Academia and animal research.
I am posting this here b/c I don't know of a better outlet. I am finishing up my psychology undergrad degree (finally!) and my final psych course is physiological psychology. This course just started up but I can tell that it will be difficult for me because so much of the information we will be studying has been gained through animal research. Personally I find reading about it very distressful, although I know that I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for certain medications that I have used in the past. In my department I seem to be a bit of an anomaly in that animal research does not seem to make them particularly squeamish or concerned. Well, let me clarify that by saying that the professors are very careful and guarded in speech, but the other students appear to have no concern.
I'm including here an excerpt from my textbook, the heading is "Ethical Issues in Research with Animals". It's an interesting/disturbing piece of propaganda, and actually criticizes animal rights activists. In the end though I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I guess I'm just looking for others who might relate with my discomfort.
"Most of the research described in this book involves experimentation on living animals. Any time we use another species of animals for our own purposes, we should be sure that what we are doing is both humane and worthwhile. I believe that a good case can be made that research on the physiology of behavior qualifies on both counts. Humane treatment is a matter of procedure. We know how to maintain laboratory animals in good health in comfortable, sanitary conditions. We know how to administer anesthetics and analgesics so that animals do not suffer or after surgery, and we know how to prevent infections wiht proper surgical procedures and the use of antibiotics. Most industrially developed societies have very strict regualtsion about the care of animals and require approval of teh experimental procedures used on them. There is no excuse for mistreating animals in our care. In fact, the vast majority of laboratory animals are treated humanely.
We use animals for many purposes. We eat their meat and eggs, and we drink their milk; we turn their hides into leather; we extract insulin and other hormones from their organs to treat people's diseases; we train them to do useful work on farms or to entertain us. Even having a pet is a form of exploitation; it is we - not they - who decide that they will live in our homes. The fact is, we have been using other animals throughout the history of our species.
Pet owning causes much more suffering among animals than scientific research does. As Miller (1983) notes, pet owners are not required to receive permission from a board of experts that includes a veterinarian to house their pets, nor are they subject to periodic inspections to be sure that their homes are clean and sanitary, that their pets have enough space to exercise properly, or that their pets' diets are appropriate. Scientific researchers are. Miller also notes that fifty times more dogs and cats are killed by humane societies each year because they have been abandoned by former pet owners than are used in scientific research.
If a person believes that is is wrong to use another animals in any way, regardless of the benefits to humans, there is nothing anyone can say to convince him or her of the value of scientific research with animals. For this person the issue is closed from the very beginning. Moral absolutes cannot be settled logically; like religious beliefs, they can be accepted or rejected, but they cannot be proved or disproved. My arguments in support of scientific research with animals are based on an evaluation of the benefits the research has to humans. (We should also remember that research with animals often helps other animals; procedures used by veterinarians, as well as those used by physicians, come from such research.)
Before describing the advantages of research with animals, let me point out that the use of animals in research and teaching is a special target of animals rights activists. Nicholl and Russell (1990) examined twenty-one books written by such activists and counted the number of pages devoted to concern for different uses of animals. Next, they compared the relative concern the authors showed for these uses to the numbers of animals actually involved in each of these categories. The results indicate that the authors shwoed relatively little concern for animals used for food, hunting, or furs, or for those killed in pounds. In contrast, although only 0.3 percent of the animals are used for research and education, 63.3 percent of the pages were devoted to criticizing this use. In terms of pages per million animals used, the authors devoted 0.08 to food, 0.23 to hunting, 1.27 to furs, 1.44 to killing in pounds - and 53.2 to research and education. The authors showed 665 times more concern for research and education than for food and 231 times more than for hunting. Even the use of animals for furs (which consumes two-thirds as many animals as research and education) attracted 41.9 times less attention per animal.
The disproportionate amount of concern that animal rights activists show towards the use of animals in research and education is puzzling, particularly because this is the one indispensable use of animals. We can survive without eating animals, we can live without hunting, we can do without furs. But without using animals for research and for training future researchers, we cannot make progress in understanding and treating diseases. In not too many years our scientists will probably have developed a vaccine that will prevent the further spread of AIDS. Some animal rights activists believe that preventing the deaths of laboratory animals in the pursuit of such a vaccine is a more worhty goal than preventing the deaths of millions of humans that will occur as a result of teh disease if a vaccine is not found. Even diseases that we have already conquered would take new victims if drug companies could no longer use animals. If they were deprived of animals, these companies could no longer extract hormones used to treat human diseases, and they could not prepare many of the vaccines that we now use to prevent them.
Our species is beset by medical, mental, and behavioral problems, many of which can be solved onlythrough biological research. Let us consider some of the major neurological disorders. Strokes, caused by bleeding or occlusion of a blood vessel within the breain, often leave people partly paralyzed, unable to read, write, or converse with their friends or family. Basic research on the means by which nerve cells coommunicate with each other has led to important discoveries abou the causes of the death of brain cells. this research was not directed toward a specific practical goal; the potential benefits actually came as a surprise to the investigators.
Experiments based on these results have shown that if a blood vessl leading to the brain is blocked for a few minutes, the part of the brain that is nourished by that vessel will die. However, the brain damage can be prevented by first administering a drug that interferes with a particular kind of neural communication. This research is important, beacuse it may lead to medical treatments that can help to reduce the brain damage caused by strokes. but it inovles operating on a laboratory animal such as a rat and pinching off a blood vessl. (the animals are anesthetized, of course.) Some of the animals will sustain brain damage, and all will be killed so that their brains can be examined. however, you will probably agree that research like this is just as legitimate as using animals for food.
As you will learn later in this book, research with laboratory animals has produced important discoveries about the possible causes or potential treatments of neurological and mental disorders, including Parkinson's diases, schizophrenia, manic-depressive illness, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, anorexia nervosa, obesity, and drug addictions. Although much progress has been made, these problems are still with us, and they cause much human suffering. Unless we continue our research with laboratory animals, the problems will not be solved. Some people have suggested that instead of using laboratory animals in our research, we could use tissue cultures or computers. Unfortunately, neither tissue cultures nor computers are substitutes for living organisms. We have no way to study behavioral problems such as addictions in tissue cultures, nor can we program a computer to simulate the working of an animal's nervous system. (If we could, that would mean that we already had all the answers.)
This book will discuss some of the many important discoveries that have helped to reduce human suffering. For example, the discovery of a vaccine for polio, a serious disease of the nervous system, involved the use of rhesus monkeys. As you will learn in Chapter 4, Parkinson's disease, an incurable, progressive neurological disorder, has been treated for years with a drug called L-DOPA, discovered through animal research. Now because of research with rats, mice, rabbits, and monkeys stimulated by the accidental poisoning of several young people wiht a contaminated batch of synthetic heroin, patients are being treated with a drug that may actually slow down the rate of brain degeneration. Researchers have hopes that a druge will be found to prevent the brain degeneration altogether.
The easiest way to justify research with animals is to point to actual and potential benefits to human health, as I have just done. However, we can also justify this research with a less practical, but perhaps equally important, argument. One of the things that characterize our species is a quest for an understanding of our world. For example, astronomers study the universe and try to uncover its mysteries. Even if their discoveries never lead to practical benefits such as better drugs or faster methods of transportation, the fact that they enrich our understanding of the beginning and the fate of our universe justifies their efforts. Surely, the attempt to understand the universe within us - our nervous system, which is responsible for all that we are or can be - is also valuable."
I'm including here an excerpt from my textbook, the heading is "Ethical Issues in Research with Animals". It's an interesting/disturbing piece of propaganda, and actually criticizes animal rights activists. In the end though I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I guess I'm just looking for others who might relate with my discomfort.
"Most of the research described in this book involves experimentation on living animals. Any time we use another species of animals for our own purposes, we should be sure that what we are doing is both humane and worthwhile. I believe that a good case can be made that research on the physiology of behavior qualifies on both counts. Humane treatment is a matter of procedure. We know how to maintain laboratory animals in good health in comfortable, sanitary conditions. We know how to administer anesthetics and analgesics so that animals do not suffer or after surgery, and we know how to prevent infections wiht proper surgical procedures and the use of antibiotics. Most industrially developed societies have very strict regualtsion about the care of animals and require approval of teh experimental procedures used on them. There is no excuse for mistreating animals in our care. In fact, the vast majority of laboratory animals are treated humanely.
We use animals for many purposes. We eat their meat and eggs, and we drink their milk; we turn their hides into leather; we extract insulin and other hormones from their organs to treat people's diseases; we train them to do useful work on farms or to entertain us. Even having a pet is a form of exploitation; it is we - not they - who decide that they will live in our homes. The fact is, we have been using other animals throughout the history of our species.
Pet owning causes much more suffering among animals than scientific research does. As Miller (1983) notes, pet owners are not required to receive permission from a board of experts that includes a veterinarian to house their pets, nor are they subject to periodic inspections to be sure that their homes are clean and sanitary, that their pets have enough space to exercise properly, or that their pets' diets are appropriate. Scientific researchers are. Miller also notes that fifty times more dogs and cats are killed by humane societies each year because they have been abandoned by former pet owners than are used in scientific research.
If a person believes that is is wrong to use another animals in any way, regardless of the benefits to humans, there is nothing anyone can say to convince him or her of the value of scientific research with animals. For this person the issue is closed from the very beginning. Moral absolutes cannot be settled logically; like religious beliefs, they can be accepted or rejected, but they cannot be proved or disproved. My arguments in support of scientific research with animals are based on an evaluation of the benefits the research has to humans. (We should also remember that research with animals often helps other animals; procedures used by veterinarians, as well as those used by physicians, come from such research.)
Before describing the advantages of research with animals, let me point out that the use of animals in research and teaching is a special target of animals rights activists. Nicholl and Russell (1990) examined twenty-one books written by such activists and counted the number of pages devoted to concern for different uses of animals. Next, they compared the relative concern the authors showed for these uses to the numbers of animals actually involved in each of these categories. The results indicate that the authors shwoed relatively little concern for animals used for food, hunting, or furs, or for those killed in pounds. In contrast, although only 0.3 percent of the animals are used for research and education, 63.3 percent of the pages were devoted to criticizing this use. In terms of pages per million animals used, the authors devoted 0.08 to food, 0.23 to hunting, 1.27 to furs, 1.44 to killing in pounds - and 53.2 to research and education. The authors showed 665 times more concern for research and education than for food and 231 times more than for hunting. Even the use of animals for furs (which consumes two-thirds as many animals as research and education) attracted 41.9 times less attention per animal.
The disproportionate amount of concern that animal rights activists show towards the use of animals in research and education is puzzling, particularly because this is the one indispensable use of animals. We can survive without eating animals, we can live without hunting, we can do without furs. But without using animals for research and for training future researchers, we cannot make progress in understanding and treating diseases. In not too many years our scientists will probably have developed a vaccine that will prevent the further spread of AIDS. Some animal rights activists believe that preventing the deaths of laboratory animals in the pursuit of such a vaccine is a more worhty goal than preventing the deaths of millions of humans that will occur as a result of teh disease if a vaccine is not found. Even diseases that we have already conquered would take new victims if drug companies could no longer use animals. If they were deprived of animals, these companies could no longer extract hormones used to treat human diseases, and they could not prepare many of the vaccines that we now use to prevent them.
Our species is beset by medical, mental, and behavioral problems, many of which can be solved onlythrough biological research. Let us consider some of the major neurological disorders. Strokes, caused by bleeding or occlusion of a blood vessel within the breain, often leave people partly paralyzed, unable to read, write, or converse with their friends or family. Basic research on the means by which nerve cells coommunicate with each other has led to important discoveries abou the causes of the death of brain cells. this research was not directed toward a specific practical goal; the potential benefits actually came as a surprise to the investigators.
Experiments based on these results have shown that if a blood vessl leading to the brain is blocked for a few minutes, the part of the brain that is nourished by that vessel will die. However, the brain damage can be prevented by first administering a drug that interferes with a particular kind of neural communication. This research is important, beacuse it may lead to medical treatments that can help to reduce the brain damage caused by strokes. but it inovles operating on a laboratory animal such as a rat and pinching off a blood vessl. (the animals are anesthetized, of course.) Some of the animals will sustain brain damage, and all will be killed so that their brains can be examined. however, you will probably agree that research like this is just as legitimate as using animals for food.
As you will learn later in this book, research with laboratory animals has produced important discoveries about the possible causes or potential treatments of neurological and mental disorders, including Parkinson's diases, schizophrenia, manic-depressive illness, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, anorexia nervosa, obesity, and drug addictions. Although much progress has been made, these problems are still with us, and they cause much human suffering. Unless we continue our research with laboratory animals, the problems will not be solved. Some people have suggested that instead of using laboratory animals in our research, we could use tissue cultures or computers. Unfortunately, neither tissue cultures nor computers are substitutes for living organisms. We have no way to study behavioral problems such as addictions in tissue cultures, nor can we program a computer to simulate the working of an animal's nervous system. (If we could, that would mean that we already had all the answers.)
This book will discuss some of the many important discoveries that have helped to reduce human suffering. For example, the discovery of a vaccine for polio, a serious disease of the nervous system, involved the use of rhesus monkeys. As you will learn in Chapter 4, Parkinson's disease, an incurable, progressive neurological disorder, has been treated for years with a drug called L-DOPA, discovered through animal research. Now because of research with rats, mice, rabbits, and monkeys stimulated by the accidental poisoning of several young people wiht a contaminated batch of synthetic heroin, patients are being treated with a drug that may actually slow down the rate of brain degeneration. Researchers have hopes that a druge will be found to prevent the brain degeneration altogether.
The easiest way to justify research with animals is to point to actual and potential benefits to human health, as I have just done. However, we can also justify this research with a less practical, but perhaps equally important, argument. One of the things that characterize our species is a quest for an understanding of our world. For example, astronomers study the universe and try to uncover its mysteries. Even if their discoveries never lead to practical benefits such as better drugs or faster methods of transportation, the fact that they enrich our understanding of the beginning and the fate of our universe justifies their efforts. Surely, the attempt to understand the universe within us - our nervous system, which is responsible for all that we are or can be - is also valuable."