Animal Anti-Testing

Sara and I were on the subway a few months back, talking about mice–lab mice–which she works with quite a bit in her research. I was trying to understand and give ideas for a new protocol that could distinguish mirroring from other subtle behaviors, to help understand how mice perceive what’s happening to other mice. Why? So-called "mirror neurons" have a lot to do with Autism in humans and perhaps other developmental disorders. Such a test would be useful in helping to narrow down which areas of the brain and which proteins are involved, and this sort of basic research could eventually lead to treatment for humans.

One of the scenarios involved putting a mouse on a platform where it would learn an association between a mild electric shock and some audio cue. It’s no worse than that, but is a bit more complicated, as you can’t just ask a mouse if he learned from what happened to that other mouse.

Suffice it to say, a woman sitting near us, who’d obviously been listening in, soon got up and demanded to know how we could possibly justify shocking mice. Sara calmly explained the reasons, as above. And the woman then explained how she was a music teacher and was actually doing something positive for people, as if Sara wasn’t.

Sara teaches med students too, but that’s beside the point. There is a huge lack of understanding about animal research, in the US and around the world. The idea that some scientist just orders up a bunch of cute white mice from a pet shop or monkeys from Africa and performs vivisections on them is pretty insane.

There are incredibly strict controls over how and when animals can be used, over how they’re treated while they’re alive, including quality of life constraints that many pet owners, most pet stores and even some zoos would do well to adhere to. The basic rule is: the more sophisticated the needs of the animal, the more elaborate and expensive the controls. These animals are bred for research, in many cases genetically selected to help test specific hypotheses about protein expression and behavior. They would not even exist if not for a specific research objective. But their lives are treated with more humanity and respect than we collectively show to many humans around the world.

There’s a good article (The Guardian) that provides some more information, at least for the UK. I’m sure I can dig up more info on the US policies if people want.

But the question remains:

Even with the best procedures and intentions, knowing that it would greatly diminish scientific progress and cost human lives, should animals be used for our benefit at all?

It’s a fair question, if you’re honest and consistent about the implications. For example, I can totally respect people who say "no way" and then follow through with their own personal choices. Vegans who avoid all animal use are certainly being true to their beliefs. But I’d still wonder if they use medications or treatments that were developed using animal testing. Perhaps they even try not to. But what if their lives depended on it? Or the life of a loved one? And what if they later decide to use the medicine. Do they realize that if they had their way in the past, that medicine might not exist?

So I think the reasonable ethical stance against animal testing is to say you would avoid all products using or developed using animals–even knowing the risks–and then live with it, and with the knowledge that other people are living with it (or dying from it) too. The decision about animal research is far more comprehensive than one person choosing to avoid meat and cheese.

For those carnivores who oppose all animal testing, you have to ask yourself if you’re being consistent, asking others to live by rules you won’t adhere to. Are you taking an emotional stance because your idea of what’s happening feels wrong? That’s understandable too. But perhaps your anger is misdirected. Look at the horrors of factory farms, where animals are raised and killed with little regard for their comfort or quality of life, and look at the price of your food. I’d love to see any credible evidence of research scientists similarly abusing animals and going unpunished. The worst things I’ve ever heard of are the occasional unscrupulous animal suppliers, which tend to ruin, not benefit, the scientist’s work.

But there are even those who would use intimidation and violence against scientists to get their way. People bombed research labs in Emeryville when I lived nearby in Berkeley. We’re talking about behavior that’s on a par with anti-abortionists bombing clinics and shooting doctors to ostensibly save lives. And since these crimes do nothing to actually stop animal testing, these people can only be labeled as insane.

Maybe someday, animal testing will find a cure for violence and ignorance too. One can only hope.