This continues the Carrier-Bali debate. See introduction, comments policy, and Bali’s opening statement in Should Science Be Experimenting on Animals? A Debate with Paul Bali; as well as my first response to that In Defense of the Scientific Use of Animals.


Against the Scientific Use of Animals

— Part II —

by Paul Bali, Ph.D.

-:-

See the Trolley: speeding toward five humans. On the off-track, a restrained animal. Thus more innocents die by our refraint from track-switching—by our abjuring AE [Animal Experimentation].

Yet consider some disanalogies with classic Trolley:

  1. The cost of AE is certain, yet the benefit often dubious.
  2. There’s a third track: non-AE science.
  3. We tied the animal to the track!

Some disanalogies are better handled by Trolley variants—3, for example, invites discussion of Fatman and Transplant.

Another disanalogy, as Richard advocates: the mainway Five & offtrack One are different kinds—human & animal. Some differences may support track-switching—e.g. the Five’s exalted value; while some may support refraint: e.g. the One’s exclusion from system benefits.

In this post, I’ll expand on 1 and 2. I’ll address the question of species difference as I proceed, but with special focus on 3.

  • 1. The cost of AE is certain, the benefit dubious

Every lab animal is harmed by AE—if only killed when no longer useful; yet few experiments yield life-saving knowledge.

Especially so in exploratory / basic research, “which, by definition, is not necessarily intended to lead to applications for humans.” [1] Doubtless we learn much by using our animal relatives. If we want to explore optogenetics, mouse brains will do. Yet there are no endangered humans—the mainway is clear—in much AE. Even when clinically translated, much AE doesn’t save lives. This trolley runs over animals to relieve morning sickness & acid reflux; to restore dopamine levels & visual acuity; to replace kneecaps.

Since AE is a dominant paradigm, often legally mandated, most successful therapies have AE in their history. No doubt it often contributes. Yet see the troubling hit-rates: the 195 treatments for Type 1 diabetes, the 30-40 HIV vaccines, the 300 Alzheimer’s interventions all effective in primates or mice that didn’t make it through to human use. [2]

Partly to blame is the superficiality of many animal models, rough contrivances that “fail to reproduce the complexity of human ailments.” [3]

Partly to blame are factors like publication bias and statistical massaging that drive the wider replication crisis. Whatever the cause, a primary justification for AE’s grievous harms—medical translation—is de facto hampered by the low rate.

  • 2. The Alt track

I agree with Richard that a problematic system may be improved rather than scrapped. Yet the system worth preserving here is Science, which may be improved by moving away from AE.

AE is necessary for its ends (health & knowledge) only when the non-AE methods (henceforth ‘Alt’) are inadequate.

Alt includes in vitro methods, like the Monocyte-activation Test, which generates 50,000 tests from 500 ml of donated human blood, replacing the inferior Rabbit Pyrogen Test. [4]

Alt includes comp sims, and a 3D-printed heart model newly developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute. [5]

Alt includes “non-invasive observational or behavioral studies of free-living or sanctuary chimpanzees, and experimental treatment of chimpanzees genuinely suffering from severe, naturally occurring disease or injury, when conventional treatment is ineffective.” [6]

Alt means telemetric data from free animals by devices shrunk to a point I’d call non-invasive. [7]

Alt means discerning the lab of our world, the implicit mega-studies ongoing for every ailment that, by our growing powers of data collection, collation, & analysis, may be foregrounded. [8] Big Data need not mean expanding to 30,000 the 3000 animals now expended in pre-market safety-tests for each U.S. pharmaceutical.

Alt includes research on consenting humans, even invasive. The insulin experiments on dogs could have used us: whether patients risking an experimental therapy, or altruists for medical progress. Dogs were necessary only by demurral of the better “model animal”.

[I]t simply does not follow that our special endowments (if such they be) justify the infliction of suffering on other sentients. Indeed, an argument could be properly run in the opposite direction—namely, that because humans are unique (especially in a moral sense), they should agree to sacrifice themselves to achieve useful knowledge, rather than inflict suffering on others who are morally blameless. [9]

Just as a warrior culture valorizes martyrs from their great campaigns, a scientific culture might valorize those who self-sacrifice for healing knowledge. By graduated dosing, former Dow chemist Alexander Shulgin self-tested hundreds of novel psychoactives at his Bay Area home lab. And kudos to all the community volunteers in the quest for a live cholera vaccine! [10]

Richard considers breaking the Village Hangman’s dilemma by disabling the dilemma-generating system: by killing the aggressors, thus sparing both One & Five. [11] Presumably the villagers are armed & many, since they’ve overpowered their would-be victims. I admire Richard for mulling this third track, and hope I’d find courage in the fray to join him—yet wonder if the Alt route is as plausible! Humans are amazing—we dream the impossible, then engineer it into being. The dream becomes the legislated EU goal of “full replacement”, which focuses to a Dutch five-year plan for toxicology, and so on. [12]

  • 3. Med-Sci good spreads far into the future

Once we’ve unlocked a therapy, it’s forever—Dark Ages aside. Thus, even should AE unlock the therapy faster, the relative benefit of AE to Alt dwindles with time.

The good, for example, of a cure for congenital disease X consists of all future cases prevented. Say X afflicts a million births a year, and that, via AE, the cure could be had by the year 2050; yet not till 2100 by Alt. By the year 2200, the Alt world’s benefit is 67% of the AE world’s benefit (100 million people spared X, compared to 150 million); yet by the year 3000, it’s at 95%; and so on. (Assuming a stable population. Relative to a galaxial Earthling diaspora, the AE advantage could be vanishingly small.)

True, this increasing divergence in the cost/benefit ratio is a major argument for AE: relative to a vast future of benefit, AE’s harm may be small. Yet AE inflicts harm on the healthy & unconsenting. Amputating A’s dead limb may aesthetically disturb, but stealing A’s healthy limb so H can use it—this is the closer analogy to AE, and the horror is moral. Moreover, AE harms true bystanders, beings largely excluded from the system’s benefits. More on this coercion, next post.

Speed kills! We’ve come into the Bomb perilously premature, and now grab the molecular ring of life. AE may lack a vast future, if it speeds ahead of our moral maturation. Taking the ahimsic route—the track of trans-species benevolence—could better sync our technological & ethical progress, and forestall apocalypse.

-:-

See Dr. Carrier’s response.

-:-

Endnotes

[1] Elisa Galgut (2015). “Raising the Bar in the Justification of Animal Research.” Journal of Animal Ethics 5.1: 11.

[2] Jim Keen (2019). “Wasted Money in United States Biomedical and Agricultural Animal Research.” Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change. Kathrin Herrmann & Kimberley Jayne, Eds. (Brill): 255.

[3] Keen (2019): 249.

[4] Thomas Hartung (2015). “The Human Whole Blood Pyrogen Test: Lessons Learned in Twenty Years.” ALTEX 32.2: 95; Thomas Hartung, Audrey Borel and Gabriele Schmitz (2016). “Detecting the Broad Spectrum of Pyrogens with the Human Whole-Blood Monocyte Activation Test.” BioProcess International (March 11, 2016); Hannah Balfour (2021). “Rabbit pyrogen test to be replaced by European Pharmacopoeia.” European Pharmaceutical Review (July 9, 2021).

[5] Wyss Institute (undated). “3D Bioprinting of Living Tissues.”

[6] Andrew Knight (2012). “Assessing the necessity of chimpanzee experimentation.” ALTEX 29.1: 94.

[7] See for untapped potential of telemetrics: Garet P. Lahvis (2017). “Unbridle biomedical research from the laboratory cage.” eLife 6:e27438: 5.

[8] Daniel Kraft discusses Big Data via wearable biometric devices in his 2018 interview with Rob Reid (cooption by Big Brother a concern, no doubt): Rob Reid (host). The After On Podcast 28 (May 29, 2018).

[9] The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics (2015). Normalising the Unthinkable: The Ethics of Using Animals in Research. Andrew Linzey & Clair Linzey, Eds (p. 37).

[10] James B. Kaper, Hank Lockman, Mary M. Baldini, and Myron M. Levine (1984). “A Recombinant Live Oral Cholera Vaccine.” Nature Biotechnology 2: 345.

[11] Richard Carrier (2021). “Everything Is a Trolley Problem” (27 September).

[12] Directive 2010/63/EU. (European Parliament, 2010, Recital 10). For the Dutch plan, see The Netherlands National Committee for the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes.

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading