According to The Capital Times, a man named Rick Marolt has been around campus soliciting the question of whether primate experimentation is ethical , unable to find the right person or organization to answer it. Well, Mr. Marolt, you have, inadvertently, come to the right place. And that place is me.
To some, the fact you are even asking the question would seem to answer it. No, it isn’t ethical. It violates the rights of the animal.
There is, however, the concept of ethical permissibility — a concept I may have just claimed to invent and just cribs from utilitarianism but which, nevertheless, holds some validity. For example, let’s suppose it is the time of Nazi Germany. You are a detained Jew in an internment camp. A Nazi guard shows you five other detained Jewish individuals lined up in front of a firing brigade. He hands you a pistol and tells you that if you shoot one of the five Jewish prisoners, he will let the others go free. But, if you don’t, he will have all of them shot. Do you shoot an individual? (Note: you can’t shoot the guard or your way out of the camp.) It seems obvious, at least for me, that you would be obligated to shoot one individual to allow the others to go free. One large ethical infraction, in this case, justifies the end result.
It’s a measure of utility. These experiments on primates are scrutinized by federally mandated committees that oversee them, like the All-Campus Animal and Use and Care Committee which failed to contribute its two cents on the topic, here in Madison, the United States Department of Agriculture and other organizations contributing grant money. If these organizations are advocating worthy-enough causes (i.e. the development of life-saving drugs that greatly increase quality of life), then primate experimentation for these purposes should absolutely be done.
Of course, there may be superfluous experiments which induce suffering on the animal for purposes that are far less important than the quality of life of that animal. I have heard of God-awful experiments where, apparently, primates’ eyes are held open as a person continually sprayed perfume into them to test the effects. Who cares what the effects of that are? (I might add that any person dumb enough to use perfume in that way deserves the outcome, whatever it may be.) Experiments that involve this kind of impractical suffering fail my “ethical permissibility” test and should be stopped.
But regardless, it does seem like a tragedy that any suffering should be forced upon an innocent creature, especially ones — like primates — that are so animated and similar to us. But scientists aren’t like normal people. They don’t choose to experiment on primates so they can have monkeys around to teach how to play poker, smoke cigars and hit on women at bars. They do it because of the physiological similarities of primates with humans. Tests that would otherwise be inaccurate if done with rats or mice must be done on primates in order to simulate how the same treatment would react in humans.
This raises the question of whether or not it is ethical to use animals — particularly animals with higher mental capacities — solely as a means to better human life. Some argue if a cure requires this kind of suffering in another creature, then perhaps a cure isn’t worth finding. Yet, others argue this method of experimentation is the only means by which significant results can be found. But what makes it more ethical to test primates than humans? Is it right to put primates in a caste below humans?
It is clear humans haven’t embraced the idea of equality with animals. We destroy their habitats, make coats out of them, drag them along when we go for a run, dress them up in stupid little outfits and make them star in crappy TV shows like “Frasier” and “Flipper.” The list goes on, and our treatment of animals is a mere afterthought in most of our lives.
Still, perhaps this perception that humans have placed animals in a caste beneath us isn’t as concrete as we may think. Consider, again, World War II. In just wars, humans accept and even celebrate the idea of sacrificing themselves for the betterment of humanity. Similarly, primates are our de facto troops on the front lines of the war against disease and should be commended as soldiers. When it comes to fighting and sacrificing one’s life for the improvement of others’ lives — whether the enemy is disease or the Nazis — humans and primates share a common history. (Until, of course, whole wars are fought with monkeys like the ones Morocco was willing to donate to the U.S. when it joined the coalition of the willing at the start of the Iraq War. What the hell was that, by the way?) What primates need is not a protest for their freedom but the erection of a monument immortalizing their heroism. And, on top of that, a VFW — or, in this case, a VFD (Veterans of Foreign Diseases) — where veteran primates can meet up with other survivors, get drunk, watch football and freely throw their feces at one another. Then again, maybe I’m a dreamer.
To be ethically permissible, not necessarily “just,” any experiments involving the use of animals as test subjects should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (which they already are). If it is decided the potential good to humanity could outweigh the animal’s suffering, an experiment should be conducted. But we — the people that stand to reap the benefits of these experiments — should recognize the suffering of these animals and remember their sacrifices. I know the next time I go to the zoo, I’m going to rush straight to the Primates of the World exhibit, saluting the masturbating Pygmy Chimpanzee for all he and his fallen brothers and sisters have done for humanity.
David Carter ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in forestry.
