Experiments on Animals for medical research

[J2014]

Hi,

 

l have previously been very pro animal experimentation based on a utilitarian argument. Recently I have however come across the animal rights argument of Gary Francione that as animals are sentient and have interests, these interests deserve to be protected to the same degree as we protect the interests of humans of comparative sentience, ie. babies or the mentally disabled.

 

To conduct animal research therefore seems to disregard the interest of animals to not be treated as property (that is have their interests to continue to live be subservient to our own interests).

 

Do you have any argument to refute this? Do you think animal research is justifiable, and why?

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure I need an argument to refute an unevinced assertion like "animals are sentient and have interests".

[imatfaal]

I'm not sure I need an argument to refute an unevinced assertion like "animals are sentient and have interests".

 

How would you evidence something so intrinsically subjective as sentience? Sentience has numerous definitions but most tend to refer to the faculty of feeling, sensing, or experiencing subjectively. I know I experience things subjectively, I presume you know you do, I might presume you do, I can listen to your assertion that you do, but to provide evidence that you do seems difficult.

 

There can be no doubt that animals react to stimuli that in their place we would classify as pain; they shy away, work to avoid repetition, and learn to act to minimize infliction - but do they subjectively experience pain?

 

I am not defending Gary Francione - as I am far from convinced he is correct in his axioms, his logic and his conclusions

[John Cuthber]

Well, for a start, I think I can prove that it is absent in, for example, flowers.

As far as I can tell, a flower may turn to face the Sun, but it isn't because it "wants" to subjectively.

There is no mind of a flower making a choice.

A flower might react to being cut, but you can't sensibly call it a pain response.

Who experiences that subjective pain?

The flower doesn't know that it's a flower, so it can't know that it's a flower that hurts?

 

I think I could make the same point for an earthworm.

If it gets damaged, it reacts, but what entity subjectively experiences pain?

The worm can't for much the same reason that the flower can't.

 

 

Somewhere between humans and earthworms there must be some sort of cut-off and, if I'm right, that cutoff is the limit of self-awareness.

 

If you don't know you exist, you can't know that you are in pain.

 

That is testable (though it's controversial)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Animals

[Prometheus]

Is it necessary to invoke sentience here - would the ability to experience suffering not be sufficient? I'm assuming sentience is not necessary to experience suffering though.

 

Maybe it's just that our sense of self is so imbued in our language so it is hard to say any other way, but statements like 'what entity subjectively experiences pain' sounds like the ghost in the machine. We no longer expect to find it in ourselves, so do we even know what we are looking for in animals? How do we test it?

[imatfaal]

Is it necessary to invoke sentience here - would the ability to experience suffering not be sufficient? I'm assuming sentience is not necessary to experience suffering though.

 

Maybe it's just that our sense of self is so imbued in our language so it is hard to say any other way, but statements like 'what entity subjectively experiences pain' sounds like the ghost in the machine. We no longer expect to find it in ourselves, so do we even know what we are looking for in animals? How do we test it?

 

They suffer but do they experience suffering? It is a subtle and perhaps non-existent differentiation - but it could be vital. I don't think you need to invoke deus ex machina - merely the development past a certain point of an emergent consciousness.

[Prometheus]

Too subtle for me perhaps. Are we saying that to suffer is to receive sensory information eliciting some behavioral response (e.g. avoidance) but to experience suffering requires this and additional neuronal inputs to place the sensory information in the context of some sense of self (whether that sense of self is real or illusory may not even matter in this context)?

[J2014]

I'm not sure I need an argument to refute an unevinced assertion like "animals are sentient and have interests".

If we accept the wikipedia definition of sentience as the abilty to experience perceive or feel subjectivity, then I would say there is evidence.

 

For example in this study ... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055368/

 

"Rats were trained to press a lever to receive a food reward contingent to one tone and to press another lever in response to a different tone to avoid punishment by electric foot-shock. In the ambiguous-cue test, the lever-press responses to tones with frequencies intermediate to the trained tones were taken as indicators for the rats' expectation of a positive or negative event." The authors then induced the animals to become depressed, and found the animals were more likely to respond to the ambiguous stimuli pessimistically, ie. they experienced subjectivity. They also expressed preferences behaviorally, showing they have interests.

Edited March 15, 2014 by J2014

[John Cuthber]

This anthropomorphism

"The authors then induced the animals to become depressed,"

is begging the question.

and re "They also expressed preferences behaviorally, showing they have interests."

I once built a "robot"- a simple toy car that trundled round the floor until it bumped into something, when it would back away and turn and then set off again.

I connected the computer that ran it to a speech synthesis chip so it said "Ouch!" when it hit things.

Did it feel pain?

It's not reliable to deduce sentience from behaviour.

that's what I meant when I talked about flowers following the Sun.

It could be said that sunflowers "expressed preferences behaviorally", but I don't think yoo would convince many people that a ZX81 or a sunflower was sentient.

Edited March 15, 2014 by John Cuthber

[J2014]

Yes, perhaps it was premature to say they induced depression. Perhaps it would be better to say they induced experiences which resulted in a change in the perception of ambiguous stimuli. The same thing was done in another study using chronic stress to affect their preferences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847501

 

I suppose the difference between a plant and an animal like a rat is that rats can learn about the 'what, where and when' of events. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690604//

They combine multiple sensory inputs to form a new representation of the world. So while a plant expresses reflex behavior, they cannot learn associatively. If the ability to be conscious is defined as the ability to bind together multiple sensory imputs to one continuous experience , then it appears animals express behavior consistent with this.

 

I think you are right that we cannot prove that animals have sentience based on behavior, but then again all I have to judge other humans have sentience is that they behave as if they did have it. By the principle of equal consideration then, on what basis do we discriminate between the sentient like behavior of animals and the sentient like behavior of humans?

Edited March 15, 2014 by J2014

[davidivad]

sentience in this scenario seems silly guys.

All life seems nothing more than the sum of its parts in such a case, including humans, making it concieveable that the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. after all, we are nothing more than complex biological machinery should our subjectivity be no more than a product of our imaginations.

 

consider instead that we kill animals, that clearly have feelings, so that we can dress them up as almost cerimonially decorated food to survive (who wants to stare an animal in the eyes while eating it). i would suggest we observe a minimal approach as well as the almost cerimonial recognition of our comprimise to a situation where there is no correct answer beyond the subjective opinion signifying our sentience and what we cannot do as a species yet.

 

in the end;

take only what you need and put the rest back.

do so in humility.

recognizing your own limits is one of the first steps on the staircase of awareness.

Edited March 16, 2014 by davidivad

[John Cuthber]

"consider instead that we kill animals, that clearly have feelings"

Nope, it isn't clear. That's been a significant part of the discussion so far.

"(who wants to stare an animal in the eyes while eating it)"

people who like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargazy_pie

 

On the other hand, I agree with the sentiments expressed as

"take only what you need and put the rest back.

do so in humility."

[davidivad]

i would love to argue the point of feelings, but this is something you need to experience yourself.

is it wrong to kick a dog?

why or why not?

[John Cuthber]

Well, I may have an opinion on that but who cares?

 

It was you who said they "clearly have feelings".

So it falls to you to prove that those "feelings" are different from my robot that said "Ouch!", otherwise it's not clear.

 

"but this is something you need to experience yourself." tricky- I have never been a dog.

Nor have you or anyone else; that's why it's not clear.

Edited March 16, 2014 by John Cuthber

[davidivad]

the idea in animal research is to use animals that are chemically similar in some cases and physically similar of course.

while animals may not be as sophisticated as humans, they often show emotional traits such as mourning for a lost member.

i think that this has already been established in the scientific community and so you use rats as opposed to monkeys when you can per se.

 

sorry about the post. i did not realize that it was that harsh.

i would however say it is probably not best to kick a dog.

[John Cuthber]

To be blunt, the animal testing industry prefers to use rats because they are cheap to feed and house.

Humane considerations are probably a bit secondary.

 

I doubt that you will find many people who disagree with the idea that "it is probably not best to kick a dog.".

However I also doubt you will find many who can fully justify their belief without gross anthropomorphism.

[J2014]

It was you who said they "clearly have feelings".

So it falls to you to prove that those "feelings" are different from my robot that said "Ouch!", otherwise it's not clear.

 

I don't think we need to prove animals have feelings for the original argument to be accepted, merely that we have as much evidence to support this as to support the belief that other humans have feelings

[davidivad]

i'm hearing you but not believing it...

would you rather kick a dog or a monkey.

which one would get it?

 

i would probably kick the monkey because he would understand it best and be more able to deal with it.

[J2014]

take only what you need and put the rest back.

I think this is good principle. I think the problem comes though when give rights to humans that protect us against things which could produce more benifit than harm. Consider for example experimenting on babies or the mentally disabled. This could result in scientific discoveries that save thousands of lives. Consider slavery, We consider it wrong even if it were to bring benifits to our economy.

 

The point is that human lives are protected by rights that mean we should not be treated as property ie as a slave . Yet when it comes to animal experimentation we treat animals as property. To be consistent then we must either accept that experiments on babies could be permissible or that animal experiments are wrong.

[John Cuthber]

i'm hearing you but not believing it...

would you rather kick a dog or a monkey.

which one would get it?

 

i would probably kick the monkey because he would understand it best and be more able to deal with it.

And, by that argument, since a dog would understand it better than a rock...

 

I'd probably kick whoever it was that expected me to make that choice.

 

Of course, you can turn the argument on its head and say "Since I can't be sure the dog goes not have feelings, I shouldn't kick it".

[davidivad]

I think this is good principle. I think the problem comes though when give rights to humans that protect us against things which could produce more benifit than harm. Consider for example experimenting on babies or the mentally disabled. This could result in scientific discoveries that save thousands of lives. Consider slavery, We consider it wrong even if it were to bring benifits to our economy.

 

The point is that human lives are protected by rights that mean we should not be treated as property ie as a slave . Yet when it comes to animal experimentation we treat animals as property. To be consistent then we must either accept that experiments on babies could be permissible or that animal experiments are wrong.

i understand.

i think that the fact that we even have this issue brings our capacity into question.

And, by that argument, since a dog would understand it better than a rock...

 

I'd probably kick whoever it was that expected me to make that choice.

 

Of course, you can turn the argument on its head and say "Since I can't be sure the dog goes not have feelings, I shouldn't kick it".

you clearly do not see the issue here.

[Prometheus]

It's not reliable to deduce sentience from behaviour.

 

But how do we deduce the sentience of other humans if not from their behaviour?

[John Cuthber]

 

But how do we deduce the sentience of other humans if not from their behaviour?

I don't know about you, but I generally ask them.

[Prometheus]

I don't know about you, but I generally ask them.

 

But what about that robot you programmed to say ouch? Couldn't you just programme it to say it feels such and such? And what about someone with locked in syndrome who cannot express much but we still imagine feels?

[Marshalscienceguy]

Hi,

 

l have previously been very pro animal experimentation based on a utilitarian argument. Recently I have however come across the animal rights argument of Gary Francione that as animals are sentient and have interests, these interests deserve to be protected to the same degree as we protect the interests of humans of comparative sentience, ie. babies or the mentally disabled.

 

To conduct animal research therefore seems to disregard the interest of animals to not be treated as property (that is have their interests to continue to live be subservient to our own interests).

 

Do you have any argument to refute this? Do you think animal research is justifiable, and why?

From my own personal belief I do not think we should test on animals. I however believe that harm should only come to the guilty and to harm the innocent is a crime. I also do not regard one life as more valuable for simply being a different species. To say this is very foolish and its the same as saying "My life is worth more than yours because you are black or my life is worth more than yours since you are disabled" and I really do not think that type of mindset is very progressive. All creatures are useful to each others and nature in different ways. Some things like parasites don't seem to serve any good and do nothing but destroy a host. Though ultimately a parasite did not choose to be a parasite it just came out that way. I believe that if we bring harm to an to someone it should only be if its absolutely necessary. Example if someone is going to have a factory killing cows, there is no reason to go hunt wild animals just for the fun of slaughtering something. It seems pretty pointless. Life is a precious thing and we should not waste it so carelessly. Some crimes are absolutely unforgivable since there is just no logical reasoning behind them at all. If you kill in self defense it should be the last possible thing you do to survive. If you know there is a way to get away without killing them do it. If a man goes around with a knife randomly stabbing children in the eye and his reasoning was "I believed it was funny" this act is not forgivable. It had no legitimate reason as to why he needed to do it. I believe if there is an alternative to testing on animals outside the human species that we should do it. Since simply not being born a human does not mean you earned this type of life.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy