On Animals And Paradigms: Why Science Should Change But Hasn’t
When dealing with animal experimentation there are two dominant and entrenched paradigms in place for which shifts must happen before advocates will be able to achieve any real change for research animals. The first paradigm is the belief that science is infallible. Second is the belief that nonhuman animals are appropriate models on which to test the potential effects of drugs and treatments on human animals.
In 1962 Thomas Kuhn propelled the phrase “paradigm shift” into colloquial English language. He used the term in his book, Scientific Revolutions, to describe the shift that occurs in scientific fields when one epistemological reality shifts to another. A paradigm is a dominant way of knowing and a set of knowledge that is believed to be fact by everyone in a professional or social group. For instance, a current paradigm is that the earth is round. This fact changes the sorts of questions astronomers, physicists, and other scientists ask about our physical world.
—————
However, this fact was not always accepted. People used to think the earth was flat and, as a result, different sorts of questions were of interest to scientific thinkers. A paradigm shift occurred with the change in belief that the earth was flat to the understanding that it is actually spherical. The shift also greatly changed the way science was conducted, including not only what questions were relevant to investigate, but also how these questions were researched.
When dealing with animal experimentation there are two dominant and entrenched paradigms in place for which shifts must happen before advocates will be able to achieve any real change for research animals. The first paradigm is the belief that science is infallible. Second is the belief that nonhuman animals are appropriate models on which to test the potential effects of drugs and treatments on human animals.
There is plenty of evidence of need for a paradigm shift in terms of how science is conducted. Everything from how topics become viable research questions to what are appropriate methodologies to answer these questions must be discussed. They must also be changed if animal based experiments are to stop. Many in the scientific and medical community are working toward that goal. A recent article by David H. Freedman in The Atlantic exposes the problems in modern science by highlighting the work of Dr. Athina Tatsioni and John Ioannidis. According to this article, research by Tatsioni and Ioannidis found fundamental flaws in the current way that scientific research functions:
“[Ioannidis] charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.”
Dr. Ioannidis is not alone. As many animal advocates working in anti-vivisection know, there are numerous academic and medical professionals and professional organizations dedicated to uncovering and educating others about the flaws of animal based models of experimentation. Medical professionals such as Dr. Ray Greek and Dr. Neal Barnard and groups such as American Anti-Vivisection Society, National Anti-Vivisection Society, New England Anti-Vivisection Society, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are dedicated to investigating the validity of animal-based models, educating scientists and the public about their inadequacy, and forwarding more reliable alternatives.
However, this does not appear to be enough. Changing the way we do science means we must change how future scientists are trained and convince those who are economically dependent on the current scientific models—such as pharmaceutical companies and research animal breeders—that there are viable economic options among the alternatives being developed and currently on the market. Because it is so entrenched, bringing about changed in the animal research industry will be challenging without a significant mount of pressure. This pressure might be difficult to generate, even if that change improves research, since the public generally places a high amount of trust in science.
The “doctor knows best” mentality is prevalent in the United States. One Gallup poll question asked people to rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in different fields. The professions of nurse, druggist or pharmacist, and medical doctor were among the top five in terms of trust ratings with 81%, 71%, and 66% of respondents having indicating very high or high levels of honesty and ethical standards in each field, respectively.
This trust of scientific professions seems to extend to their ethical motivation and the research that they produce. In 2008 and 2009, HRC asked respondents of the Animal Tracker Survey how much credibility they thought various professionals had concerning animal welfare issues. In both years, respondents placed animal protection groups on par with scientists, with about 70% of respondents thinking that animal protection groups and scientists were “significantly” or “moderately” credible about animal welfare issues. Only veterinarians were viewed as more credible, likely because they demonstrate both scientific training and a concern for animals.
In order for changes to be made that improve current science, we need to encourage a huge shift in thinking. Though the work of Dr. Ioannidis provides empirical evidence that current scientific models and procedures can be improved upon to lead to more valid research, this shift is not yet occurring. This is particularly true in the case of animal experimentation. There is a belief that animal experiments are providing cures for cancer and are necessary to test the efficacy and safety of drugs. Though professional scientists have shown this not to be the case, it is a deeply held believe and a lot of education and outreach will need to happen within the scientific community and among the public to adapt and improve our way of creating new scientific knowledge.
And we need to do this now. For both the animals that are dying in laboratories each year, and for the safety of human animals, because today’s science often just isn’t working.