Justifying experimentation

Bridget Murphy puts the science back into the debate about animal research.

“You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep tonight.” – Charles Darwin, 1871.

Sobering words from a man, whose intimate knowledge of anatomy from animal dissections allowed him to compile enough evidence for his revolutionary theory of evolution.

In response to “Feathers, fur and faculties” in the Week 6 edition of Honi Soit, scientists are not the crazed characters depicted in films, “playing god” with their research on animals. I know of no researcher who feels comfortable or “normal” about killing or experimenting on animals. The issue is a highly sensitive and moral one, but the benefit of both historical and modern animal research to society is undeniable. For this reason, scientists strive to develop and use alternatives to animals in their research as much as possible.

But scientists are also fully aware that our society would be very different without animal research. Our basic knowledge of biology, as well as most of modern medicine, is thanks to pioneering discoveries made in animal research. For example, it was animal research that allowed Louis Pasteur to discover that diseases were not caused by imbalances of the organs but external micro-organisms. Only by isolating and culturing these microbes from the gut of chickens with cholera, and then reintroducing these microbes back into healthy chickens, did Pasteur prove that the culprits were not evil spirits, not the flying spaghetti monster, but pesky microbes.

Armed with this new knowledge, British surgeon Joseph Lister began insisting that other surgeons wash their hands in between patients. He also started sterilising his instruments, sutures and wound dressings with carbolic acid.

The result was a drastic reduction in the number of deaths from septicaemia in his hospital ward, and the concept of antiseptic technique was born. Animal research has also indisputably established causes and vaccines for many diseases, aided the development of antibacterial and antibiotic drugs and helped researchers develop the techniques used in modern-day organ transplants.

But just because animal research played an important part in these developments, does it mean that they were an essential part? Would these discoveries have been made eventually by other means? The alternative methods that activists say could have been used, such as cell culture, would never have been developed without the basic descriptive knowledge that scientists gained from animal studies.

It is fantastic that the availability and validity of alternative methods continues to improve and that they are increasingly being substituted for animals. But there are still no viable alternatives to animals in many avenues of research. For this reason, animal research for which there is sufficient justification but no viable alternatives must continue.

The argument that animal research should be stopped because of animal rights is the safe but soft stance to take on this highly complex issue. Physiologist and physician, Dr. Walter B. Cannon, described the conundrum beautifully in 1896 by quoting Theodore Roosevelt: “Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.” All of us need to acknowledge that we are indebted to animals used in research, but we also need to support rather than slander scientists in their pursuits to improve animal welfare.

This article was published in the University of Sydney newspaper Honi Soit 14/9/10