Ethics of Animal Use

Most of us became professionals in the biological sciences because of some love of the natural world. For mammalogists, it was usually a passion to know more about animals other than humans. In recent decades, we may wince at the increasing number of regulations that are concerned with use of animals in research. Our enthusiasm also may be dampened by a handful of fanatics called ‘‘animal rightists’’ that deplore some research we carry out. We all are concerned about ethical use and welfare of animals; otherwise, we would be in another profession. Biomedical researchers who use animals usually are mandated to have applied benefits to humans from their medical–clinical research and have comprehensive review prior to approval. Even under all this scrutiny and with obvious benefits of their research to humans, many fear being identified as animal researchers. Conversely, those conducting studies in basic research, natural history, behavior, or other field studies compete for limited resources while regulatory oversight is less focused. Furthermore, we have the tasks of assuring the public that animals are being used in our research in a respectful and compliant way and defending our research by being able to explain, ‘‘what good is it’’ (especially for basic research). That’s the research side, but animals are used by humans in many more ways such as in the food and clothing industries, through our impacts on them due to human population growth, and in the pet trade. How should we, as the dominant species on Earth, treat our nonhuman brethren? What are our ethical obligations? How do we know what the right thing to do is? The Ethics of Animal Use offers us some tools to answer these questions and provides choices gleaned from basic moral theory in addressing dilemmas that arise. Danish authors Sandøe and Christiansen discuss an impressive array of topics in a compact and concise way that will provide readers with comprehensive information on ethical animal use, both for the purpose of making good choices and to feel confident in speaking out about their use of animals in research. The chapters are logically grouped in an attractive format combined with an interactive Web site (www.aedilemma.net). The foreword is written by renowned animal ethicist Bernard Rollin, followed by an introduction and 4 chapters that provide basic animal ethics tools and theory upon which the rest of the book is built. Chapter 1 is a summary of the broad approach that this book takes. In contrast to other uses of animals by humans, we quickly see that animal use in research may not be the best place for society to focus if we want the greatest number of other animals to be treated ethically. Aside from use in research, animals are ‘‘used’’ in 3 other broad areas: intensive animal production for food, as pets or companions, or impacted directly as wild animals environmentally affected by human activity. Animals used in research may be least impacted by humans in terms of numbers used, diversity of species affected, and issues of animal welfare, while being the most regulated and attacked (sometimes literally) by those following a strict interpretation of one particular moral theory. Controversy, fanaticism, concern for animal welfare and care by users, and public attention are not aimed at all 4 of these animal-use areas equally. Levels of perceived responsibility clearly differ. The belief that ‘‘The underlying attitude seems to be that humans are justified in doing these things because animals matter less than human beings do’’ (p. 15) is examined in Chapter 2 (What are our duties to animals?). Jeremy Bentham, an 18th century philosopher concerned with the moral status and suffering of humans and other animals, would promote utilitarianism and promote ‘‘a good life’’ whether it be that of a human or another animal. Among 5 prominent moral positions, for the mammalogist, Contractarianism (humans act out of self-interest), Utilitarianism (animals should have a good life; killed for the common good), and Animal Rights (animals are not a vessel or resource for use by humans) may not be as relevant as Relational and Respect for Nature viewpoints. The Relational view ascribes no rights to animals but does commit a duty on the part of humans to care for them. This view draws upon ‘‘sociozoological’’ differences to determine what degree humans must care for other animals (dogs more cared for than turtles, for instance). In the Respect for Nature viewpoint, species are to be preserved and represent a lifeline of biological history. Individuals are passing, and species are the appropriate survival unit. This view attributes little value to what humans think about any particular species (that is, no sociozoological scale), and it is the unimpeded existence of species that is morally valuable. The remainder of the book steps through a nearly thorough examination of animal use by humans. Chapter 3 (What is a good animal life?) includes discussion of the impact of human activities such as neutering cats or keeping companion animals indoors and how that affects their ‘‘cat-ness’’; however, what is not mentioned is that when an animal is in captivity or domesticated, it has lost its wildness. The authors here may miss the point that the good life for other animals may be different than what humans perceive as good. Chapter 4 discusses the Role of veterinarians and other animal science professionals, which includes acting in the E 2009 American Society of Mammalogists www.mammalogy.org