Ethics of Research involving animals
Early forms of animal research in the biological and medical sciences
2.2 In some respects, the scientific and ethical reasons for using animals in scientific research have changed little from the first experiments in ancient Greece. Natural philosophers and physicians of those times wanted to increase their knowledge about the way in which
complex organisms such as humans and animals functioned.1 They valued the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and sought to understand how and why the body malfunctioned, to learn about the development of disease and the effects of injury, and to discover better treatments and cures. Aware of biological similarities between humans and other animals, they hypothesised that many findings about specific mechanisms or processes in animals could be applied to humans.
2.3 Animal research continued to be undertaken in some societies over the next 2,000 years and formed part of the systematic scientific enquiry carried out in the Roman Era (c.510BC–455AD)2 and in early Arabic medicine (from the fall of Rome until the 15th century).3 There is little evidence of similar activity having taken place in medieval Europe. By the 16th century, methodological research had become more widespread, particularly in the medical schools of Italy. The Catholic Church forbade human autopsy, which could have contributed to biological and physiological knowledge and the effects of diseases. Instead, animals were used as the primary physiological and anatomical models.4
2.4 Most historians of medicine agree that many fundamental early discoveries in physiology were derived from studying animals. These discoveries include William Harvey’s demonstration of blood circulation in 1628, Robert Hooke’s discovery of the function of the lungs in 1667 and Stephen Hales’ measurement of blood pressure in 1733.5 This traditional view has been challenged by commentators who argue that animal research has led merely to increased knowledge about animals, but not necessarily about humans, thereby delaying progress in medical research.6 They also contend, for example, that it has not been necessary for medical progress, claiming that clinical observations in humans had actually revealed these discoveries, which were then subsequently ‘validated’ in animals.7 Thus, even if many fundamental discoveries did involve the use of animals, they argue that this practice should not be mistaken for evidence of the necessity of animal experiments.8 Discussion about whether or not these assertions are justified, and what a world without previous and current animal research would be like, is interesting, but not straightforward. It involves a significant number of highly speculative and variable hypotheses. While we address some related issues in Chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.11–3.12), we consider it more fruitful to explore the current potential of Replacements (see Chapter 11) rather than to focus on what could have been achieved without animal research in the past.
| Box 2.1: Use of important terms Throughout this Report, we make occasional reference to specific concepts and groups of people involved in the debate about animal research. We explain below how we use the terms to describe them. They should not be understood as rigidly defined categories, suggesting that people can only be grouped under one of the terms. We merely use them for practical reasons, to highlight particular points of view.
|