Monday, June 19, 2006

animal testing

I support animal experimentation in principal but only in a small number of cases. Unfortunately since I know almost nothing about this kind of research, so I don't know where I think the line should be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. Having said that I think it is very likely that way to much testing goes on. Whenever I read anything on testing in the media it just bashes on about the benefits of testing. Implicit in this line of reasoning is that testing is fine just so long as it benefits humans which people like me deny (it’s an example of begging the question according to my handy guide to clear thinking). In my view, there must be no other way of doing the test's and the benefits to humans (or animals for that matter) must be enormous. Here's what the Economist has say
Great apes are man's closest relatives, having parted company from the human family tree only a few million years ago. Hence it can be (and is) argued that they are indispensable for certain sorts of research. On the other hand, a recent study by Andrew Knight and his colleagues at Animal Consultants International, an animal-advocacy group, casts doubt on the claim that apes are used only for work of vital importance to humanity. Important papers tend to get cited as references in subsequent studies, so Mr Knight looked into the number of citations received by 749 scientific papers published as a result of invasive experiments on captive chimpanzees. Half had received not a single citation up to ten years after their original publication.
So it can't plausibly be argued that this research is essential for human’s at all. And this is for monkeys! Imagine what is happening to lab mice!

The moral of the story is that people respond to incentives. It's no good telling scientists that they must only do testing that is essential and then leaving them to it because they're decent chaps. Unnecessary testing should be against the law. The more I think about it, a rule allowing special cases for testing sounds suspiciously like torture permits. Designed for extreme circumstances but gradually becoming routine as has apparently happened in Israel.

2 comments:

TLT said...

It's extremely upsetting to hear statistics like this. The truth is we use all sorts of medicines and products, eat all sorts of foods and we have no idea where it comes from or what it could do the environment. I don't know whose to blame for this careless behaviour. I suppose life is so complicated that it's hard to keep track of what is actually being sold to us. but I do believe that if there is legislation protecting animals, it's not strict enough. (Law enforcement is of course another issue). People need to get over the conception that everything revolves around people, that other animals are dumb and don't feel anything, and that anything is justifiable provided it brings some benefit to humans.

Anonymous said...

Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
»