ASAB Feedback - http://asab.icapb.ed.ac.uk/resources/ethical_treatment.html
Home > Resources > EthicsIssue 5, March 1996
The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) has a long-standing concern for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching, and takes a leading role in championing an ethical approach in the way that animals are used. There can be many benefits to using animals in education (see article by Michael Reiss). Behavioural studies in particular can be of great importance in increasing the understanding and appreciation of animals. However, such use of animals does raise important ethical issues. Both researchers and teachers must weigh the potential gain in knowledge or education against any adverse consequences for the animals involved. ASAB has formed an Ethical Committee to provide advice and help members with what can sometimes be difficult ethical judgements. Together with our American sister organisation, ABS (Animal Behavior Society), we also produce a set of general guidelines for use by anyone engaged in behavioural research or teaching activities, published each year in Animal Behaviour (ASAB 1996).
While school practicals will not be designed to deliberately inflict pain or distress on animals, suffering can arise from many sources which may not be immediately apparent. When animals need to be held in captivity, inadequate housing conditions, neglect, excessive disturbance or poor handling techniques can cause appreciable (but avoidable) suffering. As the following article from the RSPCA rightly points out, unnecessary suffering is never acceptable. Much thought will be needed to avoid compromising the welfare of any animals used. Consider housing conditions for- exwnple. Animals in captivity must be provided with an appropriate environment which, will allow them to fulfil their specific behavioural needs, which includes providing them with sufficient space and housing them with suitable companions. This does not mean that captive animals should be exposed to natural hazards such as predators, but does mean that they should have the facilities to hide in a safe place when they feel threatened. Fish, for example, can be provided with dense plants and broken flower pots for cover, or crickets with cardboard shelters such as egg boxes. It is sometimes necessary to keep research animals in highly restrictive and impoverished environments, such as small, bare laboratory cages, because of experimental and maintenance constraints. Here any impairment of welfare may be offset by the high potential value of the research. Such conditions would be very difficult to justify for animals kept for teaching purposes. However, providing more natural and suitable environments has a number of advantages for education since animals will show a greater range of their behavioural repertoire, and students will gain insight into the very different environments that animals inhabit and a much greater understanding of the adaptations of different species. Many small animals like gerbils, mice and rats are adapted to burrow, for example, and should be provided with caging and materials that how this.
Useful information concerning the care and maintenance of vertebrates in the laboratory can be found in Poole (1 987) and Wolfensohn and Lloyd (1 994), but note that these also cover the minimal requirements relevant to the use of animals in laboratory research as well as suggestions for more natural environments. The ASAB Ethical Committee are currently producing guidance notes on the behaviour, housing and maintenance of laboratory rodents and rabbits which will be available shortly.
Field studies can also raise ethical concerns, even when these are only observational. Disturbance, especially by inexperienced observers, may cause animals to leave safe shelter and become exposed to dangers such as predators, for example, or they may abandon their young in the breeding season. Other animals in the area may be affected as well as those under study. Could pointing out an animal's hiding place or a nest of vulnerable young, or teaching techniques for capturing animals, be abused at a later time? It will usually be necessary to carry out pilot studies, control the level of disturbance and monitor animals to cheek for potential problems.
The following articles by Michael Reiss and the RSPCA discuss the general ethics of using animals in education in more detail.
References
* Reprints can be obtained Dr J L Hurst, Department Nottingham NG7 2RD.
from: The Secretary of the of La Science, University
From an ethical perspective, it is the arguments against the use of animals in education that need careful examination.
There are two main arguments against the use of animals in education. First, that suffering can result from their use. Secondly, that we have no right to use animals. (Note that this second argument does not necessarily imply that animals have rights. I don't have the right to demolish Nelson's column in Trafalgar Square, but this fact doesn't mean that we need to apportion rights to Nelson's column. The question as to whether animals have rights is addressed below.)
Suffering involves susceptibility to pain and an awareness of being, having been or being about to be in pain. Pain here is used in its widest sense and includes stress, discomfort, distress, anxiety and fear. It is difficult to argue against the contention that vertebrates, and probably certain invertebrates such as octopuses, can experience pain. The extent to which animals are aware of their pain is more open to question. There is little doubt that certain of our closest evolutionary relatives, such as chimpanzees and other apes, have the requisite degree of self- consciousness. Although the extent to which other animals can suffer is contentious, a growing number of biologists and philosophers accept that, at the very least, most mammals, and probably most vertebrates, can. This conclusion is unlikely to surprise anyone who has ever kept a pet or has worked with animals, as a farmer or vet, for example.
In addition, religious organisations are increasingly speaking out against the suffering that humans cause to animals. In some religions, such as Christianity and Islam, the animals' points of view have only really been put with any strength in recent decades. A number of other religions, though, have a much longer history of according priority to the non- suffering of animals. In Jainism, the concern for ahisma (non-injury) goes hand-in-hand with an insistence on a vegetarian diet, while lay members are encouraged to engage only in occupations that minimise the loss of life. Within Jainism it is the monastic practice to carry a small broom with which gently to remove any living creature before one sits or lies down. In Buddhism too there has traditionally been a strong emphasis on animal well-being.
It is often held by philosophers that the notion of 'rights', whether or not applied to animals, is problematic. The reason for this is partly that the word is used in a variety of overlapping ways, partly that historically it has been inextricably linked with the notion of legal rights and partly that rights are commonly taken to be correlative with duties while many philosophers follow Kant in rejecting the notion of duties to animals.
It is, of course, possible to argue that animals have rights. A different approach, however, is to bypass the question and focus instead on the extent to which our use of animals is often 'speciesist'. It was the Australian philosopher Peter Singer who produced the first really sustained argument that most humans are guilty of 'speciesism'. The term is, of course, 'chosen to have echoes of 'racism' and 'sexism' and so to refer to attitudes and behaviours that once were commonly deemed acceptable, but are now generally considered morally unsustainable. Put at its most succinct, it is of little significance, the argument goes, that humans belong to, a different biological species from, say, chimpanzees, dogs, farm animals and laboratory mice; we do not have the right to treat such species merely as we choose and for our own ends.
Think of the conditions we normally require before humans are permitted to be used as research subjects. We require first, that the participating individual gives their informed consent; secondly, that there is no intent to do harm to that individual. The second of these conditions is inviolate. The first can only be overturned when patients are unable to give their consent, for instance because they are babies or in a coma, when it can be given on their behalf. Further, most of us are not, generally, persuaded by the utilitarian argument that these conditions can be overturned if a number of other people would benefit. This, of course, is why most people hold that, in everyday language, humans have rights. For example, nowadays few of us would be persuaded that subjecting even a few people to slavery is acceptable whatever the beneficial consequences that might result for the rest of us. There are intrinsic objections to such things as slavery and experimenting on people who object to this, whatever the benefits.
The problem is, why do most people hold that it is not permissible to subjugate people into slavery or to experiment on them without their consent when we regularly do these things to non-humans, including even our closest evolutionary relatives, namely chimpanzees and other mammals? We can also note that if one adopts solely the criterion of suffering to decide whether or not an organism should be used for human ends, not only would the use of most animals for medical research cease, but a case could be made, abhorrent as it sounds, for mentally handicapped new-born human infants to be used for such research, on the grounds that such infants are arguably incapable of suffering yet are physiologically closer to self-conscious sentient people than are the laboratory animals presently used.
It is possible to argue that simply being of the human species is a sufficient condition to be awarded enhanced moral status. In particular, some people would argue, from a religious perspective, that there is something qualitatively different about being of the human species (a condition held by some to begin at the moment of fertilisation). After all, some religions see humans, alone of the created order, as being made 'in the image of God'. However, there have been significant shifts in recent decades within even such traditionally anthropocentric religions as Judaism, Christianity and Islam with regard to how humans should treat the rest of the created order. These shifts mean that an increasing number of theologians and believers are uncomfortable about the notion of an absolute divide between humans and all other species.
It is time to discuss the extrinsic arguments about the use of animals for human ends. Do the benefits (positive consequences to humans) outweigh the costs (negative consequences to animals)? This way of looking proceeds on a case-by-case approach. The biologist Patrick Bateson has suggested that a piece of medical research involving the use of animals could be ranked on three axes: a 'Quality of research' axis, a 'Certainty of medical benefit' axis and an 'Animal suffering' axis. Each axis runs from low to high and the position of a point inside the cube defined by these three axes determines whether or not the use of animals should be permitted in the research.
For instance, a high quality piece of medical research with a high certainty of medical benefit might be permitted even if the animal suffering caused was high. On the other hand, Bateson argues, a piece of research of average quality, but with only a low certainty of medical benefit, should not be permitted even if the animal suffering caused was low. Bateson has refined his model subsequently but the fundamental principle of weighing costs and benefits remains.
The most obvious problem with this approach is not so much in deciding where a piece of research lies on these three axes, but on deciding how to balance the costs (animal suffering) against the benefits (quality of research and medical benefit). Perhaps a hypothetical example of how a cost/ benefit approach could operate in deciding whether or not animals should be used for a particular research project might help specify what is involved. Consider the disease malaria. At present some two to three million people die from malaria each year and some two hundred million people suffer from it but survive. In research on the prevention. and cure of diseases, animals are generally used at some point in the development of vaccines and are almost invariably used in the development of new drugs. The scale of the malaria problem and the suffering caused to humans are such that a cost/benefit analysis that simply took as its goal 'minimise the total amount of suffering (both animal and human) in the world' would almost certainly allow large numbers of animals to be used in the research, even if the probability of a particular piece of research proving successful was adjudged to be quite small.
It is important here to note that the criterion 'minimise the total amount of suffering in the world' attempts to allow both animal and human suffering to be taken into account. Such an approach might be welcomed by biologists for whom an evolutionary understanding of the natural world reduces the distance between ourselves and animals.
Students who decline to work with animals in school or college, whether or not they believe that animals have rights and whether or not this position is consonant with other behaviours of theirs (such as the eating of meat), should have their views respected. They should not be ridiculed, though it is perfectly appropriate to encourage them to articulate reasons for their views and to consider the views of others. Valid and intellectually stimulating alternative work should be provided for them.
Extrapolating the cost/benefit argument from research to education, it can even be argued that some limited decrease in the quality of life experienced by animals as a result of their use in education may be acceptable if the educational benefits are significant. For instance, keeping small mammals and fish in schools for behavioural observations and ecological investigations can be defended on these grounds provided that the possibility of animal suffering is minimised and that the educational benefits are considerable. Standard good practice with regard to housing, feeding, heating, access to water, veterinary care and appropriate care at weekends and during school holidays should be sufficient to ensure that school animals do not suffer. Boredom can be a problem for small mammals. To some extent the problem of boredom can be reduced by ensuring that the educational benefits of the animals are maximised. A balance needs to be struck between, on the one hand, small mammals being handled or investigated too often by too many people and, on the other hand, their being ignored and left unattended and unstudied for long periods of time.
Further reading Anon (1996). Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Animal Behaviour, 51, 241-246. Reiss, M. J. (Ed.) (1996). Living Biology in Schools, Institute of Biology, London.
Acknowledgements The arguments in this paper are taken mainly from Lock, R. & Reiss, M. J. (1996). Moral and ethical issues. In: Living Biology in Schools, Reiss, M. J. (Ed.), Institute of Biology, London pp. 109-120 and Reiss, M. J. & Straughan, R. (in press). Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
RSPCA education, part of the oldest and largest animal welfare charity in the world, has as its core aim the promotion of respect for animals. Our objective is to prevent cruelty by promoting kindness and a sense of responsibility for all living things.
We welcome many of the lines of debate put forward in Michael Reiss's well-argued paper, it is important that this issue is discussed fully. Unfortunately our long and extensive experience of observing how animals are used in schools and colleges makes it clear that A too often the conditions for these animals are far from ideal. It appears that the logistical difficulties of ensuring acceptable levels of welfare are often underestimated by educational establishments.
The RSPCA fully recognises the educational value of animal themes and accepts that the study of animals in an educational context can have a useful role, providing that the animals' needs are guaranteed at all times. However, there is never a case where unnecessary suffering is acceptable on educational grounds. The study of animals in artificial environments is no substitute for observing animals in their correct ecological habitat. We strongly believe that the greatest educational benefit is gained by studying animals in their natural environment. To this end we encourage schools to design, develop and manage wildlife conservation areas in their own grounds. In such areas animal welfare education can best be explored through observing animals fulfilling their physiological, psychological, social, behavioural and environmental needs naturally. In a survey of 5000 schools carried out for RSPCA education in the summer of 1995, we found that almost 70% had a wildlife/conservation area.
The RSPCA believes that there must be an explicit educational rationale for using animals. We are opposed to the keeping of animals in captivity on school premises unless proper provision can be made for their physical and mental well-being. Where animals are studied, the maintenance of facilities, habitat or environment must be of the highest standard with a named member of staff given ultimate responsibility for the animals' well-being.
Activities involving the study of animals must be controlled, animal handling should be supervised and kept to a minimum, the animals' needs must remain paramount and there should always be a clearly defined educational benefit. At times the aims of educationalists and the needs of animals may come into conflict. The RSPCA believes that it is the needs of the animals that must always come first.
Where husbandry practice and environmental conditions are inadequate, students are given an example of bad practice which is likely to be a negative educational experience rather than a positive one and may well reduce empathy rather than foster it. It is the quality of the contact that students have with animals that will both determine the activity's educational value and promote informed attitudes on animal welfare.
We are concerned about the use of mounted specimens in the classroom without sensitive discussion of the issues and the use by schools of material from abattoirs as well as schools purchasing dead mice and rats for dissection. All these activities can lead to desensitization and a lessening of respect for living things. There is a hidden curriculum in all these cases - animals being seen as tools for science.
Teachers tell us that fewer and fewer schools are keeping animals - in particular small mammals. Their reasons are highly practical:
it is very difficult to maintain high welfare standards in a school environment the number of children with allergies is increasing sharply and our understanding of zoonotic diseases has added to teacher concerns
legislation and LEA policy makes the keeping of animals in the classroom more difficult for busy teachers delivering even the reduced framework programmes of the National Curriculum
Taking a needs-based approach to learning about animals greatly enhances the quality of learning and develops wider, more positive attitudes and values. For further information or advice please contact;