A supporter of both science and animal rights. Where is the balance?

Question

I strongly support animal rights and preventing animal cruelty at all costs. This belief, seems to contradict my strong interest in science and support of scientific discoveries. I understand much medical research involves animals, especially neurological research which is one of my bigger interests in medicine. I can't stand to see myself as a hypocrite, so is there a balance between these two beliefs? Open to any (intelligent) input.

Answer 1

I am in your boat for sure. This is a toughy...

I remember raising my hand in third grade and telling the teacher that they should do scientific research on criminals in prison, not on innocent animals.

Not bad for a nine year old, but the more I learned about imprisonment and whatnot, I learned not all crimes are equal and not all who are in jail are guilty.

One possible solution would be to have people sign up for testing with pay involved. I know this happens already and I can't see why testing a group of rats or testing a group of people for an experiment that will benefit people, not rats, can't be tested on people.

A lot of cancer and disease research is done on rats and other animals and I can see why people wouldn't want to sign up for that kind of testing. This is where it gets tough - is it really okay to subject any living creature to a test for the benefit of the "superior" species?

I think I have answered your question with a question. Oops.

We are one of the most intelligent species, but the only species so far with feelings of sympathy, disgust, and wrongdoing. So, if we feel these things, shouldn't we listen to them?

Answer 2

Science involves logic and reasoning, while animal rights is entirely an emotional issue. Logic must take priority over emotions. Animal rights groups are fanatics and their leaders are frauds.

Answer 3

My opinion in this regard would be the idea that animal life does not equal human life.  If a scientific discovery could be made which would save lives, then as humans, we have the right to use lesser species.  If one looks at this from an evolutionary standpoint, it becomes obvious what the answer is.  We as humans have become best adapted to the environment in which we live by means of our intelligence. This gives humans the right to use other animals to our discretion, because they have not adapted to survive in the environment in which they live.

Answer 4

This is a tricky area, and the only thing I can advise is to find out as much as you can, and then do what feels right to you.

You are correct that much biological science still involves animal research - especially where applications are nearing clinical trials, or "whole-organism" studies like neurobiology.

No-one performs experiments on animals "just because" - the experiments are only performed because there is no reasonable alternative. No-one enjoys watching animals suffer, so lab animals are kept in humane conditions and are treated well, and experiments are designed to minimise their suffering. And all animal procedures have to be approved by an ethics committee before they can be performed.

The question you have to ask yourself is "is it worth it?" Do you think that the possibility of (for example) an effective treatment for spinal cord injury, is worth performing animal experiments that might involve paralysing the animals to test treatments on them? Or the possibility of a cure for multiple sclerosis is worth engineering animals that lack myelin sheaths round their nerves?