Animal Experimentation | Introduction
Working for the periodical Animal’s Agenda, Rick Bogle discovered disturbing aspects of research projects on nonhuman primates (henceforth referred to as primates). He found one researcher who was “depriving infant rhesus macaques of key nutrients and stud[ying] the results, such as chronic diarrhea and neural impairment,” and another researcher who was “learning how to bolt the heads of three-month-old monkeys into a restraint device and inject[ing] chemicals into their brains to induce seizures.” In other experiments, baby monkeys were separated from their mothers so researchers could study conditions like depression, aggression, and mother-infant bonding.
Torturous experiments on primates, like those depicted above, make most people uncomfortable. For many years in the United States, heated controversy has surrounded animal experimentation in general, but no issue is more emotionally charged than using primates in medical tests. At an emotional level, humans recognize something of themselves in primates, and they are therefore reluctant to approve the use of primates for experimentation, especially if the test would be painful. Polls indicate that the public believes a difference exists between primates and other animals and that primates have much in common with humans.
These feelings of kinship drive animal protection groups to prevent experimentation on primates. However, those involved with research on primates argue that primate experiments are necessary to find cures for human diseases. The debate over primate testing centers around two issues: the effectiveness of testing on primates and the ethical questions raised when using humanity’s closest living relatives for experimentation. Researchers and animal rights activists disagree on the medical contributions of primate testing. Scientists assert that animal research in general, and primate research specifically, has been vital to protecting human health. According to the Scientific Steering Committee for the European Commission, “Experiments on live animals are powerful ways of better understanding the complex biological mechanisms” of the human body. Scientists use primates whose immune systems are similar to humans to make sure that vaccines are safe, for example. The committee members believe that trials for AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis C, and immunebased diseases depend upon primate testing. Neural testing on primates has led to advances in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. These advances were made possible by the fact that humans and primates are remarkably similar.
Indeed, scientific data indicate that 97.7 percent of the DNA in apes and humans is the same. Chimpanzee DNA matches 98.7 percent of human DNA. (Most mammals have DNA structures that match human genes by at least 90 percent.) While acknowledging that genetic similarities between primates and humans exists, opponents to testing, like C. Ray Greek, a medical doctor and author of several books attacking the efficacy of animal experiments, dismiss the idea of physiological resemblance. “The primate brain is not a scaled-down version of our brain,” Greek told New Scientist. “Chimp brains and human brains are similar in structure, but that doesn’t mean they perform the same functions.”
Greek’s statement is at the crux of the arguments presented by animal rights advocates. Advocates believe that although primates exhibit humanlike qualities, their physiology makes them poor test subjects. A statement from the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments outlines why this is the case:
After decades of research on primates, scientists have repeatedly failed to make significant breakthroughs in fully understanding the onset and progression of HIV or AIDS, cot death [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome], epilepsy, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease, or cancer—all human conditions which have been thoroughly, though pointlessly, explored through research on primates. The fundamental flaw underlying the research of human diseases in primates is that researchers can only artificially recreate the symptoms of human diseases in primates, which is very different from studying a naturally occurring disease in a biologically relevant animal such as a human patient.
Ongoing AIDS experiments illustrate the problems with using primates for testing. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a group of doctors that promotes alternatives to animal experimentation, describes the pitfalls of using chimpanzees in AIDS research:
None have become clinically ill, in spite of being infected with several different strains of the virus, having their immune systems altered with drugs, having treatments designed to specifically destroy the cells which are thought to be most active in protecting the body from HIV infection, and being co-infected with other viruses which were presumed to help HIV gain a foothold. Experimenters have even injected human HIV-infected brain tissue directly into chimpanzee brains, but to no avail.
PCRM members believe that using primates for AIDS research wastes money and time that could be better spent on more effective means of testing, such as clinical trials or in-vitro experiments. These experiments use human rather than animal subjects or cell tissue. Animal rights activists believe that animal experiments harm humanity by taking resources from these more effective techniques.
The value of primate experiments is just one subject of contention between researchers and animal rights activists. These two groups also disagree on whether it is ethical to experiment on primates.
The general arguments for and against the ethical use of any animal for experimentation are important to understand because they provide a foundation for the debate over primate testing. On one hand, animal rights activists believe that all animals deserve the same rights as humans, including the right to freedom from unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or discomfort. Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and a leader in the field of animal rights, suggests that all living beings have an inherent value and that to use any animals for experimentation is evil. He believes that, as moral agents—those who have the ability to apply moral principles in decision making—humanity has a duty to practice that morality not just on other moral agents but on moral patients as well—those who cannot apply moral principles, such as children, the mentally disabled, and animals—even though these beings cannot reciprocate.
Researchers, on the other hand, believe that their experiments on animals are morally justified. They assert that animal experimentation in general has benefited humanity. They argue that the advantages for humankind outweigh the harm done to animals.
Many advocates of animal testing also do not believe that animals and humans are moral equivalents; therefore, they do not think that animals deserve the same rights as humans. Tibor Machan, a philosophy professor at Chapman University in Orange, California, believes “such rights would only arise if animals developed into moral agents, which they haven’t . . . no one is expecting animals to be kind, compassionate, considerate of their own victims.” Many advocates of animal experimentation feel that the fact that humans can feel guilt over experiments demonstrates they are superior to all animals.
Some supporters of animal experimentation hold the belief that God placed animals on Earth for the benefit of humankind, and therefore humans have the right and obligation to use animals as needed. These supporters assert that humans are made in the image of God, so to equate them to any other animal degrades humankind. According to David R. Carlin, a professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island, people hold a special place in the universe. Carlin writes, “To reduce human nature to nothing more than its biological status is to attack this ancient and exalted conception of human nature.” Other supporters of animal experimentation go further, saying that not only is it not harmful for humanity to experiment on animals, it is ethically wrong not to perform those experiments if people will benefit.
The debate over animal experimentation is made more contentious when specifically considering primates because they exhibit many humanlike characteristics. Animal rights advocate Rick Bogle supports his arguments by citing data that indicate “just how cognitively sophisticated and emotionally sensitive monkeys and apes are.” He points out that apes have demonstrated the ability to use sign language at a level equal to that of a three- or four-year-old child as well as “joke, lie and empathize with humans and other animals.” When provided with a mirror, apes will examine and groom themselves, demonstrating a sense of self similar to humans. One gorilla, Koko, has scored between seventy and ninety-five on human IQ tests; the average human has an IQ of one hundred.
Steven Wise, an animal rights lawyer and a vocal voice for the rights of primates, seeks not only to prevent experimentation but to also provide primates with rights equal to humans so that they would no longer be considered property, to be used as human owners see fit. In fact, Wise compares the plight of primates to that of human slaves—sentient beings without the “rights of bodily integrity and bodily liberty.” He believes it is unfair for an intelligent, feeling primate to have no more rights than a chair when an encephalic child who has no brain has the same rights as any human. Wise challenges the idea that humans are intrinsically more valuable than primates and in so doing, calls into question the notion that humans are superior to all animals.
Under pressure from animal rights advocates such as Wise, some countries have taken dramatic strides to halt primate experiments. New Zealand has already provided great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas) with legal rights that protect them from being used for research, testing, or teaching. The United Kingdom has banned all experiments using great apes; the nation’s leaders believe that such procedures cannot be justified because apes have too high a level of sentiency.
Animal rights activists around the world continue to advance legislation that will ensure that primates are no longer subject to the agonizing tests described by Bogle. However, they meet resistance from researchers who view primate testing as necessary for the development of drugs and vaccines for certain diseases. In At Issue: Animal Experimentation, activists, scientists, researchers, and educators debate the issues surrounding animal testing. The controversy over the role of animals in medicine will likely persist as long as some diseases remain uncured.
