A side note: Numerous people are writing to me asking me why I am against animal experimentation. Let me clear this up... as I state later in this article:

"I do support necessary scientific experiments that will benefit humans or animals"

Many people argue against using animals for scientific experiments based on the human and nature relationship philosophies of Peter Singer, that humans are not completely above nature, focusing primarily on animals. "If the animal- rights movement had a bible, it is Singer's 1975 book, Animal Liberation" (New York, Jan. 15 pg 30). Singer calls many of the attitudes human beings have toward other animals speciesism, a concept which can been found throughout history.

Aristotle held the view that nature is a hierarchy in which those with less reasoning ability exist for the sake of those with more reasoning ability (Animal Liberation p189). Thus plants exist for the sake of animals, and animals for the sake of man. He based his belief in slavery on the concept that humans with less reasoning ability existed for the purpose of serving more rational humans. Although the view that less rational humans exist to serve rational ones has been rejected by society, "we still retain that view towards non-human animals" (In Defense of Animals, Singer p2).

Speciesism is practiced by Jews and Christians who base their superiority on God's words in Genesis. They believe that man alone is created in God's image, and man alone is given dominion over all the animals on earth.

Speciesism is practiced by the scientists of today who lock up chimpanzees in research centers, sometimes under horrendous conditions, to be used in experimentation. These same scientists, however, would never consider doing that to any human being, even one whose intelligence level was below that of the chimpanzee. The only reason for this difference is that the chimpanzee is not human, no matter how smart it is; but a human, no matter how unintelligent, is still a human. The concept of speciesism is considered by Singer to be as indefensible as racism (Defense p6). "Speciesism - the word is not an attractive one, but I can think of no better term - is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species" (Liberation p6). Singer bases part of his argument on the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, who stated, "The question is not `Can they reason?' nor `Can they talk?' but `Can they suffer?'" All animals feel anger and fear, pleasure and pain, just like humans, and their equality comes from their ability to feel pain (New York Jan.15 p30).

The animal liberation movement, however, does not say all beings are of equal worth, or that the interests of all animals and humans should be given equal weight. It is stating that "where animals and humans have similar interests - we might take the interest in avoiding physical pain as an example, for it is an interest that humans clearly share with other animals - those interests are to be counted equally, with no automatic discount just because one of the beings is not human" (Defense p9).

Singer clearly illustrates that his rejection of speciesism does not imply that all beings are of equal worth by considering how we make choices within our own species. If we had to choose between saving the life of a normal human being and one that was intellectually disabled, we would probably save the life of the normal human being; but if we had to choose between preventing pain in the normal human being versus the intellectually impaired - suppose that both had superficial but painful injuries and we only had enough pain-killer for one person - the choice is not so clear cut. One would choose probably on the basis of which human was suffering more. The same is true when other species are considered. "The evil of pain is, in itself, unaffected by the characteristics of the being who feels pain" (Liberation p20). Since most animal experimentation causes pain for the animal, the animal rights movement is committed to the goal of "the total abolition of the use of animals in science" (Liberation p89).

Those in favor of animal experimentation argue that " the fact that animals can suffer, although morally significant because it gives animals the status of moral patients or recipients, is not by itself a sufficient ground on which to accord them equal moral status with humans" (M.A. Fox, The Case for Animal Experimentation p70). And if animals are not on equal moral status with humans, "We are under no moral obligation to restrain from using them" (M.A Fox p6). Since anything that is not morally wrong is morally permissible, then it is morally permissible to use animals in experimentation.

Most persons supporting the use of animals in experimentation do not feel this means that we are free to harm or abuse animals whenever we wish or that we lack grounds for having moral concerns over animal suffering, especially when caused by humans. "Animals may not be moral agents or persons, but they may still be moral patients, that is, beings that may be affected for better or worse by our acts and which we should therefore treat with care" (M.A Fox p7). But if either a human or animal is to suffer, then it is better for the animal to suffer, because human suffering is generally of more concern than that of animals. There are more types of suffering to which humans are susceptible. "The number of possible conditions - to which animals are not subject- that can produce a sense of thwarted agency, diminished selfhood, or ineffectualness, from which suffering so often arises, is astronomically high" (M.A. Fox p69). For instance, if it was necessary to deform a toe of a being for important research, it would be better to use an animal because it would not suffer any type of humiliation from being deformed. In fact, it might not even realize that its toe is deformed.

Those in defense of experimentation also tend to agree more with speciesism and not with Singer's views. A question raised by M.A. Fox in regard to this is "What if plants could suffer?" (p86). He asserts that we would not be obliged to assert their moral equality, so "the capacity to suffer does not by itself establish moral equality" (Case for Animal Experimentation p87). Also, Fox brings up Singer's statement, "If we must inflict pain or starve, we would then have to choose the lesser evil. Presumably it would still be true that plants suffer less than animals, and therefore it would still be better to eat plants than to eat animals" (p87, referring to Animal Liberation p263). This shows that the rights of humans to survive is more important than that of other species.

The issue of using animals for experimentation raises many questions, many more than can be covered on this web site. There are also levels at which people agree or disagree with animal experimentation. Most people, my self included, from what I have experienced, do not condone totally unnecessary scientific experiments that do not significantly benefit humans or animals. However, I do support necessary scientific experiments that will benefit humans or animals, and which are done with the utmost caution to keep the animal from suffering. I have very specific reason for this belief.

First, I tend to agree with speciesism. It is true that animals do experience pain, but in agreement with Fox's idea, this does not make it wrong to use animals. This does not include exploitation of animals for unnecessary luxuries such as fur. Humans are not significantly benefited by wearing animal fur (artificial fur can serve the exact same purpose), but they are benefited by the animal research that found a vaccine for polio, and both humans and animals have benefited from scientific experiments that have helped find a vaccine for rabies. However, I agree with speciesism because a line has to be drawn somewhere, and it can not be drawn with regard to the similarities, such as pain, between humans and animals. As stated earlier, what if plants could feel pain? How would it be possible to live if we then could not use plants either? One could say that we wouldn't experiment on plants, so we wouldn't be causing them to suffer to serve our own ends. But what if we wanted to walk across a lawn? Wouldn't that inflict pain on the plant? If the argument against speciesism regarding suffering is to be used to argue against animal experimentation, it has to include all animals in every situation, not just scientific experimentation, for animals suffer at the hands of humans for other purposes. This would mean we could never use any animal for any purpose. If there is to be no use of animals, at what point does one draw that line? At fish? At bugs? What about amoebae? Since the line cannot be drawn in the animal kingdom, it has to be drawn between humans and animals. And the line has already been drawn by nature itself, because humans are naturally much different.

Can humans show respect for animals and revere nature while at the same time using animals for scientific research? I believe so, as long as the research will better the lives of humans and/or animals in a highly significant manner, and providing the animals are treated with the greatest care and humaneness. Again, things such as cosmetics do not significantly help humans or animals, so animal testing should not be done for these products. Also the practice of painful experimentation without anesthetic should not be tolerated. It is in our attitudes and in the way we treat animals used for experimentation that respect is shown. Thus, using animals for significant medical research does not mean they are not respected. Is it better to have thousands of dogs suffer from rabies because we would not do research on a few hundred for a vaccine, even if it caused those dogs pain? Should thousands of human lives not be saved because we can't use animals to find cures for AIDS, cancer, and Alzheimer's? The benefits humanity has reaped because of these experiments include our understanding of the human nervous system; the development of insulin, antibiotics, and vaccines against hepatitis and polio (New York Jan.15 p30). A mother of a child whose life has been saved by these discoveries can make a case as poignant as any animal-rights advocates. But then Singer would call this speciesism, the assumption that the child's life is worth more than that of an animal. Yet, is it better to let a child die rather than cause an animal pain from experimentation? Is the child's life worth less than that of the animal?

Scientific research using animals also does not affect the balance of nature the way hunting for pleasure does. It is possible to wipe out an entire species by useless hunting, while most of the animals used in research are raised in the laboratory and not stripped from their natural habitat, upsetting the ecosystem. But isn't having an animal in the laboratory for its whole life cruelly keeping it from its natural habitat? Again, where does one draw the line? Isn't domesticating a dog, a cat, or a rabbit preventing it from running freely in its natural habitat just so a human can own it and experience the pleasure of having a pet?

However, the balance of nature can be destroyed if endangered species are used for scientific experiments, and for this reason they should not be used unless "we did so under the most stringent conditions and to promote the species' survival chance" (M.A. Fox p195). Our right to use nature does not give us the right to destroy it.

It is a shame that animals have to be used for any scientific experiments, but until another way is found, I can see no other way to find cures to diseases that affect both humans and animals. No one should be happy about this necessity, and we should strive to find other methods. My sentiments have been expressed by Albert Schweitzer in his essay on Man and Creature.

"The very fact that animals, by the pain they endure in experiments contributes so much to suffering humanity should forge a new and unique kind of solidarity between them and us. For that reason alone it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to do all possible good to non-human life...Pity for animals, so often smilingly dismissed as sentimentality, becomes a mandate no thinking person can escape... when will all the killing that necessity imposes upon us be undertaken with sorrow?"

Informational links

• Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation
• Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation - a life-saving procedure perfected by animal experimentation

Fox, Michael Allen. 1986, The Case for Animal Experimentation. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, University of California Press.

Rosenberger, Jack. "Whose Life is it, Anyway?" New York (January 15, 1990), p.30.

Singer, Peter. 1975, 1990, Animal Liberation. New York, N.Y., Random House.

Singer, Peter. 1985, In Defense of Animals. New York, N.Y., Basil Blackwell Inc.