Andrew is a freelance marine biologist in North Carolina focused on population and conservation genetics in hydrothermal vent communities.
Image from HumaneSociety.org
I am, in general, a supporter of animal rights. Animal abuse sickens me, and I really believe Ghandi’s famous quote that “you can judge a society by how it treats its weakest members”. That said, while it’s disturbing to see a rabbit which has gone blind from exposure to a potential new shampoo, I’d rather have a rabbit go blind than a human child. More importantly, while it is troubling to infect a chimpanzee with a disease in order to study how to cure that disease, such research unquestionably saves human lives. That’s why I was surprised to learn about the Great Ape Protection Act.
This proposed law will ban all invasive medical tests on great apes. While some animal rights groups are cheering, medical researchers are concerned. There are many human diseases that are presently being studied in laboratory animals, including AIDS and malaria, and banning this research would set the search for a cure back immeasurably. More troubling is the effect that an ape research ban would have on Hepatitis C studies.
According to the CDC, 3.2 million Americans suffer from Hepatitis C. Though some diseases can be tested in other ways, chimpanzees are the primary model system for Hep C, (other model systems, such as mice, are very early in development) which means that banning great ape research is basically equivalent to saying that scientists aren’t allowed to cure Hep C for a long time.
A comparison between co-sponsors of the Great Ape Protection Act and the Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act of 2009 (which calls for increased Hep C vaccine research) shows that 16 congressman are simultaneously saying “You have to find a cure for Hepatitis C very quickly” and “You aren’t allowed to use the only functional model system to develop a cure for Hepatitis C”. All are Democrats. These represent only co-sponsors. It is likely that more people would be revealed as hypocrites if every member of congress actually voted on this bill- and many more can be revealed now by examining co-sponsors of other hepatitis C legislation.
Arguments made for the law imply that great ape research is the Wild West, and that mad scientists torture chimpanzees for their sociopathic pleasure. This is simply not the case. As an open letter to Congress signed by numerous scientific organizations states, “scientists take research using non-human primates extremely seriously, and multiple protections exist in law and through accreditation to ensure these animals are well-treated and used with respect.”
Here are some other facts about this proposed law.
-It not only bans the use of apes to find cures to deadly human diseases, but also the use of apes to find cures to deadly ape diseases. You can bet that many more gorillas will die from this strain of malaria than would die from research to cure it. The same is true of the chimpanzee strain of ebola.
-The phrasing of the law includes gibbons as great apes. This is news to primate biologists who have long considered them a separate group.
Though there are many excellent scientific organizations that oppose this law, I want to refer you specifically to the statement put out by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, one of the most prestigious scientific societies in the world.
I know that we have many animal rights activists among our readers, and I invite you (as always) to join in the discussion. However, I fervently believe that If the Great Ape Protection Act becomes law, it will be terrible news for humans as well as apes. Animal rights are extremely important, but human lives are more important.
Also, while this discussion is primarily about the ethics of saving human lives through research, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Dr. Free Ride’s recent post about how the lives of human researchers are threatened more directly by animal rights activists, PZ Myers recent list of overzealous animal rights activists, and Orac’s description of a frightening new tactic used by some of them. Whatever our views are on the ethics of animal research, surely we can all agree that threatening researchers and their children is a completely unacceptable way of accomplishing goals… right?
Do you think that it is acceptable to protect animal rights at the expense of human lives?
Do you think that saving human lives justifies experimenting on animals?
Are rules that protect animals in laboratory studies good enough the way they are? Are they too powerful already?
~WhySharksMatter
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
11
I can almost understand (though I entirely disagree with) the claim that prisoners who have harmed society in some way have less moral value than animals. However, the claim that innocent people with developmental diseases have less moral value than animals is pretty far from “reasonable”, Taylor.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
With respect: I have presented a coherent argument, giving reasons at each step of the way. You have merely asserted that my position is not reasonable, but have presented no argument, no reasons. I suggest you have a sentimental bias in favour of humans. Perhaps that’s okay, but as such your bias is not a matter of reason. To be reasonable, one has to give reasons and engage (reasonably) with contrary arguments.
My argument in my earlier post implicitly invokes what is known in philosophy as “the argument from marginal cases”. This argument (which can be found even in Ancient Greece) is not easy to refute, as debate among philosophers over the past thirty years has shown. There are one or two ways around it (such as using a contract theory of morality), but they have implications that many will find abhorrent (e.g., that there is no intrinsic reason — merely prudential, revocable reasons — why we should protect mentally handicapped humans).
Like or Dislike:
1 
9
Not so much rational as fundamentally flawed, actually.
“It is a prerequisite of rational argument that one may not discriminate in favour of some individuals and against others where no morally relevant difference exists, and species membership per se is not a morally relevant difference between individuals, any more than sex or race is a morally relevant difference.”
Read a few comments above where this has already been addressed. Morality is necessarily anthropocentric, non-humans cannot be active participants.
“Animals aren’t capable of being “innocent” because anthropocentric legal and moral framework applies a priori to humans exclusively. Animals can’t be ‘moral’ as we understand it because morality is a human construction. Part of our moral framework applies to animal welfare – treating animals with respect, not being unnecessarily cruel, etc. but animals can’t be active participants in that framework.
I.E. a chimpanzee killing the offspring of a less dominant male (which is not uncommon) is not a ‘murderer’ or ‘amoral’, while a human who does the same would be a monster.”
To put it more simply – membership comes with benefits (and dues)
And of course, the more relevant issue which has also been addressed – “humans make the perfect models for research designed to benefit humans”.
No, actually they don’t. A ‘perfect’ model organism is cheap to maintain, reproduces often and quickly, has a short lifespan, and is taxonomically close enough to allow generalizable results. For the vast majority of medical studies, a mammal is basically a mammal, and despite absurd claims to the contrary, huge medical advances have been made using rodents, which is why mice and rats make a much better model organism than people.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Taylor, throwing around philosophy terms and big words does not mean that your arguments are correct.
“membership comes with benefits (and dues)”… I like this. Well said as always, Andrew.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
“Taylor, throwing around philosophy terms and big words does not mean that your arguments are correct.”
What big words are we talking about? “Coherent”? “Marginal”? “Intrinsic”?
My basic point was simply that you have made no plausible argument to support your position. At least Southern Fried Scientist makes an attempt. However, statements like “Morality is necessarily anthropocentric, non-humans cannot be active participants” are either (warning: big word) tautological or (warning: philosophical term) question-begging.
Over the past three or four decades philosophers have devoted hundreds of published books and articles to the issue of the moral status of animals. The issue is fascinating, complex, and multi-faceted. If anyone wants to dive in, here’s an incomplete bibliography:
link to shabkar.org
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
I have mixed feelings about this issue. I do oppose to animal cruelty and maltreatment of animals. However, I dont feel that with this debate that is the issue at hand. While I must agree that I would rather have a chimpanzee die from a disease while trying to find a cure for it than millions of human lives being lost because scientist are not allowed to conduct experiments to find a cure. I must honestly say that in this situation, humans are the superior beings, so yes, a few chimps lost are better than lets just say, thousands of people in Africa dieing from AIDS. In response to SFriend Scientist, I agree, humans are one of the few species that actually care about the well-being of other species. Just thinking about all the efforts to save animals that are on the verge of extinction is one of the main sacrifices that humans make and without any benefit to ourselves. So the answer to your question, is yes. I do believe that humans are more valuable. I do think that we must protect animal rights but not to the extent that human lives are being put in jeopardy. Saving human lives does justify experimenting on animals. Not dismissing the facts that humans have contributed to the harsh exposure and pollution of our enviroment, however humans are the only species that have the knowlege necessary to prevent and protect the enviroment from exposure to further harsh exposure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
I am a huge proponent of animal rights. However, like the article states I believe it would be better to test a product on an animal than to release a product that could have harmful effects or test a product on a human that could have damaging outcomes. One point that should be brought up is the Living conditions of animals that are used in experiments. In most case these animals are treated better than some animals are treated by owners who neglect them or in situation where the animal ends up in the pound. The standard of care for animals that are used in experiments is higher because there are fewer chances of variables affecting the experiments. Whereas the standard of care for animals in the pound is bare minimum and in a case were the animal is neglected by its owner the living conditions could be horrendous. Animals are a huge part of our daily lives, such as pets and entertainment (i.e. the zoo or the circus). I believe that more infractions of animal rights occur in some of these other areas than in medical experiments. The idea of medical experimentation on animals is a horrible thought, however in the end is an animal’s life more valuable than a humans.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
This sure is a debate, I can imagine that a lot of people have different opinions. I think that people should be able to continue to test on Apes, if we look at the opportunity costs, the answer is pretty clear in my eyes. Human diseases such as AIDS and malaria and hepatitisis C are being researched for a cure. Also the testing helps with curing diseases associated with the Apes. All of this is important, saving lives all across the board. As the article described, the animals that are being tested are being treated kindly and with respect.
I think that they should be able to continue to test on these apes, because it will help in the long run, if we can find answer to these diseases, it would be amazing
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Whether or not human life is inherently more valuable than the life of an exotic fish or developed chimpanzee is up to personal subjectivity. One comfort of animal testing arises as one realizes the safety of our medications, for example, as result of previous animal testing. Animal protection acts and scientific advances are maintain an inverse relationship. There is no ideal situation.
With respect to the controversy over the Great Ape Protection Act, do we want to ensure the utmost safety of the Great Apes or Human population?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Of course alternative methods should be sought out for experimenting and finding cures, but the fact of the matter is this is the best we can do as of now. We are getting immediate results and information from animal research and until a more “humane” method is created that is even close to as accurate as this, animal research is absolutely necessary. I am an animal lover, but I’m also a fan of cures to deadly diseases. It may sound harsh, but this is the only way at this point in time.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I agree with meaydlet on this subject. I myself, cannot stand even the thought of abusing animals and so the thought of testing various products and vaccines on animals is one that is hard for me to think about. Scientist are working hard to find cures for various diseases like malaria, cancer, AIDS, and Hep C. By putting the Great Ape Protection Act in to place we will be setting ourselves back when it comes to finding cures for various diseases. I genuinely hope that one day we can find a better way to test vaccines and potential cures but for right now animals are all that we have. We have made great strides to do our best to protect animals the best we can with laws regarding laboratory studies and that doing much else will set scientists back on finding many important cures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow! Heated debate up there. At this time, I do feel that saving human lives justifies experimenting on animals. If doing legitimate testing on an animal will eliminate a disease that is affect millions of humans than PLEASE continue doing what we have to do. Rules that protect animals in the laboratory are already “nit-picky” as it is. I feel like they protect animals and research done on them more than enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it’s right to protect animals to the extent of extinction but not to human medical research that can possibly save millions of lives. More animals will die more by the disease they have than the research team killing them. Why not they die for a good cause as being research to save the rest of their generation of species and a deadly human disease. Experimenting on animals to save human lives is a justify reason if they not torture them and only using them for medical research. Soon as we find a cure for whatever diseas such as Malaria and HIV then we wont have to experiment on that specie of animals. Experimenting on animal less emotional than experimenting on humans it’s less controversy. They should keep the medical research up to find cures for disease for animals and especially humans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Although experimenting on animals sounds horrible, I think that saving human lives is important. Obviously, it would be wrong for scientists to use humans as their subjects, so in order to find cures to diseases, scientists need animals that are closely related to humans. Because I think that human lives are important, I think that people should be more focused on human rights rather than on animal rights. I do not think that animal rights should be protected to the point that human lives are at stake. First, we need to protect our human race, and then we can protect animals. While saving human lives does not justify experimenting on animals, it is necessary to find cures. I think that rules that protect animals in laboratory studies are fine the way they are now, but if animal activists continue to push for more extreme protection laws, humans and other animals may lose their lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have very mixed feelings on this issue. I feel like animals should be treated humanly, but when we use them for science it gets on the line. Sometimes this is necessary but it should not always be us that treats these animals like this. As a biology student, I want to study these animals, not abuse them for our purposes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While following the comment before mine, I feel that we do not abuse these animals for our personal purpose to survive but that we use their genetical similarities to our advantage and by this we are allowing our species to be better understood so that we can become a stronger species. However I do see this only happening if we continue to use these animals in our studies and therefore I am against the passing of this new law to protect the apes. If not these animals the next genetically similar subject would be ourselves. I’m sure any sane being would view this as more of a cruel act for science and more likely support scientist using the animals for the cost of their lives being protected. I feel we must use the ability to use these animals for understanding the deadly diseases both species face to our advantage.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I believe that animal cruelty is wrong and under no circumstances should be done (which is clearly not the case in this article). However, I believe that if the animals are treated with respect and it is for a cause to find cures that could benefit humans and the animals in question, then it is ok to use them in laboratory studies. As far as human life being more important than animals, I think it depends on each individual. I believe that if more humans can be saved at the cost of one apes life who helped find a cure, then in that instance the human lives are more important.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I am a little concerned that in your opening statement, you identify 16 congressmen as hypocrites. You then further say “all are Democrats.” Is this a political statement or a discussion about the validity of Big Ape research? Have you found a statistically relevant association between “hypocrites” and “democrats”?
I’d rather talk about the ape research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
It is a shame that some people do not believe that the quality of human life is more important than an animal’s life. I, also, am not a proponent of animal cruelty. I do not like to think of the suffering of animals, but the suffering of a human is much more heart-wrenching, especially when you think of the chance that that human can become a family member.
In certain research, Great Apes are the animals most like animals biologically. In my opinion, initial testing on animals is preferred to initial testing on humans. As long as pains are taken to meet the animals’ needs and we are not using animals at risk of extinction, testing on animals should be allowed. The fact that the Great Ape Protection Act prevents experimentation on apes puts the future of many human lives on hold, as well as the lives of other animals.
Now, if one disagrees with this point of view, human lives should not be threatened. No matter what point of view one takes, human lives should always be valued.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I am a strong supporter of animal rights, and the proper treatment of animals, although I also support experimenting on animals with reference to the letter to Congress which you showed that stated; “scientists take research using non-human primates extremely seriously, and multiple protections exist in law and through accreditation to ensure these animals are well-treated and used with respect.” If animals are being treated properly, and human lives, along with apes and other animals lives can be saved, then it makes no sense to even consider the great ape protection act.
On the other hand, animals do have rights as well. It is hard to be for or against this proposed law because on one hand, scientists claim to be treating these animals well, but on the other hand, animals do have rights as well, so what gives us as humans the right to experiment on animals?
Although, the medical experimentation on animals has been successful in saving thousands of human lives. Obviously, animal rights groups are going to argue against this in saying that animals have rights to, except many argue that rights are only applicable to those who have the ability between reason and choice; those being humans.
Unfortunately, there is no right answer to whether or not animal experimentation is right or wrong, it is solely based on ones own personal principles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stating that the ban on great ape research is equivalent to saying scientists are not allowed to work towards a cure for hepatitis C is a bit drastic. Ethics are what get in the way of animal research and when this ban was placed people only wanted to see improvement in animal treatment. I am very grateful that research has been done to keep humans healthy and safe but I do not think it should be said that human lives are more important. It seems egotistical. Even though animals are, well, animals and we are humans it says a lot about society when we rank ourselves as being the most important or better. Clearly research needs to be done because as stated in the reading, I too do not want to see a child go blind because of a shampoo. Animal testing is necessary to ensure our safety and well being as a human race but I just cannot get over how horrible it sounds saying we are most important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I do not think it should be said that human lives are more important”
You don’t think it’s reasonable that as a human, I think human lives are more important than chimpanzee lives?
“Even though animals are, well, animals and we are humans ”
Humans are animals, too.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I love animals, and I think that using animals for medical testing is harsh, but I see why it is necessary for the advancement of human medicine. I am curious to know exactly how many apes it takes to properly test a medication, and I wonder how many die from medical testing each year? I think a few apes being subjected to testing is okay, but if too many are dying, I think testing should be at least regulated to a certain extent. Also, I am curious as to how many apes do not actually die from medical testing, but suffer for the rest of their lives from the drug’s side effects. Even though animals do not have the emotional brain capacity that humans have, they can still suffer physical pain and discomfort that no living creature should have to endure in their life. I think that ape medical testing should not be banned altogether, but it should be carefully regulated in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Sure, it probably isn’t right for animals to be tested on. But, sometimes it is necessary. As you stated, some of these tests have been helpful for both humans and animals. Not to be cold hearted but it makes sense to sacrifice a few animals to benefit the animal kingdom as a whole. There could be a law as to how many animals are allowed to be tested on per year, which could help this problem. People who are pro animal rights are still using products that have been tested on animals, in a way, they are hypocrites.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
“People who are pro animal rights are still using products that have been tested on animals”
Actually, most animal rights people do not use animal-tested products.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I will have to agree with CeltGirl1974 who previously stated that there is a significant difference between testing products on animals for cosmetic reasons versus health related reasons. I believe there is no justification for animal suffering for frivolous concerns such as make up products. However, I completely agree with the author in the fact that it would be completely absurd to not use these apes to potentially find a cure to Hepatitis C. We are, as misfortune for other creatures as this fact may be, the dominant species and we should utilize our knowledge and resources accordingly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
For reasons scientific and invaluable to humans it does seem sensible to do research on animals. The wealth of knowledge we can attain from such research and the cancers that can be cured is undeniable. It would be nothing less than logical to find ways of curing our neighbors and our family from ailments and diseases that bother us regularly. However, does it seem right to put defenseless animals through treatments that could harm them without their consent? Morally, that is only a question because humans created the framework for moral objectives because we hold ourselves so high and mighty. It is only because we see ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution and so anthropocentric that we do justify so much ruthless and morally diminishing research. If the research is to be done which seems inevitable as it is, then it should be done in ways that do not harm or diminish the population and the overall gene pool of the animals being researched. If we were to eat the animal whose benefits were to last a few days at the most then why not use one animal for research where the benefits could last decades and more?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I am a strong supporter of animal rights, however, a blind rabbit is much easier to deal with than a human child. When we look towards medicine, we hope to see human health improving. We have achieved this so far through the testing of animals, and it would seem counter-productive to test medicines on humans if the aim is to cure them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Simply put, our society is a twisted one. After the whole Michael Vick dog beating bit, I became more and more pro-life and less protective of animals; this to, if nothing else, offset insanity. The same voices that say, “it’s not human unless you want it” are the very same who so vehemently oppose dog fighting. Think about it. So, with regards to testing, I would insist that we exercise a bit of common sense, but it seems that might just be a problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
“. The same voices that say, “it’s not human unless you want it” are the very same who so vehemently oppose dog fighting. Think about it.”
What? What do animal rights have to do with the abortion debate?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1