immemorial. I ask that, just for a moment or two, you think of one mouse: his (or her) little heart is beating rapidly, his blood is pulsing faster through his tiny veins, fear is overtaking his mind. He doesn't know why he is being grabbed by his tail and lifted on to the workbench. He doesn't know that you are thinking you are serving humankind with possible cures. All he knows is he is frightened. Whether or not pain follows, I truly believe this is unacceptable in 2018. Animal experiments are not necessary because tissue and other methods have proven effective for testing. I personally do not want my life extended for even one minute if it means the suffering of any animal.
9
For the first writer, if your school has an IACUC -- Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee -- you might want to talk with them. I sit on one at a well-known university as the community representative, and the board is extremely scrupulous about vetting research protocols to ensure minimal suffering for the animals (rats, mice, frogs and fish). If procedures cause pain, the animals are given anaesthesia. Everything is looked at thoroughly, by peer researchers and a consulting veterinarian. Even the mental well-being of the animals is considered, making sure they have companionship and enrichment activity where feasible (not so much for the fish). Most of this is set out in federal guidelines
You could be pleasantly surprised at the low level of pain and suffering these lab animals experience.
23
@Seabiscute is claiming that animal experimentation in the U.S. is strictly regulated. I wish this were the case, but the evidence doesn't support this anecdote. The USDA’s Office of the Inspector General has published multiple audits demonstrating that enforcement of the federal Animal Welfare Act is weak and ineffectual. Peer-reviewed studies have also repeatedly found that Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) are failing to protect animals and ensure that only meaningful research is approved. In my personal experience, and with the detached benefit of hindsight, the protocols I submitted to the IACUC when I was involved in animal experimentation should have never been approved. They were not serving any higher purpose but to generate published papers and allow for a pathway to complete my dissertation. Yet I was allowed and encouraged to hurt and kill animals anyway.
8
Emily you have regrets about your own animal experiments but that doesnt mean every scientist was doing your type of experiment. The rules in the USA are strictly enforced.
2
No they aren't enforced - people in labs torture animals all the time, and even laugh at their pain. What about Frist? And Huntington Life Sciences? That's like saying there's no rape, murder or child abuse. Seriously?
1
The last 2 letter writers seemed to be thinking of similar issues or at least that's how i read it. There is no way to know if the people who will be told this info already know or not but each writer is not delivering good news. I'm not sure why the idea of revealing private info is so compelling to the writers especially the first one who only knows the person through her own sibling.
If the writers were siblings or currently close, then maybe there would be a case to be made. The first one doesn't need to get involved and the second one said she "was good friends".
Is it really necessary to get involved? Ethically, is it a good idea to possibly hurt someone a great deal? They may already know as I said.
16
@Sue
"Is it really necessary to get involved? Ethically, is it a good idea to possibly hurt someone a great deal?"
Of course not. Both LWs are busybodies, pure and simple. There isn't an ethical dilemma for either. MYOB, as Ann Landers would have told both.
11
@Sundevilpeg Glad to know you’re still telling people to mind their own business from your lofty perch. Interesting how different people respond to different situations. It’s too bad that you are so very certain of your perspective that you cannot see anything but.
1
I used to work in a lab that irradiated mice and tested the effectiveness of a drug that ultimately leads to possible cures for radiation sickness. The lab also specializes in creating in vitro models that seek to replace the animal treatments (in vivo models). However, you cannot test the effectiveness of a drug on one part of the body. This is because the body works as a whole and testing on one specific organ can lead to misleading results and doesn't accurately describe the efficacy of the drug. Although it may seem inhumane, animals are still needed for the development of scientific inquiries. Other models are ineffective and lead to bad science. To be clear, I dislike that I used to irradiate mice, but I think it is necessary for the advancement of science. I do see a future where animal subjects decrease in use in research, but for now it is the best thing we can work with. Science is sometimes messy and being perfect isn't possible.
20
@Jim Thompson The irony here, though, is that the more the other species resembles the human, the more useful knowledge one arguably can gain from experiments ... and the less ethically defensible the experiment may be. The rationalization for using other species is that they are 'not like us'; yet the rationalization for using them is that they are 'like us'. And when they are enough like us -- eg. chimpanzees -- humans finally get upset.
Scientific models devised based on other species are inherently flawed at best, and -- the most famous, though hardly the only case, being thalidomide -- sometimes disastrously misleading.
This is going to be harsh, but in vivo experiments that are expected to benefit humans should be done on humans. I'm sure there are many selfless volunteers. (Conscientious objectors volunteered for experiments in WW II.) Alternatively, it could be offered as an option for prisoners on death row (only those whose guilt is beyond doubt, and who have exhausted all appeals). You would probably need far fewer experimental subjects to produce valid results than you do torturing hordes of mice, or dogs or cats or whatever creature can be procured cheaply and cannot fight back.
4
@ACW WOW! Harsh indeed not to mention completely wrongheaded in the extreme. However selfless, no one but one would volunteer to be a 'human guinea pig' in experiments on, for example, cancer chemotherapy. Could I pay you enough to get you to volunteer for such an experiment, much less some potentially less harmful one. Among the principles of modern research ethics is that participation shall not be coerced in any way, shape or form, including economic considerations for participation. And the validity of any research finding depends crucially on the statistical power of the experiment, which inevitably involves the number of subjects studied. Human subjects are of course necessary in any human disease/treatment research, but before research gets to that point it must be built on a foundation of research on nonhuman subjects.
1
@ACW whoa, I was sort of with you in the first paragraph. But to extrapolate from that to using human "volunteers" (who, I am sure, would be low on the socio economic scale) and prisoners desperate for any relief would only encourage a "Rollerball" type of research world. Why not bring back gladiators to the colosseum for the amusement of the wealthy?
3
This kind of research doesn't always just take place in university-affiliated labs, it also takes place in commercial and even non-profit ones. There even a couple of big ones in Maine.
7
Agree with the comment below that this kind of research is HIGHLY regulated. I worked in a mouse lab in the past, and there are many rules and trainings that ensure that any possible suffering is minimized. I would inform yourself more about the work, but if you aren't comfortable with it, look into research on IPSCs or cell culture or something that won't upset you.
17
"The research we are doing involves subjecting many mice to disease, suffering and death."
I worked in a university-based very large animal research facility for 20 years so i know quite a bit about this. If you have any personal doubts about working in your lab as an undergraduate student, then you should leave the animal lab. It really is that simple. Why is an ethically-based vegan doing anything at all in an animal research lab? As a science major there are plenty of labs you could work in that do not involve animal surgeries.
Note: It sounds like you may not be allowed in the parts of the lab where the work with animals is actually done? If so, how do you know the animals are suffering?
There are VERY strict rules about animal experimentation USA university labs. Faculty researchers wont tolerate other faculty who dont follow the rules because it instantly destroys the reputation of that department.
It is worth pointing out that the slaughter of animals for meat is for less regulated than death in an animal surgery at a university. Again, I respect your ethical concerns but isn't is obvious you should be participating in a different lab for your science major?
50
@K Henderson There are not "VERY strict rules" about animal experimentation in U.S. labs. Indeed, mice are wholly exempt from the federal Animal Welfare Act, as they are excluded from the definition of "animal."
8
J, I am sorry but no.
Where did you read this misinformation?
3
@K Henderson: The definition of the term "animal" in the Animal Welfare Act explicitly excludes mice of the genus Mus, rats of the genus Rattus, and birds bred for experimentation. From https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/AC_BlueBook_AWA_FINA...
"The term “animal” means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey
(nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other
warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or
is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition
purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus
Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (2) horses not
used for research purposes, and (3) other farm animals, such as, but not
limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or
livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition,
breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality
of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs including
those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes."
1
Dr Appiah argues that "whether the suffering in question is wrongful depends in part on whether the research might yield important benefits to people or other animals."
This, of course, is the argument that was used in the infamous Tuskegee experiments that were conducted on African Americans. When it comes to inflicting suffering on any out-group (human or nonhuman), the issue can never be one of weighing up the benefit to the in-group of inflicting suffering on the out-group.
Vivisection is wrong - plain and simple. And the argument that it's the best way or the only way to find a cure for such-and-such problem is bogus. If it were valid, then it would justify experimenting on humans, too. (And experimenting on humans yields far more accurate results than experimenting on mice.)
Only when we take vivisection off the table will the billions of dollars we spend on it be channeled into better science.
Mark Twain put the matter very straightforwardly: "I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't ... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."
18
At no point does the student say vivisection happens at the lab. Do you know what vivisection actually means?
24
@michaelmountain, Mark Twain wrote a heartwrenching story from the point of view of a mother dog whose puppies were used for experiments. It still haunts me. Don't read it.
6
Animals, being the out group, are eaten by the in group, humans. (And lions eat out group members, zebras.) Any argument against animal experimentation that makes eating animals wrong is not going to help lab animals because the vast majority of people eat animals.
3