Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
recently, scientists have sought to have the right to
''harvest'' stem cells from aborted babies to advance the
causes of medical research. In summary, it was more
pleasant to say ''harvest the tissue'' than it was to say,
''We're exploiting this helpless horse to steal its healthy
joint cartilage for our research.''
Positive control: The use of positive controls is an
honorable and long-used scientific technique that
allows researchers to make accurate comparisons of
information they are trying to obtain for whatever study
they are trying to make. The best example I can think of
involves human medical research and a study in which
my father was asked to participate. As a frequent
hospital patient suffering from heart disease, he had been
asked to participate in a study of a new drug, which, if it
worked, would improve the strength of his heart. On the
permission sheet, he was offered free care during the
length of the study, but he would not be told whether he
would receive the new drug or a placebo. (A placebo is
something that looks like a drug but is actually an
inactive substance.) The placebo group would then be
referred to as the positive controls. Their purpose was to
act as a baseline, or starting point, against which any
effects of the new drug could be compared.
The problems with using positive controls are many.
The individuals, whether human or animal, don't
receive any potential benefits of the scientific study
that's being performed. In the worst case, the positive
controls could be deprived of a life-giving procedure.
But the biggest problem with regard to medical science
and the use of positive controls is that by using the term
positive control,
researchers are able to make objects
out of these patients. And making an object out of living
and breathing people now makes them easier to use and
take advantage of, all in the name of science. It is easier
to justify and to appear heroic to sacrifice a positive
control than it is to put to death an innocent horse.
I hasten to add that before we pass judgment on these
otherwise compassionate and loving persons, we must
be reminded that nearly all of us are guilty of
objectification. For example, when clients bring their
pets to my practice for euthanasia, I always ask them
what they would like me to do with their remains;
probably because the word
remains
is easier to deal
with and just sounds nicer than
dead pet's body.
Orzeck's case is yet another example of how terminology
is not simply a neutral conveyance of information, but it
is often steeped in ideology and perspective. Medical and
engineering professionals, as Feynman reminded us, must
be diligent and vigilant in using the correct terms to
communicate. ''Junk science'' is fraught with the loose
usage of language. In fact, strategically designed re-
definitions and omission or selective use of actual data are
common fallacies in junk science.
Is the research worth it?
Debates about animal research elucidate a number of
ethical issues. First, as illustrated in the debate between
Descartes and Gassendi, the difference between
humans and animals is an important distinction. To
most biologists, the difference is merely a continuum,
as indicated by the development of the nervous system
and other physiological metrics. These physiological
complexities translate into sensory differences that
differentiate the species' sentience (especially self-
awareness), one of the variables that distinguish ''hu-
manness.'' In fact, sentient-centered ethics falls between
''anthropocentric'' (human-centered) and ''biocentric''
(i.e., all living creatures have inherent worth, e.g.,
Schweitzer's ''reverence for life''
21
) ethical frameworks.
That is, it calls us to appreciate the perspective of other
creatures in a personal sense. With advances in the un-
derstanding of neurological processes, for example, we
must assume that the more highly developed animals (and
possibly even many of the less advanced) experience pain.
That said, the bioethical view would cause us to want to do
whatever we can to prevent or at least reduce suffering in
these other species.
The ethical problem ensues when the utility of
animal-derived knowledge ispresentedasadichotomy.
This can cause the utilitarian view to come to the
fore and we are forced to choose between preventing
and curing some human malady
versus
harming animals.
However, this viewpoint is inherently weak, and such an
argument is invalid. This illogical argument is referred
to as the fallacy of
non sequitur
(Latin: ''does not
follow'') since the outcome (cure) does not really
depend on the condition (animal suffering). This par-
ticular
non sequitur
argument is known as ''denying the
antecedent.''
1.
If A then B. (Animal research leads to cures, so
people benefit from animal research.)
2.
Not A. (Not allowing animal research would end
animal suffering.)
3.
Therefore, not B. (Not allowing animal suffering
would prevent cures.)
Not all animal research leads to animal suffering (at least
it varies substantially). Another type of
non sequitur
is
affirming the consequent:
1.
If A is true, then B is true. (If animals suffer in
research, cures are developed.)
2.
B is stated to be true. (Animal research has resulted
in cures.)
3.
Therefore, A must be true. (Therefore, animals must
suffer.)
