Anti-Vivisectionism
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Anti-Vivisectionism is opposition to animal research. Opponents of animal research usually use the term "vivisection" rather than "animal research" because it specifically connotes violence against animals. This article deals only with animal research for medical purposes, not animal research for cosmetics or other products.
[edit] Ethics and Evidence
Questions of the ethical treatment of animals are essentially statements of value, and so are not subject to scientific investigation. Scientific inquiry can answer questions like, "What are the differences between animals and humans?" and "What evidence is there to support the claim that different sorts of animals feel pain?" and other empirical questions. However, science cannot state how much pain is acceptable to inflict on an animal for the purpose of research or what the intrinsic rights of animals used for research are. There is nothing intrinsically anti-scientific about the belief that animals have a right to not be experimented on for human purposes or about any particular weighting of animal interests relative to those of humans.
However, evidence should inform the answers to such questions as best as is possible, and the ongoing debate should be conducted in a way that is non-violent and civil.
[edit] Distortions of Evidence
Opponents of animal research may distort evidence to support their views, usually in two ways: exaggerating the degree of cruelty inherent in animal research and downplaying the benefits of animal research towards medical advances.
A variety of laws exist regulating the humane treatment of animals used for research. Animal researchers are required to ensure that alternatives, including non-animal alternatives, have been considered, that the experiments are not unnecessarily duplicative, and that pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study. These policies are enforced by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees which are required by law to exist for every research facility conducting tests on animals. The effectiveness of these committees is a matter of fair debate, but policies and institutions do exist to minimize the suffering of animals used for research and to weigh the benefit of potential advances against the suffering of animals that would be necessary to conduct relevant tests.
One argument frequently used against animal testing is that research on animals cannot be used to draw conclusions about effects on humans. This argument is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst. No medical practice or drug can be conclusively shown to be both safe and effective based on animal research alone, but they can easily be determined to be unsafe or ineffective by means of animal research, and thus human testing can be avoided for treatments which may be very dangerous. Animal researchers will typically be aware of what sorts of reactions can and cannot be reasonably believed to be applicable to humans as well.
On the other hand, proponents of animal research frequently cite the number of medical advances that used animal testing as support for further medical testing on animals. That logic does not necessarily follow. Although we can confidently say which medical advances used testing on animals as part of their research processes, it is much more difficult to say whether those medical advances would have been impossible or to what degree they would have been delayed had animal testing not been conducted. Even more difficult would be saying whether such animal research would be necessary for comparable advances today, given the progress in technology that make simulating tests possible without actual use of animals.
Nonetheless, there is a general consensus among medical scientists that ongoing animal research is sufficiently beneficial to warrant the harm to animals intrinsic to animal testing.
[edit] Questionable Tactics
Some anti-vivisectionists have advocated direct action to liberate animals from research facilities where tests are conducted. Such practices can be dangerous, are unethical, and are probably ineffective towards their long-term goals anyway. Needless to say, any tactic which relies upon or condones violence against humans is unwarranted and unethical.
