Last July, about 4,000 Beagles were removed from an Envigo research facility. This story blew up in the news, and I heard about it a couple of days after it happened. Since then, a lot of discussions have been revolving around why we experiment with animals and the ethics/morals surrounding it. Middle schoolers in the U.S have been dissecting frogs since the 1920s. It has become such a common practice, that buying a frog dissection kit for a class of 30 is now only $87. Although I did not participate in this activity because I went to a private school from 4th-8th grade, I have been well aware of the process, and I am interested in why we dissect frogs in the first place. On the phylogenetic tree of life, Humans are extremely close to primates - a group of animals that have been used as test subjects for centuries. Since WW2 and the restriction of “inhumane human” testing, scientists have been reliant on other primates/mammals to extrapolate results and apply them to us. In Oregon, a research facility housed a portion of 100,000 total monkeys that are currently being researched to understand dementia (THIS IS ORIGINAL ARTICLE). If we care so much about beagles being treated questionably during research, why do we still test on primates - and is it worth it? Article The article begins with a brief history of how we got to testing on animals for human results. The idea that animals are an adequate substitute for human research comes from the 17th Century, with scientist Francis Bacon (scientific method guy) deciding that “the dissection of living animals could ‘sufficiently satisfy’ as a substitute for human experiments.” Even though there is evidence that dissections on primates took place for centuries before the 17th, the systematic inclusion of these studies in human research only began last century. After WWII and the knowledge of unethical human research reached the masses, guidelines for humans in experiments were quickly laid out. In 1979, the ethical foundations (Belmont Report) were established as the premier regulations to follow. Even though this ended systematic questionable research on human subjects, it only encouraged primate substitutes. This is a problem for a few reasons. Approximately 90% of new investigational drugs that appear safe/effective in monkeys fail to be safe/effective in humans. Although we are very similar to primates (99% in chimpanzees), that 1% difference is great enough to cause major translational failures regarding drugs and general research. Because no Belmont Report is protecting non-human animals to the extent people are, Monkeys are used for convenience - even though there is a lack of translation. Not only are these primate studies unreliable because of genetic differences, but they are also unnecessary, and cause unneeded harm to monkeys. Many diseases and drugs aren’t fully understood yet (such as Alzheimer's) and millions of people are still being affected by this disease alone. We don’t have conclusive answers yet, and most of our efforts in this field of research have gone toward animal testing because of the convenience factor. We need to create stronger guidelines for animal testing - and the subsequent translation of results to people. Limits breed innovation, and stronger rules for human and animal testing will provide ethically correct tests with viable results for people. We need to recognize the failure of the 17th-century mindset and change our current testing guidelines to protect all animals from ‘inhumane’ testing. Principlism’s Argument - (contributed to slides, citation on final slide) Founded in 1979 by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, Principlism is one of the more modern takes on ethics. This framework has taken over the medical field due to its easy implementation into medical scenarios. As we learned in class, Principlism has 4 fundamental ideas - Autonomy, Nonmaleficence, Beneficence, and Justice. Autonomy is the idea that ‘rational individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions about their mind and body (giving the patient all the facts to allow them to make a personal decision). Nonmaleficence is the idea of minimizing the harm done, with the harm done only when necessary. Beneficence is the obligation to act for the benefit of others. Finally, Justice is to treat all patients and cases similarly, and not vary treatment between subjects. I think that well-thought-out experiments that do their best to limit harm and best to contribute positively to their objective would be the norm with Principlism as our ethics guideline. In this case, it means proving that using the monkeys in tests will provide invaluable information about Alzheimer's disease for people. And if the tests are greenlit, researchers use as small of a data pool as possible, while not separating monkey families and limiting other monkeys' social life harm. However, the tests cannot proceed if the primates do not agree with the testing in the first place. It has been proven that we can communicate with primates using sign language. Experimenting with the primates without their knowledge and consent will break the first principle of Autonomy. But, if we cannot communicate with certain individuals or cannot get them to understand what the study is, for, and about - we will ignore the Autonomy aspect, and follow the other 3 principles as much as possible. Utilitarianism’s Argument Utilitarianism is seen in almost every discussion or debate regarding ethics since the 19th century. Even though Utilitarianism ideals were formed as early as the mid-17th century, the full realization of Utilitarianism did not exist until 1769 with Jeremy Bentham. Jeremy “Father of Utilitarianism” Bentham drew from the previous writings and views on utilitarianism that came from religious backgrounds and repackaged them to better apply to all of society. Utilitarianism's basic principle comes down to actions based on consequences. Stanford’s Encyclopedia put it succinctly when it said “Actions are approved when they are such as to promote happiness or pleasure, and disapproved of when they tend to cause unhappiness or pain” (2.1). Applying that principle to this situation, we would continue the research - even at the monkeys’ expense. The goal is to take action with the greatest amount of happiness. Although some pain will be caused by the research and experiments on the monkeys, the pleasure and happiness (with the aspirations of invaluable information on Alzheimer's) amount far outweigh the negative. My Argument My take is not as thought out as it could be. A concrete viewpoint on this matter would take years of scientific background research/education to fully understand the view of animal testing, the pros and cons, and when it can be applied. However, I do understand the two ethical frameworks above to use them to help me form my personal opinion. I believe the balance between Utilitarianism and Principlism is the way we ‘ought’ to go about these specific experiments and more. I think if we truly believe that the monkeys can provide invaluable information that can apply to humans for generations to come, we should conduct experiments. How we conduct those experiments is a different story. I think we need to create the most ethical and humane studies possible within the parameters of the study. It will not be just from study to study - the experimental goals, parameters, test subjects, and treatments will vary. What ethical framework do you think best applies to this scenario? And how can we create a just system that can apply to all experiments conducted on animals and humans? Works Cited Driver, Julia. "The History of Utilitarianism." Plate.Standford, Stanford University, 27 Mar. 2009,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#PreClaApp. Accessed 22 Sept. 2022. Ferdowsian, Hope. "Primates in Medical Research: A Matter of Convenience, not Sound Science." The Hastings Center, 8 July 2022, www.thehastingscenter.org/primates-in-medical-research-convenience-not-sound-science/. Accessed 22 Sept. 2022. "Frog Dissection BioKit®." Carolina, Carolina Biological Supply Company, www.carolina.com/dissection-kits/frog-dissection-biokit/221460.pr. Accessed 22 Sept. 2022. OneZoom. Version 3.6-151-gfbdbde4a. One Zoom, www.onezoom.org/life.html/@biota=93302?img=best_any&anim=flight#x240,y564,w1.0000. Pai, Rahul, et al. "Conceptual Framework for Decision Making Presentations." 13 Sept. 2022. Google Slide. "Pro and Con: Animal Dissection." Britannica, 13 Aug. 2021, www.britannica.com/story/pro-and-con-animal-dissection. Accessed 22 Sept. 2022. Rensberger, Boyce. "Chimpanzees Teach Sign Language." The Washington Post, 29 May 1985, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/29/chimpanzees-teach-sign-language/b8cdb502-9d2c-4a2a-9fd9-0732c0fe2024/. Accessed 22 Sept. 2022.
13 Comments
|
AuthorAndrew Silvestri ArchivesCategories |