Speciesism in the sciences

Use of non-human animals in research, and the structural and social mechanisms maintaining this unethical practice

— By Bronwyn Wyatt

Throughout my undergraduate science degree, and indeed in my postgraduate studies in public health and biological anthropology, use of non-human animals in pursuit of scientific knowledge was omnipresent. My developmental psychology classes examined attachment theory and reflected on studies of Rhesus monkeys removed from their mothers to examine whether they preferences a comforting figure or food. My visual perception and cognition course detailed the visual development of cats raised in environments that only had vertical lines, or where the eyelids were sewn shut until near adulthood, to determine how the visual system learns. Developmental biology detailed purposeful manipulation of embryos to study the impact in newborn animals. Referencing non-human animal studies in research papers and presentations was, and is, an established norm.

I loved the biological sciences, and the way all living things operated fascinated me. What I did not love, however, was the sacrifice of non-human animals for human knowledge. I avoided an immunology course I had intended to take because of the requirement to dissect rats that had been purposefully infected with diseases resulting in observable pathology. I did my best to avoid participating in a neuroscience lab that used frozen cockroaches to measure electrical activity of limbs after being removed by tweezers. I even declined to pursue an honours year in neuroscience after a tour of the medical research school.

This tour had led us through the old John Curtin School for Medical Research at the Australian National University. The building, red brick and poorly lit, invoked images of the post-war experimentation we learnt about in ethics classes. We walked through the labs in small groups and I can only describe the ‘displays’ as being a house of horrors. The most vivid recollection I have is an eminent professor demonstrating a small, soft looking rat with electrodes embedded in their skull, being made to balance on a ball and the brain activity being read out on a screen.

The rat scrambled to maintain balance on this ball, whiskers moving with their frantic panicked breathing. I wanted so badly to pick up the rat and run, but instead I stood there silent and ashamed of my lack of fortitude. We continued through the dim hallways, honours and PhD students rushing between rooms until we came to the final lab. In here, another rat with an embedded electrode but this time an honours student was doing the presentation. The rat had a light-sensitive electrode which responded to light embedded deep in the motor cortex, and when a blue light was shone on the electrode, the rat was forced to run in clockwise circles.

By this point, I had already started to have second thoughts about doing an honours project through the school but what confirmed my decision was the attitude of the student, likely only a year or two older than myself.

They spoke with such detached indifference about the living creature who was helplessly running in circles at their command, and indeed they seemed bored with the whole affair. The fact that they would treat a living creature not only as an experimental subject, but that they could find this mundane horrified me. These creatures did not matter to them. I wondered if they were simply desensitised or if they truly lacked empathy. Regardless, that day I walked away from any future in the biomedical research.

There have been numerous statements released defending the use of non-human animals in experimentation — indeed their use is now a multi-billion dollar global industry — and biomedical research has long centred on animal models. There have even been ties between corporations that breed and perform industrial testing on non-human animals and the repugnant lobby group the Centre for Consumer Freedom which acts a front for a PR firm and has played a role in disinformation campaigns at the behest of companies. Represented amongst their clients are Monsanto and Phillip Morris who contract their testing on non-human animals out to facilities such as Huntingdon Life Sciences and Covance Laboratories.

In 2005, 500 academics signed a petition in support of the statement ‘Virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly on research with animals.’ yet this claim has not, and cannot, be validated or otherwise proven. This statement comes as a reaction to the decades of campaigning by animal rights activists, and smells strongly of self-protection by the US Public Health Service, with whom this statement originates.

Robert Matthews’ review of this statement demonstrated that many oft-quoted studies examining comparative results between humans and non-human animals have demonstrated exceedingly poor predictive value and misleading results [1]. The quality of research using non-human animals is not consistently high and this is partially due to the broader academic pressure to produce novel results in order to secure grant money and publications, but also due to poor study design and failure to account for differences in physiology that would make the findings broadly applicable to human health outcomes [2].

These systemic failures result in enormous waste of not only animal lives, but of health care research funding and perversely result in poorer health outcomes in humans as resources are squandered on poor research with no tangible outcomes. In some realms of biomedical research, this cost to non-human subjects compared with outcomes is staggering. Between 92% to 96% of drugs tested on non-human animals and found to be ‘successful’ do not work in human subjects [3][4]. The reasons for this are the differences in physiology between the animals subjected to these experiments and humans, the artificial conditions of the laboratory (lighting, exposure to stressors, restricted housing), genetic alterations to lab animals for uniformity, poor understanding of disease and condition presentation in non-human animals (especially in the neurological and behavioural sciences), and the artificial induction of conditions which do not mirror the natural processes of disease in humans. Advances in the field have been suggested to be more likely to arise with molecular modelling — especially in the age of personalised medicine.

It cannot, however, be said that use of non-human animals in research has never produced beneficial outcomes for humans, and indeed for some select non-humans. 89% of Nobel prizes awarded in physiology or medicine have depended on animal subjects — reflecting the enormous reliance on these creatures in biomedical research and at the expense of more humane alternatives. The same, however, could be said for the unethical use of human subjects throughout history, and indeed in some nations to this day. For example, the “father” of modern gynaecology performed surgical experiments on enslaved women without anaesthetic or pain relief, whilst there are current controversies regarding the origin of human organs used in research in China with the likelihood that they were taken without consent. Just as we recognise these acts against non-consenting humans to be morally impermissible, so too must we reject the use of sentient beings for experimentation.

The lure of potential knowledge does not outweigh the moral consideration we must extend to all sentient beings, regardless of species. The resistance to use of non-human animals in these horrific studies, however, has led to the academic-industrial complex attempting to belittle and silence critics through painting those concerned as extremists or irrational, and enforcing a dogma upon researchers — a form of tribalism if you will. No amount of prestige or pageantry however, can overshadow the deeply unethical subjugation of sentient beings.

This use of emotive imagery, something that these organisations scoff at when directed at them, reflects the speciesism inherent in the biomedical sciences.

This being said I do not believe that researchers themselves, at least not the majority of them, are evil people or that they do not empathise with the unfortunate beings who find themselves as unwilling subjects. My own experiences in academia have given me glimpses the cut-throat and hyper-competitive nature of research. The burn-out, the uncertainty and reliance on grant funding are rampant. Scientific research is a structure like any other, and it is very difficult to individually fight or resist structures, especially as a young researcher. We must, therefore, call for structural changes to allow more researchers to speak out against the use of non-human animals as well as for broader reforms to the culture of research institutions for the betterment of the researchers themselves and for the public good.

This approach of mutual benefit and collaboration, however, is in stark contrast to the neoliberal doctrine of intense competition that has infested our research institutions. The lack of public investment and the stability this brings to institutions has left research vulnerable to predatory industry, and with it, supreme challenges to overcoming orthodoxy and exploratory research that would provide an ethical alternative to use of non-human animals in research.

Despite this difficult political environment some universities, including the ANU in which I went on that awful tour 8 years ago, have taken steps to reduce the use of non-human animals and have partnered with research institutes (such as the brilliant Medical Advances Without Animals) who aim eliminate the use of non-human animals completely through the development of cutting edge alternatives. Peak research bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences in the United States have already started to envision the future of biomedical research, with far greater emphasis placed on in silico methods and use of human cells, than on traditional animal models. I hope this combination of changing social attitudes and academic leadership can result in a rapid progression towards the end of animal research.

There have already been a number of breakthroughs — for example the ‘cell on a chip’ which allows phenomenal insight into human physiological response at an organ-specific level. With further development and an environment supportive of this research, these technologies would not only provide an excellent alternative to the use of non-human animals, but make the use of non-human animals obsolete and remove steps between research and public benefit. It must also be said that not all research using non-human animals is biomedical — indeed the military and environmental research frequently uses non-human animals. There is still a long way to go in changing these fields but progress in biomedical sciences will hopefully pave the way.

I applaud all individuals, activists and scientists developing alternative methodology, working to rid the sciences of non-consenting subjects. This requires structural change and constant action to rid the sciences, and society, of speciesism.

Organisations and charities helping to end animal testing

Medical Advances Without Animals (MAWA)

Humane Research Australia (HRA)

Lifeline

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)

National Anti-Vivisection Society UK (NAVS)

For a listing of medical research charities that do not engage in or fund animal testing, please go to http://www.humanecharities.org.au

For a listing of European organisations opposing animal testing and developing alternatives please visit http://www.eceae.org/

Further reading:

Peggs, K., 2015. An insufferable business: ethics, nonhuman animals and biomedical experiments. Animals, 5(3), pp.624–642.

Archibald, K., Tsaioun, K., Kenna, J.G. and Pound, P., 2018. Better science for safer medicines: the human imperative. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(12), pp.433–438.

Eisenman, S.F., 2016. Criticizing animal experimentation, at my peril. ALTEX-Alternatives to animal experimentation, 33(1), pp.3–12.

Hartung, T., 2017. Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing. ALTEX, 34(2), pp.193–200.

Reference:

1.Matthews, R. A. (2008). Medical progress depends on animal models-doesn’t it?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(2), 95–98.

2.Pound, P., & Bracken, M. B. (2014). Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research?. Bmj, 348, g3387.

3.Harding, A. (2004). More compounds failing phase I. The Scientist, 18(17), 47–48.

4. Pippin, J. J. (2012). Animal research in medical sciences: seeking a convergence of science, medicine, and animal law. S. Tex. L. Rev., 54, 469.