I recently came across an advertisement for an essay contest in one of my favorite magazines, The New Scientist. The essay contest was asking if science could end the need for animal research. The ad asked: “Can you envisage how advances in technology—perhaps stem cells, tissue engineering or computer modeling—could end the need for animal research?” I thought about this for a bit and found it an interesting question because I frequently come across research studies where animals have been used for the research study.
Unfortunately I missed the deadline on the essay contest, but still felt it was worth thinking and writing about the issue. The question itself is interesting and reminds me of a similar question that we hear debated in much of the popular literature about whether science and technology can save us from global climate change. The answer to both questions, unfortunately, is no.
The reason that science is unlikely to end the process of animal research lies in the very title of the essay contest ad. It suggests that there is a need for animal research. I realize many people will argue with me about this and say animal research is necessary for advances in biomedical engineering, health care, etc. But this isn’t a question about science. It is a question of ethics.
Where do you place yourself in relation to the other creatures that inhabit the planet with us? The idea that science needs animal research is one that is based on the assumption that we as humans have the right to decide how we use other animals without considering if they want to be involved in our research. If we subjected humans to many of the processes that are used in animal research there is no doubt that we would call this torture. Yet, somehow we are able to look the other way and say it is OK because it saves lives. Well, it doesn’t save the lives of the animals that are “sacrificed” in the process.
Eliminating animal research would clearly slow the advancement of many medical procedures and processes. Many people feel that increased human survival offsets any moral obligation we have to the way we treat other sentient beings. I can’t agree with that. It is time to recognize that if we are holding ourselves up to be the most intelligent creatures on the planet, we must also confront the ethical dilemmas of our actions. I would agree with the underlying assumptions of the New Scientist essay contest that science can make significant advances without the need for animal research. But we must go much further than that and recognize that it is really time to end the use of ALL animal research.
I don’t know the affect that cruelty-free research will have on medical science, but I have seen the look in the eyes of the victims of medical research. I like to use a simple gauge when judging whether something is right or wrong. I use my ESP, emotion/spirit/perception meter and let me tell you, passing by a room where a dog is yelping, pleading very clearly in his language, for mercy, as researchers prepare to put him through yet another abdominal surgery doesn’t feel smart nor right nor fair. In fact, it felt like I, the dog and all witnesses were simultaneously being abused.
I’ve spent even more time in hospital environments where I have seen the healing miracles that this research may produce. Children cured of cancer, hip and knee surgey that restores one to a productive life, and most of humanity has benefited from simple inventions like toothpaste, shampoo, housekeeping products. The list is endless.
I don’t know the best way to deal with this, but I know that if I were that dog about to go under the knife, I would ask that a moratorium be placed on using animals for frivolous and self-indulgent research, that there be a limit to the number of animal studies before it goes into human testing, that we stop trying to create medical and other products with a profit motive and instead using readily available natural healing and preventive medicine, that Americans stop ignoring what others in less wasteful countries of the world are using to promote healing instead of attempting to use one toxin to rid the body of another.
I think the complete answer will be a long time coming, but I hope we can agree that waiting until we find a more convenient way, is not the answer. I hope we can see that we can afford to stop much or all of the cruelty right now. Slave owners thought they would perish if they freed their slaves, but when forced to relinquish a better solution was eventually realized. And so were obvious spiritual benefits.
I suspect that we would have the same revelation and enjoy great spiritual benefit if we were to quit the cruelty, right now, today.
Hsrlee
By: Harlee Goodwin on September 8, 2009
at 4:57 am