In her essay “A Question of Ethics,” Jane Goodall, a scientist
who has studied chimpanzees for years, tries to resolve a complicated ethical dilemma: Under what circumstances is it acceptable to cause animal suffering to prevent human suffering? Her answer, however, remains somewhat unclear. Although Goodall challenges scientists to avoid conducting unnecessary tests on animals, she does not explain the criteria by which scientists should determine necessity.
Goodall argues that her readers have an ethical obligation to protect animals from suffering, but she also implies that it might be necessary sometimes to abandon that obligation. She points out that animals share similar traits with human beings: they have a capacity for certain human emotions, and they may be capable of legitimate friendship. Goodall’s evidence for this claim is an anecdote from her research. She recounts that one chimpanzee in her study, named David Greybeard, “gently squeezed [her] hand” when she offered him food (62). Appealing to readers’ emotions, Goodall hopes to persuade readers that the chimp is “sociable” and “sentient,” or feeling (62). According to Goodall’s logic, if researchers are careful to avoid tests that cause human suffering, they should also be careful to avoid tests that cause suffering for other life forms.
When Goodall asserts that scientists shouldn’t mindlessly test animals if alternative tests are available, she is in effect conceding that sometimes animals will have to suffer for the sake of helping human beings. Yet if it is unacceptable in some cases to cause sentient beings to suffer, why would it not always be unacceptable? When could compassionate people be comfortable with the prospect of causing David Greybeard mental and physical pain?
Goodall attempts to draw the line between ethical and unethical animal testing by stressing the idea of “essential” tests— those without which scientists could not adequately study certain human illnesses at all. In other words, Goodall seems to imply that it would be unethical for scientists not to test animals when such tests are the only tool available to alleviate human suffering.
But might there be other criteria that could determine whether animal testing is necessary? For example, the severity
of a given human illness might lead scientists to identify medical conditions that justify subordinating animal welfare to human needs. For nonterminal illnesses that cause people far less pain, researchers might delay animal testing or use alternative methods because in these cases concern about animal suffering outweighs concern about manageable human suffering.
But might there be other criteria that could determine whether animal testing is necessary? For example, the severity
of a given human illness might lead scientists to identify medical conditions that justify subordinating animal welfare to human needs. For nonterminal illnesses that cause people far less pain, researchers might delay animal testing or use alternative methods because in these cases concern about animal suffering outweighs concern about manageable human suffering.
No comments:
Post a Comment