Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
PREVENTING HARM
The argument from the benefits of experiments is the most commonly used justific-
ation for research:
Research in neuroscience contributes significantly to society by increasing our un-
derstanding of the brain, its organization and function. Knowledge generated by neur-
oscience research has led to important advances in the understanding of diseases and
disorders that affect the nervous system and to the development of better treatments
which reduce suffering. Continued progress in many areas of neuroscience research
requires the use of living animals to investigate the complex systems and functions of
the nervous system because no adequate alternatives exist. Therefore, the Society for
Neuroscience has taken the position that the use of living animals in properly de-
signed scientific research is both ethical and appropriate.
23
The claim is that if we stop animal dependent basic research, in vivo applied re-
search, medicine testing, and toxicity testing of potentially harmful chemicals to
which we are routinely exposed, a direct leap from non-animal-based research (in
vitro-based research, computerized mathematical models, diagnostic imaging,
epidemiology-oriented research, and other alternatives) to humans would harm many
more humans than a system in which such drugs are also pretested through the inter-
mediary stage of animal experiments. Animal tests constitute a stage that screens out
numerous drugs that will harm the first human recipients of the drug. The same holds
for gradual perfection of invasive techniques (artificial heart valves, open-heart sur-
gery, transplants), which have all been devised through years of testing on animals.
True, requiring in vivo sifting also leads to missing important drugs that benefit
people and harm rodents. But given the alternative, we would rather not try on
ourselves drugs that debilitate guinea pigs, even if there is a chance that these will
benefit us.
There are four familiar problems with this argument. The first is that it justifies too
little as it is relevant only to a narrow subsection of applied research (drug develop-
testing is many times unnecessary (is it, for example, nothing less than “necessary” to
examine whether a new brand of brake fluid is toxic or not? Is it “necessary” to de-
velop and test new brands of products that already exist in large variety?). Admit-
tedly, no one can predict what basic experiments will be instrumental for future ap-
plied research. But this is a shaky excuse, as one is no longer killing animals to save
humans, but is doing so for the mere chance of saving humans. This places scientists
in a difficult spot: they have to show a sufficient number of cases in which basic
and applied results were not only correlated, but causally linked. Defenders of vivi-
section have bitten the bullet here, citing examples such as the development of in-
