Image: Young survivors [1] at the Auschwitz concentration camp [2], liberated by the Red Army in January 1945.
This article is about experimentation on animals, whether human or not. Animals, in general, are types of beings for which there is no reasonable doubt about their ability to feel pain [3]. Currently (2019), painful and harmful experiments with non-human animals are carried out massively, and the laws allow it in a generalized way. In this article I explain why it seems to me that this should change. Fortunately, we live in times when painful and harmful experiments with human beings are mostly illegal and morally reprobated, being now something almost unthinkable. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case and we have terrible and heartbreaking well-documented evidence of a multitude of experiments with human beings at least between 1840 and 1974 [4]. I believe that we must do everything possible so that these nauseating experiments with human beings never happen again. A tougher legislation against animal testing will not only prevent their unjust suffering, but also help to keep away from humans the risk that something like this can never happen again.
Over a year there are about 140,000 experiments with non-human animals in Spain in which the animal dies or suffers “severe” damage (being “severe” severe suffering or anguish or moderate pain, suffering or distress of long duration or whose welfare or general condition has suffered significant deterioration as a result of the procedure) [5]. If we extrapolate the 140,000 “severe” experiments of a country with 46.5 million inhabitants to the world total of 7.5 billion, where Spain represents 0.62% (a part of 161), we would have a hypothetical 22.54 million experiments with severe damage in a year worldwide.
They are many experiments and are “severe.” Are they really necessary? And is it right to do them? There is a paradox in experimentation with non-human animals that is difficult to avoid.
The paradox of animal experimentation
For example, antidepressant experiments are performed on mice. If we experience depression in mice, it is because we believe that mice can be depressed, and the consequences of these experiments may be applicable to humans suffering from depression. But if mice can be depressed in a manner similar to the way in which humans are depressed, reaching the point that the consequences of these experiments may be applicable to humans, is it morally justified to cause depression to mice? It seems not, since mice would suffer in the same way that humans suffer, and that suffering is precisely what we are supposed to try to avoid. And if mice instead were sufficiently different from humans that it was morally justified to do these experiments, then would it make sense to do these experiments? It seems not, since then the experiments would not be extrapolated to humans.
That is, if we do experiments on animals it is because they resemble us and the conclusions are applicable to us. But if they look like us, is it correct to do so? I think not.
In conclusion, I believe that we should not do harmful involuntary experiments on sentient non-human animals for the same reasons that it is not justified to do so in humans.
Some people argue that animal experiments are performed to help other animals, and that the overall result is good. But, on the one hand, is this true? Is the goal really to help other animals, or instead, the goal is to benefit human beings who are going to take advantage of the health of those animals? And on the other hand, would it be morally acceptable to do the same in human beings? That is, would it be right to experiment with human beings to help other human beings?
So, when can we experiment?
It is morally acceptable to conduct experiments on non-human animals in the same cases in which it is morally acceptable in humans: in reasonably painless and harmless treatments, with voluntary patients or when there is a clear benefit for the patient who can not decide.
There are many seriously ill humans and non-human animals willing to try painless experimental treatments that can cure them.
Performing harmful experiments on nonhuman animals is morally equivalent to kidnapping and killing a few humans for their organs to save many other lives. The species is irrelevant.
Convergence of value systems
Below I propose a detailed list of criteria to decide when an experiment is morally acceptable. In this list I have tried to converge different value systems, looking for a point of agreement between deontological and consequentialist-utilitarian approaches.
1. It is ethical to conduct trivial experiments, which do not cause any harm or suffering, but which can provide interesting knowledge.
2. It is ethical to conduct experiments (and science in general) when there is an orientation towards “greater” (in the sense of “better”) knowledge (less uncertainty) and towards a better world (although it is debatable what a better world is) . It is not ethical to conduct experiments (and science in general) when there is an orientation towards a worse knowledge (for example, cheating with the context of an investigation, or cheating with the data, trying desperately to support a hypothesis that we know is false ). It is not ethical to conduct experiments (and science in general) when there is an orientation towards a worse world (for example, trying to satisfy one’s vanity or curiosity by being indifferent towards the suffering of others)
3. It is ethical to experiment with corpses, although the relatives or relatives of the deceased may see their sensitivity hurt and it seems reasonable to accept their opposition after being informed of the possible benefits of this experimentation for other beings.
4. It is unethical to experiment with individuals in a coma due to doubts as to their possible ability to feel and doubts as to their possible capacity for future recovery, except in cases such as those described in the last point.
5. It is ethical to experiment with voluntary individuals who have expressed their consent in full use of their mental faculties and for a reasonable purpose. For example, it would be acceptable to experience a new drug with human volunteers who pretend to help themselves and / or help others, at a reasonable risk. It does not seem reasonable to accept volunteers for an experiment with little chance of success, in which they could suffer great suffering, be seriously damaged, or die, with a significant probability.
6. It is ethical to experiment with involuntary individuals in conditions where we have a very high confidence that, if we could ask them and receive an answer, we would receive an affirmative answer, since the scenario in which the experiment is conducted is clearly more positive for those individuals that the scenario in which it is not carried out (or at least it is indifferent), taking into account not only the foreseeable improvement for these individuals thanks to the experiment, but also the foreseeable suffering in each alternative scenario. For example, if a non-human animal (or a human child who cannot communicate) is sick with cancer and we do not have a cure available, and we anticipate a scenario of degradation and suffering until death (obviously, with palliative care, since if we have analgesics, to need them and not to administer them would be immoral), we could try an experimental cure, provided that this did not involve greater suffering (assessing both the intensity and duration of the suffering due to the experiment) and could be beneficial for said individual, or at least indifferent. To minimize the risk of misuse of this criterion, the express authorization of the legal representatives or close friends of such individuals should be required.
In any other case, I think it is unethical to experiment, the law should prohibit it and the forces that ensure justice should prevent it.
References
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp
[3] https://manuherran.com/types-of-suffering-based-on-their-uncertainty/
[4] https://manuherran.com/reasons-for-and-against-cryonics-and-immortality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research