Animal testing is ethical unless the experiment violates ethical and legal guidelines

The argument

National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT) has prepared ethical guidelines for the use of animals in research. According to NENT, there are a set of principles (known as “the three Rs”) that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the impact of research on animals. These include: 1. Reduction: The researchers must reduce the number of animals used in experiments as much as possible. To do that, they may improve the techniques of data analysis or share information with other researchers. 2. Refinement: The researchers must refine the experiment to reduce the suffering of animals. They may use less invasive techniques, better medical care, and better living conditions. 3. Replacement: The researchers must replace experiments on animals with alternative techniques, if possible. The alternative techniques can include experimenting on cell structures instead of whole animals, using computer models or epidemiological studies, and studying human volunteers. There are also legal obligations for researchers to follow while conducting animal experimentation. They differ from country to country. For example, in Australia, it is unlawful to use animals in the skin and eye irritancy tests as well as in the testing of sunscreen products. As long as the researchers follow these guidelines, animal suffering is minimized. Therefore, animal research is ethical on the condition that the researchers comply with the ethical and legal guidelines.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The three Rs do not take the costs and benefits of animal research into account. They do not ask questions such as “Is the experiment worth pursuing in the first place? Is it too expensive?” Is it important enough?”. It just assumes the experiment is worth doing. Additionally, the three Rs are not comprehensive. They do not discuss animals' basic needs or set limits on how much animals can be harmed. Therefore, complying with ethical guidelines do not ethically justify animal research.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The three Rs are a framework for minimising harm within research that has already been decided upon. They are procedural rather than justificatory, and describing them accurately does not show that following them settles the ethical question. [Rejecting P2] 'Minimised' is relative to the experiment as designed. The principles reduce suffering compared with a less careful version of the same study; they set no ceiling on how much an animal may be harmed, and severe procedures remain permissible under them. [Rejecting C] The conclusion equates compliance with justification. Whether a given experiment is worth doing — whether the expected knowledge warrants the cost, whether the question could be answered another way — is the ethical question, and the guidelines assume it has already been answered before they begin to apply.