1
Animal rights A
lexis de Toqueville
once
wrote that "the public will choose to believe a simple preference to a complicated
lie in truth." The simple lie the animal rights movement would have us believe is that animal-based research has been rendered redundant by more sophisticated methodology, such as tissue culture, computer modelling and advanced analytic and imaging techniques ("It is time for a new consensus on animal-based experimentation," by Rita Kesteven [Can Med Assoc J 1991; 145: 1604-1605, 1612]). The complicated truth is that although these have become invaluable tools in medical diagnostics and research there are certain questions that can be answered only by studies conducted on living mammals, with all the integrated physiologic and anatomic systems in place. Some examples are the development of new surgical procedures (including organ transplantation), the study of new drugs and their effects on factors such as absorption, metabolism and excretion (that cannot possibly be mimicked by any cell culture, computer or combination thereof) and the development of certain mechanical devices. The Ottawa Heart Institute is currently working on a miniaturized, permanent artificial heart that is showing great promise. Here at the University of Western Ontario a new method is being tested for correcting cerebral aneurysm. It involves the implantation of a platinum wire coil in the aneurysm via an arterial catheter. Would anyone seriously suggest that these significant advances could occur without the use of intact animals? And does the public really want to give them up in the interests of animal rights? The animal rights movement JUNE 1, 1992
claims that mammals such as rats and mice are too unlike humans to provide reliable results, and so we should use bacteria, yeasts and other nonsentient species. Do they mean to imply that yeast cells are more like people than rats and mice? In my research I frequently employ the cells of a marine sponge because they behave, under certain conditions, much like human blood platelets. Does this mean that they can substitute for all human cell types? Of course not. Does it mean that they can substitute for an intact animal? The suggestion is ludicrous. What it does mean is that certain systems that regulate cell function evolved over 500 million years ago and thus may be studied in many different cell types. The organization of an intact sponge colony, however, bears no resemblance to a living mammal. While overemphasizing the physiologic differences between humans and other mammals animal rights advocates overlook the fact that differences among individual humans can be far greater. Extrapolations from other mammals to humans can be made with reasonable reliability. The pragmatic objections to animal-based research hold no water, so we must address the philosophic objections. Animal rights philosophers would have us believe that according rights to other species is a natural progression in the development of a moral society, but they seldom place this position in a historical context. Throughout recorded history societies from the simplest tribal ones to those of sophisticated cities have had proscriptions against such things as murder, rape, incest and theft. The code of Hammurabi (circa 2000 BC) and the Ten Commandments are but two well-known examples. Whether presented as a royal edict or as a divine revelation they were designed to maintain order and allow members of a social group
to live in relative peace and harmony. In other words, they were for the benefit of the society as a whole. The concept of animal rights (as distinct from obligations toward animals) constitutes a radical departure. Not only does it lack any direct benefit to society, but it has the potential - if carried to its logical conclusion - to inflict great suffering. I refer not just to the consequences of such acts of terrorism as the poisoning of candy bars, which occurred recently in Canada, but to the devastation of the world's agricultural system. Even the tilling of fields for vegetables and grains requires motive power, and 80% of it is provided worldwide by draft animals. If it is ethically incorrect to experiment on or eat animals can it be correct to require them to toil in the fields in our service? This ethic, if such it is, is affordable only by an urban, affluent minority. It has little relevance to the vast majority of the earth's population, and its validity must therefore be questioned. It has been said that no society should adopt an ethic with the potential to inflict great hardship on any part of it. The question of what is moral has occupied philosophers for centuries. Some believed that only acts of self-sacrifice and altruism could be truly moral, whereas an act motivated by enlightened selfinterest could not. Others felt that all acts were done in the expectation of a reward (reciprocity), even if that reward were only the good feeling that comes from doing right. Some 19th-century philosophers, like John Stuart Mill, believed that what was moral was what provided the greatest good for the most people. These debates have nearly always occurred without reference to any knowledge or understanding of biology. The drive to survive; both as individuals and as a species, is hard-wired into all living things. CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
1895
Biologists have searched for examples of altruism in other species, but on close examination all behaviors seem to benefit either the individual or the species, and there is certainly no example of one species sacrificing itself willingly to the advantage of another. The concept of reciprocity seems to apply widely in biology, but we call it symbiosis. Peter Singer, guru of the animal rights movement, believes that the volunteer blood donor is truly altruistic, acting without hope of reciprocity.' All of us may at some point require a transfusion, however, and supporting the system improves our chance of getting one when it's needed. Reciprocity may also explain why we treat people with limited or
nonexistent intellectual capacity differently from how we treat animals. We never know when we might be in the same boat, and we accord treatment that we would like to receive for ourselves or our loved ones. Every species owes its first allegiance to its own kind. Perhaps all of this illustrates only that we should choose our philosophers even more carefully than we choose our physicians. Richard B. Philp, DVM, PhD Professor Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Western Ontario London, Ont.
Reference
search or scientific writing. To merely quote the opinions of others who share one's view (however cleverly expressed) without valid supportive data is not to build a scholarly argument. That Stephanie Brown (the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies' representative on the Canadian Council on Animal Care [CCAC]) finds it frustrating that she cannot violate the confidentiality of her position is not a meaningful indictment of animal research. Kesteven's use of this quote is, however, mildly reminiscent of the yellow journalism of the McCarthy era. The article becomes even more absurd when the author challenges extrapolation to human conditions from experimental species that differ physiologically from humans. I do not imagine that Kesteven is suggesting that we dramatically increase our use of primates in medical research, although that is the only logical conclusion of her argument. Similarly, to suggest that most psychotropic drugs are found through clinical serendipity does not negate the importance of the initial testing for safety that all drugs must undergo before serendipity has had a chance to come into play. It is important that animal research be under constant scrutiny. Unfortunately, articles such as the one by Kesteven shed very little light on the debate.
1. Alexander RD: The Biology of Moral Systems, Aldine Pub, New York, 1987: 154
Herschel C. Rosenberg, MD, FRCPC Department of Paediatric Cardiology Children's Hospital of Western Ontario London, Ont.
I applaud CMAJ for publishing the recent article by Dr. Kesteven that expresses an opposing view to the use of animals in medical research. It is unfortunate that the journal could not find a more scholarly advocate. Although Kesteven possesses a doctorate her article reflects little understanding of the principles of scientific re-
The article by Dr. Kesteven conveys the impression that scientists who advocate the use of animals in medical research occupy a low moral ground. It is surprising that no mention is made of the numerous committees that promote ethical standards for animal experimentation or the animal safety and ethics committees that Can-
1896
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
adian universities possess, which are charged with the review of all protocols involving animals in health science before their implementation. It is also incredible that Kesteven does not mention the thousands of lifesaving drugs, such as antibiotics, that could only have been developed for humans through the use of appropriate animal models. Finally, Kesteven singles out acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) as an example of a disease against which most advances have occurred through epidemiologic and tissue culturebased investigations. Although this is largely true, it is directly related to the fact that we do not have good animal models for AIDS and other diseases associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection. All the antiviral drugs employed clinically have had to be tested on animals to check their safety, pharmacokinetic features and bioavailability. Our reliance on animals for such testing is likely to continue unabated, not because scientists derive any perverse pleasure from their use, but, rather, because tissue culture and alternative models do not provide the means to answer important questions. Mark A. Wainberg, PhD Director McGill University AIDS Centre Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital Montreal, Que.
I read with interest the recent paper by Dr. Kesteven. CMAJ readers may be interested to know that the International League Doctors for the Abolition of Vivisection now has more than 750 physician members in 43 countries, who are all totally opposed to animal experimentation on scientific grounds. A recent survey of 500 British physicians showed that 88% agree that laboratory LE I er JUIN 1992
Animal rights A
lexis de Toqueville
once
wrote that "the public will choose to believe a simple preference to a complicated
lie in truth." The simple lie the animal rights movement would have us believe is that animal-based research has been rendered redundant by more sophisticated methodology, such as tissue culture, computer modelling and advanced analytic and imaging techniques ("It is time for a new consensus on animal-based experimentation," by Rita Kesteven [Can Med Assoc J 1991; 145: 1604-1605, 1612]). The complicated truth is that although these have become invaluable tools in medical diagnostics and research there are certain questions that can be answered only by studies conducted on living mammals, with all the integrated physiologic and anatomic systems in place. Some examples are the development of new surgical procedures (including organ transplantation), the study of new drugs and their effects on factors such as absorption, metabolism and excretion (that cannot possibly be mimicked by any cell culture, computer or combination thereof) and the development of certain mechanical devices. The Ottawa Heart Institute is currently working on a miniaturized, permanent artificial heart that is showing great promise. Here at the University of Western Ontario a new method is being tested for correcting cerebral aneurysm. It involves the implantation of a platinum wire coil in the aneurysm via an arterial catheter. Would anyone seriously suggest that these significant advances could occur without the use of intact animals? And does the public really want to give them up in the interests of animal rights? The animal rights movement JUNE 1, 1992
claims that mammals such as rats and mice are too unlike humans to provide reliable results, and so we should use bacteria, yeasts and other nonsentient species. Do they mean to imply that yeast cells are more like people than rats and mice? In my research I frequently employ the cells of a marine sponge because they behave, under certain conditions, much like human blood platelets. Does this mean that they can substitute for all human cell types? Of course not. Does it mean that they can substitute for an intact animal? The suggestion is ludicrous. What it does mean is that certain systems that regulate cell function evolved over 500 million years ago and thus may be studied in many different cell types. The organization of an intact sponge colony, however, bears no resemblance to a living mammal. While overemphasizing the physiologic differences between humans and other mammals animal rights advocates overlook the fact that differences among individual humans can be far greater. Extrapolations from other mammals to humans can be made with reasonable reliability. The pragmatic objections to animal-based research hold no water, so we must address the philosophic objections. Animal rights philosophers would have us believe that according rights to other species is a natural progression in the development of a moral society, but they seldom place this position in a historical context. Throughout recorded history societies from the simplest tribal ones to those of sophisticated cities have had proscriptions against such things as murder, rape, incest and theft. The code of Hammurabi (circa 2000 BC) and the Ten Commandments are but two well-known examples. Whether presented as a royal edict or as a divine revelation they were designed to maintain order and allow members of a social group
to live in relative peace and harmony. In other words, they were for the benefit of the society as a whole. The concept of animal rights (as distinct from obligations toward animals) constitutes a radical departure. Not only does it lack any direct benefit to society, but it has the potential - if carried to its logical conclusion - to inflict great suffering. I refer not just to the consequences of such acts of terrorism as the poisoning of candy bars, which occurred recently in Canada, but to the devastation of the world's agricultural system. Even the tilling of fields for vegetables and grains requires motive power, and 80% of it is provided worldwide by draft animals. If it is ethically incorrect to experiment on or eat animals can it be correct to require them to toil in the fields in our service? This ethic, if such it is, is affordable only by an urban, affluent minority. It has little relevance to the vast majority of the earth's population, and its validity must therefore be questioned. It has been said that no society should adopt an ethic with the potential to inflict great hardship on any part of it. The question of what is moral has occupied philosophers for centuries. Some believed that only acts of self-sacrifice and altruism could be truly moral, whereas an act motivated by enlightened selfinterest could not. Others felt that all acts were done in the expectation of a reward (reciprocity), even if that reward were only the good feeling that comes from doing right. Some 19th-century philosophers, like John Stuart Mill, believed that what was moral was what provided the greatest good for the most people. These debates have nearly always occurred without reference to any knowledge or understanding of biology. The drive to survive; both as individuals and as a species, is hard-wired into all living things. CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
1895
Biologists have searched for examples of altruism in other species, but on close examination all behaviors seem to benefit either the individual or the species, and there is certainly no example of one species sacrificing itself willingly to the advantage of another. The concept of reciprocity seems to apply widely in biology, but we call it symbiosis. Peter Singer, guru of the animal rights movement, believes that the volunteer blood donor is truly altruistic, acting without hope of reciprocity.' All of us may at some point require a transfusion, however, and supporting the system improves our chance of getting one when it's needed. Reciprocity may also explain why we treat people with limited or
nonexistent intellectual capacity differently from how we treat animals. We never know when we might be in the same boat, and we accord treatment that we would like to receive for ourselves or our loved ones. Every species owes its first allegiance to its own kind. Perhaps all of this illustrates only that we should choose our philosophers even more carefully than we choose our physicians. Richard B. Philp, DVM, PhD Professor Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Western Ontario London, Ont.
Reference
search or scientific writing. To merely quote the opinions of others who share one's view (however cleverly expressed) without valid supportive data is not to build a scholarly argument. That Stephanie Brown (the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies' representative on the Canadian Council on Animal Care [CCAC]) finds it frustrating that she cannot violate the confidentiality of her position is not a meaningful indictment of animal research. Kesteven's use of this quote is, however, mildly reminiscent of the yellow journalism of the McCarthy era. The article becomes even more absurd when the author challenges extrapolation to human conditions from experimental species that differ physiologically from humans. I do not imagine that Kesteven is suggesting that we dramatically increase our use of primates in medical research, although that is the only logical conclusion of her argument. Similarly, to suggest that most psychotropic drugs are found through clinical serendipity does not negate the importance of the initial testing for safety that all drugs must undergo before serendipity has had a chance to come into play. It is important that animal research be under constant scrutiny. Unfortunately, articles such as the one by Kesteven shed very little light on the debate.
1. Alexander RD: The Biology of Moral Systems, Aldine Pub, New York, 1987: 154
Herschel C. Rosenberg, MD, FRCPC Department of Paediatric Cardiology Children's Hospital of Western Ontario London, Ont.
I applaud CMAJ for publishing the recent article by Dr. Kesteven that expresses an opposing view to the use of animals in medical research. It is unfortunate that the journal could not find a more scholarly advocate. Although Kesteven possesses a doctorate her article reflects little understanding of the principles of scientific re-
The article by Dr. Kesteven conveys the impression that scientists who advocate the use of animals in medical research occupy a low moral ground. It is surprising that no mention is made of the numerous committees that promote ethical standards for animal experimentation or the animal safety and ethics committees that Can-
1896
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (1 1)
adian universities possess, which are charged with the review of all protocols involving animals in health science before their implementation. It is also incredible that Kesteven does not mention the thousands of lifesaving drugs, such as antibiotics, that could only have been developed for humans through the use of appropriate animal models. Finally, Kesteven singles out acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) as an example of a disease against which most advances have occurred through epidemiologic and tissue culturebased investigations. Although this is largely true, it is directly related to the fact that we do not have good animal models for AIDS and other diseases associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection. All the antiviral drugs employed clinically have had to be tested on animals to check their safety, pharmacokinetic features and bioavailability. Our reliance on animals for such testing is likely to continue unabated, not because scientists derive any perverse pleasure from their use, but, rather, because tissue culture and alternative models do not provide the means to answer important questions. Mark A. Wainberg, PhD Director McGill University AIDS Centre Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital Montreal, Que.
I read with interest the recent paper by Dr. Kesteven. CMAJ readers may be interested to know that the International League Doctors for the Abolition of Vivisection now has more than 750 physician members in 43 countries, who are all totally opposed to animal experimentation on scientific grounds. A recent survey of 500 British physicians showed that 88% agree that laboratory LE I er JUIN 1992
