6 - Research ethics III

Summary

In the previous chapter, we noted an emerging consensus in the scientific community that all human beings possess intrinsic moral worth, which means they cannot be used as mere resources in order to advance scientific knowledge. There is far less consensus about the moral status of nonhuman animals, which means that there is much greater disagreement about the principles that ought to guide research involving animals. The notion of free and informed consent that played such a central role in the previous chapter is of little use in this context as perhaps no other animal is capable of comprehending a proposed research project and communicating consent. Yet this fact alone does not mean that the perspective of animals merits no consideration in the conduct of scientific research. After all, human babies and those who are severely mentally handicapped are similarly incapable of understanding and communicating. Is there anything different about nonhuman animals that might justify treating them differently in the name of scientific progress?

Setting the stage: war over animal research

Animal research can take a variety of forms, from ethological studies of animal behavior and the paradox of scientific wildlife management to veterinary medical research and the genetic engineering of animals for specific forms of experimentation. Animals in research are not only used to test drugs but have been bred and engineered to do so. Other animals are used to test, not therapies, but cosmetics. Some animals live for the most part in the wild only to be, on occasion, tranquilized, trapped, tagged, and released. Still other animals are subjects of research in their own right, with electrodes implanted in their brains to learn more about the brains of animals and by extension humans.