Ans. "It is if you are a human willing to use humans of similar capabilities in the same way AND have exercised necessary concern for the welfare of all involved..."
I shall discuss preliminary efforts by scientists and lay-persons concerned for the welfare of non-human animals, these are people that seek to minimize pain caused to animal research subjects. In part their efforts are pragmatic (people want to improve the human condition and they want to avoid lawsuits) but also they are sympathetic (people who want to alleviate human suffering and really do not want to inflict suffering on other creatures in order to do it.)
"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons." --C.S. Lewis
I think C.S. Lewis is exactly right about the REASONS for which we use animals: because we can and because we seek to better the human condition. I do not accept his conclusion given the shared concerns of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare people.
I propose that we take seriously the notion that animals have (or ought to have) BASIC rights AND that we should unflinchingly be consistent and comprehensive in using animals (humans included) for ultimately anthropocentric ends. So for the sake of discussion imagine that we can agree and actually produce MINIMALLY NECESSARY criteria for morally defensible use (after all, it would only be logical to permit cutting up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons if such concerns were not relevant).
Also take seriously the basic belief that human suffering (and interests) count for more than non-human suffering, so seeking to take care of one's own kind first and foremost is the decisive motive. Among humans, other humans enjoy a privileged status, among monkeys, other monkeys enjoy a privileged status in the wild. There is this precedent in nature but SO WHAT? The point is that we do, in fact, value human lives more, and whether we should (OR SHOULD NOT) requires a separate argument.
I want to avoid TWO EXTREMES points-of-view (I call them extreme because they are untenable or uncompromising OR BOTH)
Some people OPPOSE using any animals in research. (WHY? It is cruel to harm other animals that suffer. OR, Animals have interests and rights too, and human interests do not override the rights of animals. OR basically we don't have the right [a permission] to use animals...)
Some people PERMIT using any animals in research. (WHY? Non-human animals have no rights or moral standing and can be used as humans choose. Using animals advances medical knowledge and thereby reduces human suffering OR promotes human flourishing.)
I want to sketch the sort of MIDDLE POSITION investigators and animal welfare people are actually producing.
ASSUME: If a being suffers, then there can be no moral justification for REFUSING to take that suffering into consideration.
GRANT organisms certain BASIC FREEDOMS based on our sympathy for them.
OPPOSE using any animals (incl. humans) when all alternatives to their use have not been exercised, AND PERMIT using some animals HUMANELY in research when all alternatives have been exhausted and significant benefits (TO HUMANS especially) are foreseeable.
[This is crude...but we take into account that animals suffer too.] Again I'm talking about people who think that SOMETIMES it is morally permissible to use animals in research and that sometimes it is not. EVEN IF IT IS difficult to delineate when it is acceptable and when it is not, I suspect (but will not here attempt to prove) that we are all (animals included) best served if we try to work out a compromise.
***This position is motivated by a genuine concern for all beings involved but tempered also by a skepticism about humans needing a RIGHT any more than any other animal to seek their own ends. If people OUGHT to take extraordinary steps not to consume or use other beings it needs to be clearer that humans and other creatures would be better off overall if we did not use them since we need not. I prefer empirical evidence to this effect, but I would settle for something a little better than "Since we CAN avoid using them then we OUGHT to avoid using them," when I am being asked to make my life more complicated when it is already a struggle to begin with.***
People who argue (on moral grounds) that animals should not be used in experiments AT ALL want BASIC RIGHTS for animals and humans. The idea here is that even if animals have different attributes and capabilities (or divine purposes or ecological roles) than humans, every SENTIENT creature (one that has the ability to suffer as humans do) is due equal consideration (because they are of equal intrinsic worth) and thus has a right not to suffer needlessly. Some fruitful sentiments for regulating animal research reside in the animal rights position.
TOM REGAN EXPLAINS that a being has inherent worth when it is an experiencing subject of a life, that is, when a being has preferences, beliefs, feelings, recollections, and expectations. So this is easy to establish; once we have evidence either for or against such capabilities in any creature, we can then use or abuse them accordingly. BUT this will depend upon who tells the story, and humans are limited if imaginative storytellers. We simply lack enough evidence to conclude either way that allegedly non-sentient organisms such as cabbage plants and cockroaches do not also have analogous preferences, beliefs, feelings, recollections, and expectations. HOW DOES THIS ARGUMENT WORK? Something like this...
"Since we have no direct evidence that cabbage plants, cockroaches and the bacteria in my gut have belief or preference analogues, we can conclude that they also are not experiencing subjects of a life." BUT perhaps it only appears that this is so because I have no idea what it would be like to be one of these organisms. I don't hear the cockroach scream when I step on it, but its scurrying for cover might be mean that it prefers in some sense not to be killed. I don't want to push this point but it strikes me as really arrogant and myopic to conclude that inscrutable organisms are not by that fact alone experiencing subjects of a life also.
PETER SINGER points out that HUMANS and ANIMALS have different abilities and thus may be treated differently as befits these differences. BUT, he continues, this does NOT justify giving LESS CONSIDERATION to their needs and interests. So, we may oppose past or present abuses of animals in research and yet NOT insist that all animal experiments stop immediately. "Experiments serving no direct need and urgent purpose should stop immediately, and in the remaining research efforts we should whenever possible, seek to REPLACE experiments that involve animals with alternative methods that do not..."
[I am willing to apply the same treatment to fellow humans and so are you. We already agree to this when we tacitly and explicitly permit research to be done on human subjects with and without consent.]
Some moral arguments for using animals in research presume that animals are not as valuable as people because they are not as intelligent or that they do not have the capability to reason. Such arguments are flawed because if we were to follow it to its logical conclusion we would be able to justify experimentation on mentally disabled people or even children. We do not grant moral rights to people based on their level of intelligence. We grant people rights based on our empathy for them and the CONCERN that to not do so could potentially cause them great harm and suffering.
But can we grant the same BASIC RIGHTS to non-human animals? I think so.
[Here I focus on AWP and the legitimate use of animals in research (humans too) with an eye towards seeking alternatives when viable.]
The closest thing I find to a bill of rights for animals in animal welfare literature considered seriously by concerned scientists is this list of so-called FIVE FREEDOMS. These freedoms are MINIMALLY NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT for promoting the welfare of any animal by considering its capacity to avoid suffering and sustain mental and physical health. The list is the result of a morally concerned ATTEMPT to make the best of a complex and difficult situation. This basic bill of animal rights was first drafted by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in the late 1970s in response to egregious and system-wide abuses in commercial animal husbandry and factory farming. [Source: UK FAWC, 1993]
Every animal must be granted
These are conditional freedoms, to be sure, but if we can put to one side our outrage about the liberties taken by unscrupulous investigators with animals, we see that experimenters have here criteria for evaluating the welfare of animals in different research environments. Most agree that animals denied any of these freedoms suffer unnecessarily in ways which are similar to those that occur in distressed humans (from boredom, compulsive pacing or chewing or grooming, self-mutilation, clinical illness, even cannibalism). The goal is to produce living conditions, where a creature has all its survival needs met in a species-appropriate enriched environment (including sufficient mental challenges), this ensures that animals exist in better than usual (if not optimal) living conditions.
MY ARGUMENT: Since we do not want to cause suffering needlessly, we are then morally obliged to CONSIDER the interests of all creatures great and small (regardless of whether they are sentient or have beliefs or desires as we do) but NOT to consider those interests equally with human interests.
MY REASONS: Animals have some moral status (moral patients) they are sentient (they suffer) and have interests in living and faring well. But human interests (needs and wants) sometimes legitimately override animal interests. So, in the absence of SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES use animals for our own ends [SAY WHEN], but do so with the same sort of measured care and compassion we direct towards humans, as far as possible.
Research plans now require (for approval and for funding) that investigators demonstrate they have considered ALTERNATIVES to the use of animals in research (because they realize that using animals is only efficacious and not NECESSARY).
THE GOAL IS TO COMBINE concerns for animal welfare and (worthy) scientific research objectives (increase medical knowledge, diminish suffering)
[These are THE THREE Rs first proposed by Russell & Burch in their book Principles of Humane Experimental Technique].
YOU can see HOW the 3 Rs are implemented in a research protocol on the handout (Fig. 12.1).
Using animals HUMANELY means treating them as we would accept and permit that human experimental subjects be treated.
[HERE introduce CATEGORIES OF INVASIVENESS as a limit-setting device and then perhaps just list what procedures (via the categories) are off limits.]
IDEA: When animals are used be less invasive.
AVOID CRUELTY = inducing unnecessary harm (causing pain or suffering by infliction or deprivation)
Investigators who consider it essential to use animals in their research must adhere to humane principles. Research proposals must be submitted to an appropriate review committee for all studies and trials which involve the use of vertebrates and some invertebrates in Categories B through D, but category E studies are prohibited.
A. Experiments on most invertebrates or on live isolates
Examples: the use of tissue culture and tissues obtained at necropsy or from the slaughterhouse; the use of eggs, protozoa or other single-celled organisms; experiments involving containment, incision or other invasive procedures on non-vertebrates (metazoa without well-devloped nervous systems).B. Experiments which cause little or no discomfort or stress
Examples: domestic flocks or herds being maintained in simulated or actual commercial production management systems; the short-term and skillful restraint of animals for purposes of observation or physical examination; blood sampling; injection of material in amounts that will not cause adverse reactions by the following routes: intravenous, subcutaneous, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, or oral, but not intrathoracic or intracardiac (thisd is Category C); acute terminal studies in which the animals are completely anesthetized and do not regain consciousness; approved methods of euthanasia following rapid unconsciousness, such as anesthetic overdose, or decapitation preceded by sedation or light anesthesia; short periods of food and/or water DEPRIVATION equivalent to periods of abstinence in nature.C. Experiments which cause minor stress or pain of short duration
Examples: cannulation or catheterization of blood vessels or body cavities under anesthesia; minor surgical procedures under anesthesia, such as biopsies, laparoscopy; short periods of restraint beyond that for simple observation or examination, but consistent with minimal distress; short periods of food and/or water deprivation which exceed periods of abstinence in nature; behavioral experiments on conscious animals that involve short-term, stressful restraint; exposure to non-lethal levels of drugs or chemicals. Such procedures should not cause significant changes in the animal's appearance or its physiology, such as respiratory or cardiac rate, or fecal or urinary output, or in social responses.
Note: During or after Category C studies, animals must not show self-mutilation, anorexia, dehydration, hyperactivity, increased recumbency or dormancy, increased vocalization, aggressive-defensive behavior or demonstrate social withdrawal and self-isolation.
D. Experiments which cause moderate to severe distress or discomfort
Examples: major surgical procedures conducted under general anesthesia, with subsequent recovery; prolonged (several hours or more) periods of physical restraint; induction of behavioral stresses such as maternal deprivation, aggression, predator-prey interactions; procedures which cause severe, persistent or irreversible disruption of sensorimotor organization. Other examples: inducing anatomical and physiological abnormalities that will result in pain or distress; the exposure of an animal to noxious stimuli from which escape is impossible; the production of radiation sickness; exposure to drugs or chemicals at levels that impair physiological systems.
Note: Procedures used in Category D studies should not cause prolonged or severe clinical distress as may be exhibited by a wide range of clinical signs, such as marked abnormalities in behavioral patterns or attitudes, the absence of grooming, dehydration, abnormal vocalization, prolonged anorexia, circulatory collapse, extreme lethargy or disinclination to move, and clinical signs of severe or advanced local or systemic infection, etc.
E. Procedures which cause severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals. Example: Surgical procedures without anesthesia; exposure to noxious stimuli or agents whose effects are unknown; exposure to drugs or chemicals at levels that (may) markedly impair physiological systems and which cause death, severe pain, or extreme distress; completely new biomedical experiments which have a high degree of invasiveness; behavioral studies about which the effects of the degree of distress are not known; use of muscle relaxants or paralytic drugs without anesthetics; burn or trauma infliction on unanesthetized animals; any procedures (e.g., the injection of noxious agents or the induction of severe stress or shock) that will result in pain which approaches the pain tolerance threshold and cannot be relieved by analgesia (e.g., when toxicity testing and experimentally-induced infectious disease studies have death as the endpoint).
I distributed a HANDOUT (Fig. 13.7) sketching the Dutch model for minimizing suffering in animal-based experiments. In the Dutch system a DECISION TREE for evaluating the ethicality of any research program by estimating physiological and behavioral pain and distress experienced by animals is essential to granting approval. Pain and distress are scored at three levels (minor, moderate nd sever) in combination with four durations (under 1 day, 1-7 days, 8-30 days, and over 30 days). After determining the amount of discomfort a program very likely produces the SIGNIFICANCE of the animal experiment for human health or nutrition is assessed. Approval or rejection is based on these criteria. You can see how pursuing ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH is required for research programs to be approved.
WHEN IS AN EXPERIMENT USING ANIMALS JUSTIFIABLE?
ANSWER: When the use of a human would also be justifiable.
IF it were really possible to save lives by experimenting on the humans AND there were no other way to do so, then it would not be wrong to sacrifice the lives of the few for the many. (Experimenters) must be willing to use humans at a similar level to the animals they are planning to use.
[To my knowledge, no evidence sufficiently justifies the assertion that HUMANS ARE THE SORTS OF BEINGS WHOSE TELOS DEMANDS THAT THE NEEDS OF ITS NATURE BE PROTECTED and no explanation (theological or scientific) requires it. --this also applies to the "Good of the Species Fallacy" going around.]
WHAT ABOUT THIS? (contra Stan our unabashed animal rights teleologist--one cannot be both!)
Suppose it is true [as the naive often say] that organisms act for the good of their species and that they ought to do so. (I doubt this {primarily because no scientific data support this bit of folk biology and} because philosophically it requires a [mythical supernatural] designer) or at least requires backwards causation...future ends and outcomes explain past actions [events]).
Suppose also that we should do what is in the best interests of our species. E.g. humans eat meat when it is the most readily available direct source of protein...which requires the least amount of energetic expenditure to get...
Now if acting to the detriment of other species is really beneficial to ours, then we should do it. [In other words, we should do what benefits our kind---It must be in our TELOS since we are suited if not predisposed to be predatory in this way...]
Thus, we SHOULD consume, experiment upon and generally use non-humans if it benefits us to do so.
OTHER IMPORTANT LINKS: