The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
—Mohandas Ghandi
A fire-bomb is left (undetonated) on the porch. Lives and careers shift. Laws are made and broken. What is it? Religious conflict? Ideological rifts? Kind of.
In this week's Nature, the scientist Dario Ringach tells the disturbing story of how, because he did research on primates, he was targeted for violent treatment by so-called ‘animal rights extremists’; how after the fire-bomb incident (the bomb was accidentally left on the wrong scientist’s doorstep), for fear of his and his family’s safety, he discontinued his animal research; how he is speaking up now, three years later, because “we’re getting awfully close to the situation where somebody may be killed. There is a general trend toward polarization in our society.”
There is a lot going on here. For now (not because they’re not important), let’s set aside (1) the obvious irony of killing one kind of primate (a person) because you’re upset he’s studying another kind and (2) the glaring analogies to some of the more radical abortion rights foes. Instead, let’s talk about animal research, ethics, and religion.
We Western humans of the Judeo-Christian tradition have come a long way in our understanding and engagement with non-human animals. Crudely put, we realize now that animals are not put here for us to use as we please. And, due in many ways to animal rights activists, research on animals is now done exponentially more carefully than at any point in the history of such work.
When I teach research ethics to the future scientists of the world—graduate students and post-doctoral fellows—we spend a lot of time talking about this. Not just the important party line of the special offices at research facilities devoted to animal care: “refine, reduce, and reuse.” But also about deeper questions: should we do research with animals at all? With certain animals and not others (much of basic research is done on yeast, worms, fruit flies, and mice)? And what kinds of research (research that might cause pain or even death, observational research, etc.)?
In the Nature interview, Ringach points to the results of a recent Pew survey in which, unsurprisingly, 93% of scientists favor animal research. (Though the survey neither broke the issue down into the important questions above nor differentiated ‘animal testing’ from ‘animal research,’ it is still informative). In stark contrast, only a bare majority of Americans favor animal research. Intriguingly, most men and Republicans favor animal research (again, broadly defined), while less than half of Democrats do.
Ringach says scientists need to do a better job of demonstrating the benefits of animal research, and that, instead of retreating, researchers should “invite the public into the lab.”
At my own institution, I have seen animal research security, especially for facilities working with primates and other mammals, increase dramatically in the last few years, as threats and pressures from society grow. To even get into a lab (no matter who you are) can be a challenge, and then nearly anything done or said there, it seems, needs to be approved by several layers of bureaucracy.
While I understand the paranoia and the good reasons for it, I agree with Ringach (he should know): we scientists and our research institutions should follow a more productive, creative, and proactive tack. American scientists do, after all, rely on government dollars for their research.
Ringach seems to be implying that if we invite them in, they will come, and they will get it. Maybe, maybe not; but if a welcomed, educated, reasonable public doesn’t like it, and science can’t convince them it should be done, perhaps we shouldn’t do it. This is a risk, but a valuable, productive one—very much unlike a bomb.
Most Judeo-Christian traditions are now more thoughtful about animal interactions: know your animals, do not harm them unless you can make a very good case. I even heard the Dalai Lama once say in discussion with his fellow Buddhists (who believe animals should be treated equally as humans because they are reincarnates like people) that if the situation is dire—a choice between animal and human survival—he might then consider harming an animal.
This is and should be an ongoing conversation among scientists, religious communities, those concerned about animal welfare and rights, and society at large. Ringach hopes “the public will understand we are open to dialogue but we can only do so in an environment where we know that we will not be attacked when we go back home.” A reasonable hope.
There are, after all, more than enough rich and important questions to chew on: (1) one day, a day some (not me) believe is nigh, we will no longer need animal models at all; we will develop artificial models which will work as well to accomplish our goals and test our ideas for basic knowledge, drugs, and other therapies; (2) another animal we do a lot of testing on is ourselves, humans; if we’re going to raise questions about research on animals, we must carefully examine research on humans; (3) and a final irony: the more research we do on animals, the more we discover, for better or worse, just how similar they are to us.
Tags: animal rights, ethics, pew center for the people and the press, radicalism, research, surveys, violence
An excellent piece. I have done animal research, and have been repelled by it. I think as a culture we are moving inexorably in the direction of greater consciousness of animals as suffering and sentient beings, therefore deserving of moral care. Mice may be small, but they feel as acutely as we do, and their feelings should not be disregarded for our convenience.
Of your last three points, I agree that #1 is not relevant, since insofar as we are truly doing experiments, they have to be done on functioning organisms, whether ourselves or other animals. But I agree strongly with #3, and I'd add a fourth, which is that technical advances will allow us to use humans for many experiments where animals would be needed previously. Noninvasive brain imaging technologies allow investigations of consciousness and other functions that, in animal models, might be painstakingly done with electrodes and postmortem dissection. Greater understanding of our biology will allow lower organisms to be used more effectively for testing, (such as of drugs, with respect to toxicity, for instance), prior to testing directly on humans, without feeling the need to go through extensive animal trials, on animals that are often not accurate models anyhow.
This won't extend to genetic manipulations, which are so important in mouse research today, or many other types of studies. So it is important to redouble efforts to make animal treatment in research still more humane, extending from birth to anesthesia to euthanasia, including explicit studies of animal fear and suffering in the research setting.
I do not support terroristic threats by animal rights nor environmental groups, but I also do NOT support the use of live (or dead) animals in scientific research. The "lower animals" are looked upon as nothing but research tools by the scientific community. In true essence, these animals feel pain, they bleed real blood and they suffer both emotionally and physically. They have no voice of their own to protest, therefore, animal rights groups are essential on their behalf. There have been many past documented cases of research animal abuse that mirrors a Frankenstein scenario. Most animals have no relation to the physiology of humans, yet they are utilized extensively. How many Beagle dogs died of smoke inhalation in tests to prove that smoking cigarettes is a killer, yet humans continue to smoke? Dogs do not normally smoke tobacco except in research labs. How many gross experiments have been performed on Rhesus monkeys? How many animals are stolen or obtained through pound seizure by disreputable Class B dealers and sold to research labs? In other words, how many animals have to suffer at the hands of researchers when there are other avenues they could take such as the use of computers and other technological tools?
The two comments above suggest that researchers are stubbornly refusing to use alternative methods to their work with animals.
Let me assure you: every investigator I know would immediately switch to such techniques if they were to become available.
While functional MRI, PET and other imaging technologies have useful tools they do not measure directly the activity of single cells, which is what is needed in many studies.
I commented on the limits of fMRI here:
http://tinyurl.com/y8mzn7h
and on the limits of computer simulations here:
http://tinyurl.com/ycc4n66
I will say this again -- scientists are FOR the development of alternative methods. This in fact one point where activists and scientists agree.
The idea that researchers refuse to use alternative techniques and prefer using animals in their work is simply false.
Great comments by Dario!
TO BJR36JRG: Animal rights groups were indeed helpful in the past to raise the public’s interest in animal welfare issues, and even helped congress to pass the first Animal Welfare Act (1966). However, animal use today is heavily regulated and overseen by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs).
It is true that animals cannot themselves consent to participate in research. This is one important reason for the multitude of regulations, policies and guidelines concerning the care and use of laboratory animals. An IACUC is an independent research review committee mandated by the Animal Welfare Act and the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy). The IACUC, through the experience and expertise of its members – including veterinarians and unaffiliated community members, is charged with the responsibility to oversee the entire animal care and use program at animal research facilities. The Committee’s functions include, 1) review and approval of all proposed activities related to the care and use of animals, 2) inspection at least once every six months all of the institution's animal facilities, 3) review at least once every six months the institution's program for humane care and use of animals, 4) evaluate the qualifications of research personnel and provide appropriate training and education as deemed necessary. The IACUC is also responsible for suspending activities involving animals if it is determined that the activity is not being conducted in accordance with the institution's policy and applicable provisions of the USDA Animal Welfare Act Regulations, the PHS Policy, and the Guide.
At my institution, research animals are treated with the utmost care and respect, and our IACUC does a fantastic job monitoring the animal care and use program
The 3 Rs referenced above that are used by animal researchers (“refine, reduce,and reuse”) are actually "Refine, Reduce, and REPLACE", not "reuse." Replacement is a very important question all researchers must consider when developing their study design: Can a replacement or alternative be used to test my hypothesis. As Dario mentions above, if a replacement or alternative DOES exist, it is used.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.