MODULE VII: ANIMAL RESEARCH

10.28 Defending Animal Research 

Next time: listen to a podcast about pet ethics (one of 3 podcasts in module VIII)

Today:

1. Inside an animal lab
2. How animal labs are regulated in the US
3. Baruch Brody's "Defending Animal Research"

1. Inside an animal lab

2. How animal labs are regulated in the US

John Young says animal research is more heavily regulated than research on humans and that it's governed by "ethics committees," This is a bit misleading.

1. IRBs (institutional review boards) protect human subjects 
• the key requirement is "informed consent" 
• when informed consent is waived (e.g. children) the research must be beneficial to the research subject
2. IACUCs (institutional animal care and use committees) protect animal research subjects under  the Animal Welfare Act (highlights below)
• no informed consent (of course), no requirement that the research is beneficial to the research subjects 
• covers animals excluding birds, mice, rats, cold-blooded animals
• covers basic care – size of cages, food, housing, "exercise for dogs," environment that "promotes the psychological well-being of primates"
• requires pain and distress to be minimized, but there can be exceptions based on "research protocol" (e.g. the Harlow type research); vets must supervise painful research
• stipulates how IACUCs are formed and what they do (they review research proposals)
• requires semi-annual inspections by IACUCs, which federal inspectors can look at

3. Baruch Brody's "Defending Animal Research"

• Option 1: humans matter, animals don't (Carruthers etc.) (Brody assumes wrong)
• Option 2: human interests should be given lexical priority
• Option 3: balancing plus discounting

Option 2: human interests should be given lexical priority

• 
• Lexical priority is like words in a dictionary--all the A words come before any of the B words
• Idea here: all human interests should come before any animal interests
• We should satisfy all the human interests on the list, plus the animal interests to the extent possible without sacrificing any human interests
• Animal Welfare Act takes this approach (in so many words)

Option 3:  Balancing + discounting

• Shouldn't violate animal interests unless balanced by human benefit. (top image)
  
• When considering human and animal interests, DISCOUNT the animal interests
• 50% discount is illustrated in bottom image
• European Union Laws.  No animal testing of cosmetics; no sales of cosmetics tested on animals elsewhere.

Brody's Defense of Discounting

• We are not generally committed to Peter Singer's principle of equality--equal interests should be given equal consideration.
• We have "special obligations to ourselves, our family members, our friends, our fellow citizens, etc." (p. 335)
• "we have a morally permissible prerogative to pay special attention to our own interests in the fulfillment of some of our central projects." (p. 335)
• we shouldn't give lexical priority to self/family/friends, but discounting/balance is permissible

Objection

• David DeGrazia & Peter Singer: If discounting were ok, we could discount the interests of other genders, other races. But no, that's sexism and racism.

Brody's reply