I love my dog as much as the next person, in fact, maybe more. But if it came to a choice between saving my dog’s life, or saving a family member or friend’s, the decision would be easy. What does this have to do with anything, you may ask? Let me explain.
The University of York has released information on their stance regarding animal testing, stating that the experiments held in the departments of Biology and Psychology are justified as long as statutory controls and codes of practice are observed. On top of this, the government insists that testing is only permissible if the “expected benefits outweigh any possible adverse effects.”
The problem is, animals can’t speak; they’re cute, vulnerable, and even if we don’t have a pet, it’s become acceptable to spend hours watching them online – who hasn’t turned to Procatinator in this dark term of exam despair? That’s why, last year, when Cardiff University sewed kittens’ eyes shut in the hope of finding a cure for lazy eyes, there was such uproar. Would we even have heard about it if the experiment involved less lovable creatures such as the naked mole rat?
With such great emotive power, leading to inevitable knee jerk outrage, it’s easy to forget that the outcome of these endeavours is unimaginably positive, developing cures for terrible diseases that otherwise would not be possible. Of course, the ethics and practises of each experiment must always be evaluated on their individual merits, but the fact is, we, as humans, have a lot more in common with fellow animals than any kind of computer.
Although the animals used in such tests may not directly give us the solution to such diseases as HIV and cancer, they do provide fundamental ground-work that future research and development can build upon to potentially one day give us a cure.
At present, the University is in possession of 2160 live animals and last year carried out experiments on 9100 mice and frogs. This seems like a huge number, however compared to other universities it pales into insignificance. For example The University of Oxford last year carried out tests on 150000 badgers alone.
As stated in the University’s online declaration, “the University supports the principle of the three R’s – that those involved in animal research should aim at Replacing, Refining and Reducing the use of animals for research purposes.” And as they figures show it has proven itself to stand by these principles in comparison to other Universities.
Obviously animal testing isn’t the ideal and there are laudable steps being made to move away from it. However as a vivisectionist from Imperial College noted: “society faces increasingly complex health issues and research cannot be mired by only using currently unreliable alternatives (such as stem cells).” So, until a truly viable alternative becomes available, animal testing is not so much a case of choice but a necessity.
It’s also important to reflect upon what we have already gained from animal research. Without such experiments we would not have vaccinations for illnesses such as chicken pox, cholera and polio. In addition, animals were also used in discovering insulin, chemotherapy and artificial hearts, amongst other things.
With this in mind the moral dilemma appears to be: by not testing on animals, are we not endangering the human race?
This is by no means to say that I am condoning all animal testing. In the case of cosmetics and beauty products, the use of animals is inherently vain and unjustified – a new brand of makeup isn’t going to save your life, no matter how much better you think you’d feel by using it.
If, as the regulations make clear, the potential benefits of the testing do not outweigh the damage caused, there is no way of justifying experiments on animals. How can a new heart and a chance of life be validly compared with the development of a new lipstick?
However in the case of animal testing we should not automatically condemn it universally, we should view each case on its merits.
It’s undeniable that there are many moral and ethical complications to take into account, but at this moment we can’t have it all. We can’t produce cures for terrible illnesses like cancer without repercussions of any kind, and we can’t forget what animal testing has given us this far.