Animals in Science and

Elsewhere
Questions Concerning Ethics
Do animals have human rights?
In this regard: are there differences between
animal species?
Do animals have self-awareness?
How can animal testing be justified?
Is animal testing morally condemnable?
Some very interesting clips on
animals behavior and self-awareness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXP8qeFF6A
(chimps memory)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik
(hunting chimps)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPznMbNcfO8
(chimps as killers)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69LDbyl4Xjs
(Island of the infected)
Do Animals have Self-Awareness?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn6kJJfNLVA

Other animals which are self-aware (at least some

individuals):
Orangutans
Chimpanzees
Gorillas
Dolphins
Elephants
Orcas
Bonobos
Rhesus monkeys
European magpies
Crows
Some Thoughts on Animal Testing
In favor of animal experiments:
Experimenting on animals is acceptable if (and only if):
suffering is minimized in all experiments
human benefits are gained which could not be obtained by
using other methods
Against animal experiments:
Experimenting on animals is always unacceptable
because:
it causes suffering to animals
the benefits to human beings are not proven
any benefits to human beings that animal testing does
provide could be produced in other ways
More Thoughts
Harm versus benefit
The case for animal experiments is that they will
produce such great benefits for humanity that it is
morally acceptable to harm a few animals.
The equivalent case against is that the level of
suffering and the number of animals involved are
both so high that the benefits to humanity don't
provide moral justification.
Examples: This and that.
Animal Experiments and Drug Safety
Scientists say that banning animal experiments would
mean either
an end to testing new drugs or
using human beings for all safety tests
Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs
are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do
that. Instead, they are used to help decide whether a
particular drug should be tested on people.
Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as
either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human
beings. If a drug passes the animal test it's then tested
on a small human group before large scale clinical
trials.
Opinions
The pharmacologist William D H Carey demonstrated the
importance of animal testing in a letter to the British Medical
Journal:
We have 4 possible new drugs to cure HIV. Drug A killed all the rats,
mice and dogs. Drug B killed all the dogs and rats. Drug C killed all
the mice and rats. Drug D was taken by all the animals up to huge
doses with no ill effect. Question: Which of those drugs should we
give to some healthy young human volunteers as the first dose to
humans (all other things being equal)?
To the undecided (and non-prejudiced) the answer is, of course,
obvious. It would also be obvious to a normal 12 year old child...
An alternative, acceptable answer would be, none of those drugs
because even drug D could cause damage to humans. That is true,
which is why Drug D would be given as a single, very small dose to
human volunteers under tightly controlled and regulated
conditions.
William DH Carey, BMJ 2002; 324: 236a
Opinions
Animal experiments only benefit human beings if their
results are valid and can be applied to human beings.
Not all scientists are convinced that these tests are
valid and useful.
...animals have not been as critical to the advancement
of medicine as is typically claimed by proponents of
animal experimentation.
Moreover, a great deal of animal experimentation has
been misleading and resulted in either withholding of
drugs, sometimes for years, that were subsequently
found to be highly beneficial to humans, or to the
release and use of drugs that, though harmless to
animals, have actually contributed to human suffering
and death.
Jane Goodall 'Reason for Hope', 1999
The moral status of the experimenters
What is relevant is the ethical approach of the experimenter to each
experiment. John P Gluck has suggested that this is often lacking:

The lack of ethical self-examination is common and generally involves the

denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization
of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subjects.
The use of animals in research should evolve out of a strong sense of
ethical self-examination. Ethical self-examination involves a careful
self-analysis of one's own personal and scientific motives. Moreover,
it requires a recognition of animal suffering and a satisfactory working
through of that suffering in terms of one's ethical values.

John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1991

Reduce Animal Testing
The three Rs
The three Rs are a set of principles that scientists
are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the
impact of research on animals.
The three Rs are: Reduction, Refinement,
Replacement.
Reduction
Reducing the number of animals used in experiments by:
Improving experimental techniques
Improving techniques of data analysis
Sharing information with other researchers
Refinement
Refining the experiment or the way the animals are
cared for so as to reduce their suffering by:
Using less invasive techniques
Better medical care
Better living conditions
Replacement
Replacing experiments on animals with alternative
techniques such as: Experimenting on cell cultures
instead of whole animals
Using computer models
Studying human volunteers
Using epidemiological studies
Animal Welfare Act (Germany)
Very strict rules
Researcher must submit a detailed proposal with
statements about the justification, methods used,
species and number of animals, scientific
background, qualification of personnel, etc.
Every proposal will be evaluated by expert team of
the local authorities plus activists.
Sometimes very harsh hearings.
Andreas Kreiter case (Bremen, neurobiologist)
 Personal attacks after a
court ruled in favor of
his research.
The ad crudely hurts
the personal rights of
the scientist, the
organizations write,
and defames
biomedical research as
a whole. The ad aims
for personal
annihilation, Kreiter
says, and it is not
acceptable for a state
founded on the rule of
law.
http://speakingofresearch.com/2015/05/20/animal-research-statistics-for-germany-in-2013/
http://speakingofresearch.com/2015/05/20/animal-research-statistics-for-germany-in-2013/
Changes over Time

https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-research-statistics/german-animal-research-statistics/
https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-research-statistics/german-animal-research-statistics/
https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-research-statistics/german-animal-research-statistics/
In Contrast to
References / Further Reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experi
ments_1.shtml