Dominic Wells
Royal Veterinary College, UK

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.88.18

Ethics can be defined as a framework in which moral decisions (what is right or wrong) can be made. There are two main schools of thought: Consequential (utilitarian) or Deontological (intrinsic).

Within the animal rights movement two of the best-known philosophers are examples of these different schools of thought. Peter Singer is a utilitarian ethicist who argues that there is no valid reason for separating man from all the other animals, which he calls a speciesist view with close similarities to racism and sexism. Consequently animals have rights in a similar way to man. His seminal book, Animal Liberation, was published in 1975 (1) and he is regarded by many as the founding father of the animal rights movement. However, while animals have similar rights to man, the rights of the individual can in some cases be subsumed for the greater good, although this requires a very clear cost–benefit analysis. In contrast, Tom Reagan is a deontological ethicist who argues animals have intrinsic worth and rejects the concept that the ends can justify the means. Consequently animals have intrinsic value as do humans: for example, this argument is presented in (2). Thus, in this school of thought, the use of animals in research can never be justified.

Interestingly, the earliest clear statement on the ethics of animal experimentation occurred at the time of the debate about the rights of man. In his 1789 Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (3), the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham queried the use and abuse of animals. He wrote: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”. It should be noted that Bentham had no fundamental objection to animal experiments provided that the goal was of benefit to humanity and that there was a reasonable prospect of achieving that goal.

In Animal Liberation (1), Singer codified the concept of animal rights in the context of human rights as: “Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration – consideration of what is in their own best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally-challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use – for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation”.

How do we relate these ethical views to the use of animals in research? Our attitude to ethical questions in animal research stems from the relationship of human society with all animals. Animals are used for food, transport and entertainment as well as research. In many societies ill-treatment of animals is not accepted, although this is by no means universal. Thus, in general we take a modified utilitarian attitude – ‘the end can justify the means’ or ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’, but crucially with humans given a greater worth than any other species – the speciesist view disparaged by Singer.

We seek to minimise the cost of the means to justify the end by minimising pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm in experimental animals. Thus, we aim to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to a minimum. We strive to refine the way experiments are carried out, to make sure animals suffer as little as possible. And we replace animal experiments with non-animal techniques wherever possible. These key tenets of humane experimental use of animals, often referred to as the 3Rs, were developed by Russell and Burch in their highly influential 1959 publication The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique.

The current Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (4) relies on this modified utilitarian ethical judgement. The revised version that will come into force in January 2013, which incorporates changes associated with Directive 2010/63/EU, will continue the same approach. Each project must be assessed on a cost–benefit basis, by asking the question of whether the ends justify the means. Experimental design should aim to reduce the costs (by application of the 3Rs) and critically evaluate the likely benefits. A strong case needs to be made that the studies are necessary and that the experimental aims are well defined and are likely to yield clear answers. The benefits may be for humans and/or other animals but there is a clear hierarchy, with no protection for invertebrate animals other than octopus and with cats, dogs, horses and primates being given special status of greater protection compared with other non-human mammals.

Genetically modified (GM) mice raise additional ethical questions. GM animals are the most rapidly growing element of animal use with more than 1.6 million GM animals and harmful mutants bred in the UK without other manipulations in 2011 (5) and this trend appears likely to continue to increase. It has been argued that GM violates the integrity of the organism’s genome. This is of course unacceptable in the deontological and questionable from the strict utilitarian view. However, the modified utilitarian view would argue that, in the absence of a harmful phenotype, there is no difference from wild-type in terms of the welfare of the animals, i.e. the animal is unaware that its genome has been modified.

Other human uses of animal

It is reasonable to ask why there is so much focus on animal experiments. Much of this may be due to the lack of public understanding of other uses of animals. The use of shock tactics of antivivisectionists and the ‘Yuk factor’ of some of the images used are partly responsible for the exaggerated emphasis on animal experimentation. There are many non-experimental uses of animals, for example, as food, clothing, transport, pets, sport and exhibition. The numbers used in non-experimental activities are huge. The UK uses 3.6 million animals in research annually (78% rodents, 15% fish) but UK meat and fish eaters consume 2.5 billion animals every year (6). This is nearly 700 times the numbers used in research yet it could be argued that consumption of fish and meat is not essential for human wellbeing, whereas at least some of the animal research is essential. Both utilitarian and intrinsic ethical arguments would suggest this use of animals for meat is the more important problem that should be tackled ahead of the use of animals in research. This disparity between animals used for food and research is even greater when considered on a world-wide basis. It has been estimated that 140 billion animals are killed for food every year (3000 times the number estimated for use in research worldwide). While the slaughter of domestic mammals and birds may in many cases be reasonably humane, that cannot be said of most of the 90 billion fish killed worldwide each year, where suffocation is the most common cause of death.

Recreational uses of animals should also be considered in comparison with the use of animals in research. Fishing for game or coarse fish is a very popular pastime in the UK but, although it gives pleasure to many, it does not have major consequences in terms of human health. There is little doubt that fish feel pain and respond to it and so recreational fishing is less ethically justified than the use of fish in research. Sport involving animals often has a high attrition rate. As mentioned previously, horses receive special protection under ASPA legislation yet almost 50% of thoroughbred foals do not reach flat race training in the UK (7), as many suffer tendon injuries and fractures that impair their ability to perform. Again, the utilitarian argument would suggest that horse racing was ethically less acceptable than the use of horses in experimental research. Very large numbers of animals are kept as pets and this is not without ethical consequences. For example, based on a survey of over 600 cat owners (7) it can be estimated that cats kill over 220 million vertebrate wild animals per year in the UK, the majority of them being small mammals. This is 60 times the number used in research. So decreasing the cat population, or keeping them indoors on a permanent basis, would have a greater impact on the loss of life than reducing the numbers of animals used in research, but is keeping a cat indoors for life infringing its rights?

What is the ethical way forward? Both Singer and Regan argue that we should not eat meat or fish or use animals in any way that cause them harm. So we should all be vegetarian and limit our harmful interactions with animals. That is philosophically an entirely reasonable approach. However, given our current modified utilitarian (speciesist) use of animals in non-research areas, much of the ethical debate about the use of animals in research is redundant.

References

1. Peter Singer (2001). Animal Liberation, 1975. 3rd edition. Harper Collins.
2. Tom Regan (2004). The Case for Animal Rights, 1983. 3rd Edition. University of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles.
3. Jeremy Bentham (1789). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789. Reprinted by General Books LLC, 2010.
4. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Available online at: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-xa.htm
5. Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2011. Available online from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statisticsother-science-research/spanimals11/
6. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/the-animals/animals-and-society/
7. Wilsher S, Allen WR & Wood JL (2006). Factors associated with failure of thoroughbred horses to train and race. Equine Vet J 38(2), 113–118.
8. Woods M, McDonald RA & Harris S (2003). Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Rev 33, 174–188.