The use of animal subjects in research has traditionally been a polarizing subject; some members of society have seemed to focus on the bio-medical human benefit posed whereas others have pointed to what they view as the inarguable injustice of animal suffering. These opposing views were the premise of a talk hosted last week by the Petrie Flomm Center, which focused more specifically on the use of non-human primates in research.
Professor Kristen Stilt moderated the event that hosted three panelists. Dr. Steven Niemie, DVM, Director of Harvard’s Office of Animal Resources, opened up the discussion with an introduction to the purpose of animal research subjects and the regulations that researchers are subject to. The majority of applied research involves researchers inducing a certain condition, infection, etc. in the animal subject and following its evolution; the test subject is used as a model for human disease prior to any clinical trials.
According to Dr. Nieme, there is a theory of ethics that researchers are uniformly intended to be subjected to, known as the 3 R’s: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Replacement asks whether we have to use animals in the first place. Reduction goes off of that, when, assuming animal subjects are deemed necessary, the question must be asked as to what the minimum number of subjects that can produce valid statistical results is. Finally, refinement centers around how to refine the procedure so as to minimize the pain inflicted. Non-human primates, which are protected by the Animal Welfare act, are a category of animals that, when used, researchers must report to the USDA (as distinguished from most laboratory rats/mice that don’t require registration). Report forms are categorized according to the type of research- with a grading from simple breeding to infliction of pain accompanied by pain relieving drugs to the infliction of pain for which no pain relief is provided (along with which a justification must be provided). Dr. Nieme also pointed to the very disconcerting fact that any wrong-doing on the part of an institution is self reported. Only then will outside parties intervene with punitive measures. While Dr. Nieme didn’t present his own opinion on this subject, ultimately, the theory of the 3 R’s has been shown to be uniformly ignored if anything; an exorbitant number of incidents have found wrong-doing that were not self- reported, including the misuse of non-human primate research subjects on our very own campus.
While Dr. Nieme’s speech was especially informative, the following two speakers were far more promotional of a view. Dr. Richard Born, professor of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, provided an expectedly scientific and logical approach to the idea of animal research subjects. Dr. Born and his team do research on rhesus monkeys, in particular, by holding them in captivity, doing surgeries on them and ultimately killing the subjects. While he opened with what was a very blunt view into his work- he went on to explain his concern for ethics and an arguably compelling rationale behind his use of animal subjects. The obvious question, in Dr. Born’s opinion, is whether the knowledge gained is worth the harm caused to the animal subjects. Probably the most tangible, compelling part of the speech was his enumeration of the multitude of diseases/disorders that have been cured or treated as a result of animal subject research, including polio, diabetes, TB, as well as advancing treatments for more recent/ongoing diseases.
Dr. Born went on to advocate for the theory of a graded moral status. This theory is, in Dr. Born’s opinion, what tempers the use of animal subjects and is what he believes is the answer to the debate on animal testing. While very much acknowledging the arguable nature of a graded moral status, he presented an example, starting with the less cognitive drosophila (fruit fly), dogs being somewhere in the middle and non-human primates being elevated the most. Dr. Born went on to cite a particularly incriminating study which showed that while people are hesitant to use certain animals in research themselves, they’re far more willing to utilize the data from studies that do use such animals, which Dr. Born claimed is proof that “many of us enjoy a good steak but we’re not willing to slaughter the steer to get that steak.”
And taking a far more decisive approach was the last panelist, Dr. Hope Ferdowsian, a physician and advocate for both human and animal rights. She began her presentation with images from the Nuremberg trials. While such an analogy was arguably inflammatory, Dr. Ferdowsian made clear by the end of her discussion that her answers to animal research were unequivocal: animals should not be subject to any testing that would not be done on a human. The underlying principles of human research protection, autonomy and justice, should be the basis for animal research protections as well. She went on to discuss the codified protections we have for vulnerable populations including pregnant women/fetuses based on the potential harm, as well as prisoners/children because of their diminished capacity for autonomy/decision making; such protections, she argued, should be made available to animals, as they are also vulnerable populations. The inability to provide consent deems animals perhaps the most vulnerable.
During the question/answer portion, Professor Glenn Cohen asked the critical question of what the outlook was on the possibility of convergence among researchers, advocates, and the public. While Dr. Born petitioned once again for the graded moral status theory and Dr. Ferdowsian stayed committed to the idea that we are not justified in subjecting sentient beings to something they cannot consent to, Dr. Nieme had perhaps the most sage response. There is ultimately a lot of opportunity for collaboration among respective parties; however any convergence will take time and compromise. Dr. Ferdowsian also pointed out that there has been some success in terms of chimpanzee protections. While the successes in affording animal protections in a research setting have been few, convergence is perhaps more of a reality than one might believe.