Using Animals For Infection Studies: Is it Ever Justified?
Within the scientific community, there is a considerable amount of debate about the usefulness of animal experimentation, and even those that fall on the “pro” side of the divide tend to qualify their opinion. This article about the usefulness and ethics of using animals for infection studies is a case in point. Though it is written from the “pro” side of the scientific community, the author takes great pains to qualify their position on animal testing. The paper states that researchers need to be cognizant that there is “a general concern over animal welfare and is not confined to those used in research, but also includes, for example, farming, sport, wild animals, zoos and circuses.” With this in mind, the author notes that just because some scientists believe that experiments can yield positive results, “that does not mean that scientists can do anything to animals in the name of science.” It is also stated that “avoidable animal suffering” can be easily caused by “routine scientific procedures carried out incompetently (such as restraint, transport, injections), and poor experimental design.”
From here, the article asks if there is something about studies into infection that poses a particular ethical conundrum. Here, the author describes how, in many cases, the animal “models” used do not actually get the same kind of infections as human counterparts, but instead they are caused to merely “mimic” human conditions, at which point scientists try to treat the mimicked condition. This is an important admission, as it shows that animal models are not actually as much like us humans as some scientists would have us believe. The paper goes on to state that, from a welfare perspective, scientists need to pay more attention to signs of distress in animals, and says that “once animal suffering has been recognized, it becomes possible to assess it and to make changes in order to avoid, alleviate and reduce it.” One can imagine that in infection studies, physical distress would be an ongoing state for the animals forced to endure it.
Advocates who are working to end vivisection can always use studies like this which showcase the internal debates and contradictions inherent in animal experimentation. This article, as with many that have come before it, shows that the scientific community does not speak with one voice when it comes to the ethics and efficacy of animal experiments.