evidence based rantings

Two things happened today that made me reconsider the possibility of TV as an intelligent medium of communication. There was a program on animal testing in research from both perspectives (researchers vs animal rights groups) and there was a 10 minute feature on Neswnight on creationism vs evolution.
Both evoked strong feelings in me and the program on animal testing especially had my full attention as it raised so many issues.
I admittedly view animal testing from a skewed perspective, being a researcher (not an animal researcher, but nonetheless). But acknowledging my bias helps me to factor that in when I think about this.
To understand what happens to us humans in health and disease, we need to chart out the structural and functional features of biological systems which is a painstaking process done with the ultimate aim (not all biological research, but certainly medical research) of improving health - of humans.
What we know now to be 'basic concepts' in biology, especially the structural aspects, are somewhat easier and less controversial to study: for one basic reason - that a structural analysis does not always require intact functionality of the subject. In other words, tissue removed from humans or tissue of dead humans are adequate for a significant proportion of structural research. Moreover, society in general accepts research on dead humans as long as this follows an acceptable 'code of conduct'. However, it is easy to forget that this acceptance was not inherent to society. The gravediggers of the past who were the steady source of illegal 'research material' for anatomy scholars, now part of medical lore, is the proof of the changing attitude of society towards medical research. Moreover, this acceptance has lead to sufficient research on the 'real thing' to allow highly detailed computer reconstructions of structure, mainly because we have not mutated in the last 400 years and therefore this 'steady state' of human anatomy has allowed us to catch up with our 'cutting edge' technology. Increasingly such artificial models are used in education and training.
Functional research poses a different challenge and one of the main limitations is the inability on the part of humans to design adequate artificial functional models. This open admission of insufficient knowledge is also the most significant reason to pursue research - without observing the functional aspects of a biological system how can one 'design' a simulated model? Moreover, this inherent complexity of normal function means that alterations in function which underlie disease in humans are even harder to understand. In other words, diseases have not shown the decency to stay the same while we catch up with our 'cutting edge technology'. This dynamism is the main reason to strive ever harder, exploring all available avenues knowing fully well that all this effort may only scratch the surface of the problem.

This is where animal research comes in.
Again, from a research perspective, animal studies almost always focus on a single scientific question. It is usually not a case of mad scientists in their blood splattered lab coats fighting over a carcass and running off with various innards of the poor animal. Yes, if simultaneous studies are going on in the same lab, different researchers may use the same animal but that surely is not a bad thing as it means using less animals overall. Also, not all animals used in research are killed or maimed as there are functional or behavioural studies which do not result in any harm to the animals. There are also strict protocols to be followed when using animals in research, starting from the initial research proposal to the ethics committee review through to the publication of results in peer reviewed journals.

I get the feeling that the main reasons for animal rights groups to intervene (and in many cases, violently) are:
1. The animal is subjected to pain
2. The animal is helpless and has no choice in the matter
3. The living conditions of the animal are not ideal
4. Researchers are motivated by their vested interests (i.e., more funds, more publications, more results) and do not care about the welfare of animals
5. Just like racism, speciesism is wrong and researchers are guilty of this

This line of argument raises a lot of issues which I have been trying to figure out in my head:

1. subjected to pain: researchers follow anaesthetic procedures similar to what is employed in surgery on humans. So pain is something that is kept to a minimum.
However, this raises the question of differential response on the part of animal rights activists: why is it that there is no furore on the use of zebra fish embryos or the fruit fly in research labs? All the anger and resistance seems to be against research using mammals or primates. Why? Because they are closer to us in the way they respond to pain? Because they have identifiable body parts we can empathise with? or because they generally tend to have large mournful eyes and chubby furry bodies? Is this response really in proportion to the cuteness of the research animal?
How do we know that invertebrates or non mammalian vertebrates do not feel pain? Because they lack the pain receptors that we readily identify in higher animals? I have not seen a single species (including plants) that does not avoid a noxious stimulus. The way they respond might be different but nonetheless one cannot assume that they do not sense pain (if not pain in its human sense, atleast an instinctive response to avoid harmful stimuli). And yet, I see no animal rights activists outside high schools and colleges where non-cute cockroaches are massacred in their thousands each year.
Also, there seems to be a context to these issues. Far more rats and mice are killed as a part of pest control when compared to research. No one seems to be of the opinion that fieldmice also need to live and therefore have equal rights to the food we carefully store.

2. Issue of consent: This is difficult to address and I cannot say that researchers ask first before using animals for research. I can only say that the same justifications apply to the killing of animals for food or to improve sanitation or economy of a community. I cannot see research as something that is especially evil. On the contrary, if you compare the method of killing a rat in an trap as opposed to in the research lab, it is obvious that more care is taken in the laboratory.

3. The living conditions of the animal are not ideal: a research lab is not a safari park and it cannot function as a useful research lab if access to animals is difficult. Again animals are kept in cages which are no different to what you would use for a pet. Adequate feeding and rest for the research animal is crucial to the success of a research project. If only to reduce variability in results in a study, if not for altruistic purposes, animals are generally well looked after - maybe just like looking after cattle till they are led to the meat processing factory.

4. Researchers are motivated by their vested interests: why is it that people assume that someone in research is somehow 'different'? We live the same life with the same hopes and fears and insecurities and aspirations just like anyone else. How is using an animal to conduct research somehow worse than being a cutthroat businessman? If anything, the researcher makes less of an adverse impact on human society. Moreover, the drive for a majority of scientists is the opportunity to contribute to the improvement of health in human society, however corny that sounds. It is rare for animal torturing psychopaths to pursue a research career and I am yet to see one of these.

5. Speciesism: Very difficult. I readily accept that we are doing animal research because we are the top of the food chain. I have heard 'what ifs' about a hypothetical society: what if there was a super human race who take a fancy to us humans and decide to test their hypothesis in 'lower animals'. Imagine that you are walking down to the corner store when suddenly this superhuman race (of super furry animals? who knows) grabs you and starts sticking electrodes in your brain. How would you feel then?

Yes, good point and again I do not have a ready answer. But let me just say this. If there is a new drug which might save your mother's life or reduce the pain that your sister goes through, would you rather it was tested in your son first or in a furry little lab rat? Or would you rather not test the drug and continue to see your loved ones suffer? Or would you electronically calculate the presumed effect of the drug in a 'complex mathematical predictive model' and based on the figures adding up (or not) on the snazzy LCD screen, give the new drug to your wife without any anxiety whatsoever?

If biology was simple and straightforward like a cardboard box, it would be simple to predict how it would 'behave' in different situations. But (un)fortunately, that is not the case. The sheer unpredictability of biology is what drives research. Also it is very important to remember that for all our arrogance as a species of high achievers, we have no more than very basic information on how we function. This awareness of ignorance is what stimulates research - not the overwhelming desire to stick a knife in a helpless furry animal.

I would like to see how many animal rights campaigners refuse medication when they are ill because it has been tested in animals at some stage in it's development. I cannot ignore the fact that we test on animals because we happen to be higher up in the pecking order of evolution. That is something all researchers have to come to terms with and create their own independent moral justifications for. This is where the concept of greater good comes in and that is all I have to say about it.