khushpatel2709
What Is Our Responsibility to Lab Animals? Standard ethical…
What Is Our Responsibility to Lab Animals?
Standard ethical guidelines encourage minimizing the use of, and harm to, animals in research. Is that enough?
A long-tailed macaque at the National Primate Research Center of Thailand in May 2020. Scientists from the center tested a Covid-19 vaccine candidate on monkeys.Credit…Mladen Antonov/Agence France-Presse Getty Images
By Jeremy Engle
Feb. 9, 2023
Scientists use animals to learn more about diseases, develop drugs and test product safety. For example, Covid-19 vaccines were tested on mice and monkeys and developed based on decades of animal-based work on mRNA vaccine technology. The results saved an estimated 20 million lives.
Standard ethical guidelines encourage minimizing the use of, and harm to, animals in research. But the question remains: Is that enough?
Proponents of animal testing argue that the benefits are enormous and justify the harms to animals. Opponents assert that animal testing is unethical and that the benefits are overstated. And some experts contend that, so long as animals are used in research which they probably will be for years to come humans owe them more: repayment.
What do you think?
In “What Do We Owe Lab Animals?” Brandon Keim reports on the issue of repayment:
When Lauren Strohacker received her second Covid-19 vaccine dose in the spring of 2021, she rejoiced. It meant she could see her friends again, go to concerts and live with far less fear that an infection might leave her physically or financially devastated.
But it became a bittersweet memory. Not long after Ms. Strohacker, an artist based in Knox County, Tenn., returned home from the vaccination site, she read an article about monkeys used in testing Covid vaccines.
“I thought, I’m afraid of a stupid needle,” she said. “And these animals have to deal with this all the time.” She reflected on how her newfound freedom, and quite possibly her health, came at the expense of animals suffering or dying to develop the vaccines.
Merely being grateful for those animals seemed insufficient; Ms. Strohacker wanted to give something tangible in return. A little online research returned the National Anti-Vivisection Society’s sanctuary fund, which supports the care of retired lab animals. She made a small donation. “To give thanks was the very least I could do,” Ms. Strohacker said.
Her gesture embodies a voice that is not often heard in debates about the use of animals in biomedical research. These tend to be polarized between opponents of the research, who claim that it is unethical and the benefits are overstated, and proponents who argue that the benefits are enormous and justify the harms to animals.
The advancement of animal-free methods for developing drugs and testing product safety does raise the possibility that, at least in some cases, the use of animals can be avoided. But it will take years for that to happen, and few researchers think the use of animals will cease altogether. So long as animals are used, then, the question remains: What do people owe them?
The article continues:
Scientists often point to the so-called Three Rs, a set of principles first articulated in 1959 by William Russell, a sociologist, and Rex Burch, a microbiologist, to guide experimental research on animals. Researchers are encouraged to replace animals when alternatives are available, reduce the number of animals used and refine their use so as to minimize the infliction of pain and suffering.
These are unquestionably noble aims, ethicists note, but may seem insufficient when compared with the benefits derived from animals. Covid vaccines, for example, which were tested on mice and monkeys, and developed so quickly thanks to decades of animal-based work on mRNA vaccine technology, saved an estimated 20 million lives in their first year of use and earned tens of billions of dollars in revenues.
In light of that dynamic which applies not only to Covid vaccines, but to many other human lifesaving, fortune-generating therapeutics some wonder if a fourth R might be warranted: repayment.
Inklings of the idea of repayment can already be found in the research community, most visibly in laboratories that make arrangements for animals primarily monkeys and other nonhuman primates to be retired to sanctuaries. In the case of dogs and companion species, including rats, they are sometimes adopted as pets.
“It’s kind of karma,” said Laura Conour, the executive director of Laboratory Animal Resources at Princeton University, which has a retirement arrangement with the Peaceable Primate Sanctuary. “I feel like it balances it out a little bit.” The school has also adopted out guinea pigs, anole lizards and sugar gliders as pets to private citizens, and tries to help with their veterinary care.
Students, read the entire article, then tell us:
What are your thoughts on animal testing? Do you think it is ever justified? Why or why not? Are the benefits great enough to justify the harms to animals? Or is all animal-based research unnecessary, cruel and immoral?
Are the Three Rs sufficient to protect and reduce the harm to lab animals? Or do they not go far enough?
After Ms. Strohacker learned that Covid-19 vaccines were tested on monkeys, she made a donation to the National Anti-Vivisection Society’s sanctuary fund, which supports the care of retired lab animals. Do you think there should be a fourth R of repayment to animals used in research? How would you answer the question posed in the article’s headline, “What do we owe lab animals?”
Ms. Strohacker says, “We’ve been conditioned not to think about the animals who are sacrificed for our health.” Do you agree? Do we need to consider the animals used for our benefit more fully? What questions do you still have about animal-based research and testing?
In her latest book, the philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum argues for increased legal standing for animals. Do you think that animals deserve full rights and protections like humans? Why or why not?
Students 13 and older in the United States and Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public and may appear in print.
Find more Student Opinion questions here. Teachers, check out this guide to learn how you can incorporate these prompts into your classroom.
Jeremy Engle joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2018 after spending more than 20 years as a classroom humanities and documentary-making teacher, professional developer and curriculum designer working with students and teachers across the country.
Research Essay Process Assignment Template
Preliminary work
Title of the source:
Summary of Source (100words/paragraph)
Writea one-paragraph summary.
Analysis of source (100words/paragraph):
In what ways is the argument logical, fair, and reasonable? What are the problems, flaws, or
gaps in the argument?
Academic integrity (Writea paragraph for each question):
Scenario 1: You copy a paragraph from the internet and paste it into your COMM 171 essay.
Is this action acceptable or unacceptable? Why?
Scenario 2: You and your friend complete an essay that your instructor said must be done
independently, and each of you submit the same essay as your own work in different
sections of COMM 171. Is this action acceptable or unacceptable? Why?
Scenario 3 You use an online AI tool to write your own essay or pay a writing service to write
the essay for you. You submit this as your own. Is this action acceptable or unacceptable?
Why?
Keep a record of your research (Identify the sources you have come across during the
research process):
Newspaper
– Source title and author:
– Relevance:
Magazine
– Source title and author:
– Relevance:
Videos
– Source title and author:
– Relevance:
Library / Database Sources
– Source title and author:
– Relevance:
Source 1
APA entry:
Annotation:
Source 2
APA entry:
Annotation:
Source 3
APA entry:
Annotation:
In text citation required.
