Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
In this instance, the argument derives from a false di-
chotomy that denies the possibility that animal research
can be conducted in ways that are humane. It also denies
that even if the animal research was necessary in
the past (or at least beneficial to the advancement of
medical knowledge), it ignores alternate approaches
that can now displace such research (e.g.,
in vitro
and
in silico
).
Moral concern grows with respect to what we value.
For example, we are less tolerant of harm to our own
pet than to a ''generic'' lab animal. Also, concern usu-
ally increases as an animal is considered more ''human-
like.'' This value can be seen even in people who be-
lieve that animals differ from humans both in degree
(i.e., a continuum of self-awareness and cognitive
processes) and in kind (i.e., inherently different, es-
pecially because many believe humans have a soul and
animals do not). In both instances, people value certain
animals more than others. In the first case, the species
(i.e., the cat or the dog) may have more value to the
pet owner than to species other than that of the pet;
however, this value can be transferred to other ani-
mals. The second type of valuation increases with the
complexity of the species. Greater concern may result
because people ascribe human characteristics to non-
human species (known as ''anthropomorphism'').
Primates are particularly important indicators of
moral value, since they share many more ''human'' traits
than most other animals. From a biomedical perspec-
tive, the fact that nonhuman primates have similar ana-
tomical and physiological features makes them ripe
for research. From a bioethical perspective, their simi-
larities argue against much of the research, especially that
which is invasive, painful, and unpleasant. The case of
psychological researcher Edward Taub and his George
Washington University student Alex Pacheco (who later
became cofounder of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, PETA) dramatically illustrates the bioethical
challenge.
22
From 1981 to 1991, the National Institutes of Health
provided $1.2 million to the Institute of Behavioral Re-
search in Silver Spring, Maryland for Taub's attempt to
regenerate severed nerves in 17 Rhesus Macaque (
Macaca
mulatta
), popularly known as the Rhesus Monkey. Sensory
nerves were cut in the monkeys' limbs (deafferentation),
then stimuli such as electric shock, physical restraint, and
food or sight deprivation were applied to compel animals
to regain the use of crippled limbs. Taub's rationale for this
research was to aid stroke victims and the mentally
handicapped.
In 1982, Pacheco, who took a summer job at the
institute, visited the laboratory and took photographs
of the starved, uncared for animals. He reported
the lab to the state police, who then raided the lab,
removed the monkeys from the lab, and the case went
to court. The monkeys were euthanized at the end of
the case. Taub was convicted of six counts of animal
cruelty.
The case illustrates some of the ethical aspects of
animal research: definition of human life
versus
animal
life, the application of precautionary principles, dignity in
any research methodology, the question of whether ani-
mals have rights, and whether useful results truly justify
research. On this last count, Taub's research appears to
have advanced the state of neurological science. But was
it worth it?
Animal research is of three types: pure research,
applied research, and testing. Pure research strives to
advance the understanding of biological structures,
processes, and systems for the sole benefit to medical
and scientific knowledge. Applied research is a research
specifically done to address a biomedical need. Test-
ing studies are special types of applied research that
test the effects of a procedure, device, or drug to de-
termine efficiencies and efficaciousness. Thus animal
data provide a utilitarian purpose. Because animal re-
searchersholdhumanlifetobeparamount,theysee
animalsasameanstoanendandviewthisresearchas
justifiable based solely on possible benefits to the human
race.
Viewed exclusively from this perspective, the Silver
Spring monkey is a morally and ethically sound case.
However, there must be other nonutilitarian aspects
to the case that are immoral. Let us consider how
thecourtmayhavearrivedataguiltyverdict,and
arguably, a pronouncement of unethical practices
(
Figure 8.2-3
). Numerous consequences of this case are
positive. Whereas the animals may have been abused
andlivingindeplorableconditions,thereweremedical
advances.
It appears that Pacheco made his decisions based
mainly on three factors: legality (animal rights, guide-
lines), duty to provide health/safety of animals, and
politics/public opinion. He showed less regard for the
potential of these studies to aid human victims of stroke
and mental retardation as Taub proposed. His position
seems to have been that not only was the fruitful research
not morally obligatory, but was also not morally permis-
sible. This seems to be a more deontological view than
that of Taub, who was most concerned with the benefits
to science/medical research, finding cures for humans,
and finance/economics of funding. In fact, many such
whistle-blowing cases exhibit a duty-based view. Some
are indeed utilitarian, for example, if a laboratory is doing
bad science that will lead to negative consequences (e.g.,
dangerous device or drug), but others are in spite of good
science if immoral activity is ongoing (e.g., cruelty and
harassment). In the end, the courts sided with Pacheco
