A Rational Defense of Animal Research

1. A Rational Defense of Animal Research Nathan Nobis, Ph.D. Philosophy Department University of Alabama, Birmingham www.NathanNobis.com aphilosopher@gmail.com

2. 3,000-6,000 animals killed every hour of every day by U.S. scientist and those employed by them • Recent review suggests just being in lab is harmful for animals • Video footage of Covance’s labs in Vienna, VA • Are these actions of harming animals morally permissible, or are they wrong? • Is it wrong to treat us these ways, and if so, why?

3. Us? • ‘conscious, sentient beings’ – many animals are like us • ‘us’ = ‘humans’ – be careful • Is the suggestion that anything that is biologically human is wrong to treat those ways? • Would imply it is wrong to destroy (living) cells, tissues, organs and embryos/fetuses

4. Us? • A being has 'moral rights' only if "rational" or "intelligent" or "autonomous"? • But, severely mentally challenged, senile, seriously demented and babies – all considered to be morally significant 'us' -- have rights, even though not rational, intelligent, autonomous • If they have rights, then basic moral ‘bar’ is set low • Cannot be set at ‘being human’ – cells/organs • Therefore, set at ‘consciousness’ • Ability to feel pleasure and pain • Perspective on world

5. What is morally relevant, not species but mental life of individual • Comparable mental lives deserve equal respect and equal consideration and thus, nearly all animal experimentation is wrong. • This reasoning defended by many, criticized by few, philosophers

6. Recent Objections • Why Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research, 2001 • Defense of animal experimentation

7. Philosopher R.G. Frey’s essay • “Justifying Animal Experimentation: The Starting Point” • Animal experimentation vs. human experimentation

8. Scientist Adrian Morrison • “human beings stand apart in a moral sense from all other species” • Does not identify morally-relevant characteristics humans have that animals don’t • Therefore, he can’t rationally criticize opposing views • “Self preservation” • Doesn’t explain why human experimentation would be wrong • Vivisectors have “God’s blessing”

9. Biologists Charles Nicholl and Sharon Russell • “Evolution has endowed us with a need to know as much as we can” • “to refrain from exploring nature in every possible way would be an arrogant rejection of evolutionary forces” • Then why isn’t it arrogant to perform experimentation on humans? • Purpose of evolution • Since animals act some way, humans can too

10. Others • Scientist Jerrold Tannenbaum • Scientists may “befriend” animals • Scientist Stuart Zola • “basic” vs. “applied” animal research • No backup provided • Philosopher Baruch Brody • Special obligations from humans to humans • Also special obligations from humans to animals to discount animal interests • To try to benefit humans, we must inflict pain, suffering and death on animals • More reflection and argument needed

11. Philosopher H. Tristam Engelhardt • Dissenter – defends animal rights • “to be skinned” • “transformed into fur coats” • “produce knowledge of interest to humans” • “to be the object of culinary arts” • Little discussion of scientific issues • Remarks scattered

12. Morrison • “medicine cannot progress without animal experimentation” • What about clinical and in vitro research, computer and mathematical modeling, epidemiology, etc.

13. Tibor Machan’s Putting Humans first: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite • Claim that animals possess moral rights is “a fiction” and “a trick” • Humans can see difference between right and wrong, animals can’t • Therefore humans have rights, animals don’t • However, only some humans, not all have these rights • Machan’s theory provides no protection for these humans

14. Tibor Machan’s Putting Humans first: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite • Human babies and severely mentally challenged don’t “lack moral agency altogether” • Must consider them as existing “normally, not abnormally” • However it is not true that, in general, all features of normal beings are shared by abnormal beings • Therefore, vulnerable humans do not meet Machan’s necessary condition for rights; his defense of the rights of them fails and thereby so does his argument that animals have not moral rights

15. Tibor Machan’s Putting Humans first: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite • “politically incorrect” animals • Morally permissible for us to act like some animals and kill other animals • “Humans are more important, even better, than animals, and we deserve the benefits that exploiting animals can provide” • Strong arguments not given to justify this

16. Tibor Machan’s Putting Humans first: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite • Unanswered rhetorical questions too often take the place of arguments • Arguments not carefully and precisely developed or defended • Position on the use of animals is unclear and ambivalent

17. Utilitarianism and animal use • Few advocates of vivisection accept utilitarianism • Calculated indirect harms and opportunity costs that result from funds being directed towards vivisection and not towards others • Nobody has tried to show that some specified amount of vivisection is (likely) indispensable for bringing about the greatest possible overall medical benefits • Nobody has argued that, despite all the other research methods available, other methods would be better than animal research for human benefit

18. Conclusions • Status quo regarding animal use, especially in scientific research • Carl Cohen fails because his strategy implies that animals actually have rights and humans have none • Reasoning given in favor of some anti-animal perspective is faulty because it either depends on false an/or rationally indefensible premises

19. Conclusions • Those who harm animals attempt to develop a plausible justification for doing so • It is likely morally obligatory that those who use animals in harmful manners cease in their deeds