Whither Goest Vivisection?: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives

WHITHER GOEST VIVISECTION? HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES RIVERS SINGLETON, Jr.* This poor animal will soon be dead as Moses. . . . Some ofyou will think that it does not matter; some ofyou will think, like Bernard Shaw, that I am an executioner and the more monstrous because I am so cool about it; and some ofyou will not think at all. This difference in philosophy iss what makes life interesting.—Max Gottlieb, Arrowsmith I. Introduction During the past decade, animal1 use in biomedical research and product testing has been sharply criticized by many members of society. This social criticism has often been elicited by real or perceived animal abuses in scientific inquiry. Typical abuses include highly publicized activities or incidents such as the once popular Draize test with rabbits to assess product safety, the poor housing and absence of proper animal welfare in the Taub experiments with nerve damage in monkeys, and the apparent lack of concern for primate welfare in the head trauma studies in Pennsylvania. This criticism has many cultural reflections: the covers of national news magazines; in comic strips such as Doonesbury and Outland (formerly Bloom County); in public demonstrations and protest marches; and in calls for a "National Animal Liberation Week." Researchers have refused grant support because of pressure from animal rights activists [I]. The author's interest in this problem began when he was a project member at the Hastings Center for Bioethics, and he thanks the Center members for their collegiality and assistance. He also thanks numerous colleagues at the University of Delaware and members of the Hastings Center project for their comments on the manuscript and the College of Arts and Sciences at Delaware for financial support of various portions of the work. *School of Life and Health Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716-2590. 'While human beings are a class of animals, for convenience sake, in this essay I use the term "animal" to refer to all non-human animals.© The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved. 0031-5982/94/3704-0890$01.00 576 Rivers Singleton, Jr. ¦ Whither Goest Vivisection? For many critics, the conflict over ethical treatment of animals in scientific research has parallels with the civil rights and anti-war movements of the sixties and seventies. Like those historic movements, the animal rights movement often involves a variety of individuals, many of whom see civil disobedience and media involvement as major components of "animal liberation." This activist perspective has led many individuals or groups to commit violent acts and vandalism against research institutions , in which laboratories have been broken into and animals and data stolen. Threats have been made against the physical welfare of laboratory personnel and their families. From this emotionally charged milieu have emerged new pressures for increased legislation and regulation of animal use in research and teaching. For many individuals, the ultimate extension of the "animal liberation" movement is an abolition of all sentient animal use in science [I]. The debate over human use, or abuse, of animals reaches far beyond laboratories into farms, slaughterhouses, zoos, pet stores, and even our homes. The manner in which we treat animals that are our pets or to be our food is often brutal and lacking in humaneness. Furthermore, biotechnology, and the ability to radically alter animals, raises profound ethical questions [2]. These subjects are so vast, however, that some restriction of focus is necessary to achieve clarity. Thus, in this essay I will explore only those issues that arise in relation to how animals are used as subjects for research and teaching. My major goals in this essay are to understand the historical and philosophical basis of the modern revival of antivivisectionism and to argue that the resurgence of this social view poses serious potential damage to biological science. In seeking these goals, I have two broad objectives. The first is to briefly review the development and nature of the current controversy over animal use in science. The second objective is to examine some of the powerful, and often conflicting, ethical questions raised by this conflict of science in society; these questions must be explored if one is to adequately understand the controversy's full impact. In a subsequent...