EU trying to limit animal testing
Both public opinion and proposals for legislation agree that something should be done to restrict animal testing. However, there is good a reason to disagree with some of the practices that are meant to be improvements.
66% of Europeans would allow using this animal in animal tests. Photo: be_khe Flickr Creative Commons.
Humans and animals, as well as different species of animals, are not equal according to a recent Eurobarometer survey. Almost half of the EU citizens approve animal testing on dogs and apes, if the tests benefit human health problems. However, in the same survey two thirds say that animal testing can be done on mice for the same reasons. Not even one fifth of people would ban animal testing on mice, but almost twice the amount of people (37%) would ban testing on dogs and apes.
There seems to be controversy in the ethical discussion regarding animal testing. Do some animals have more rights than others? One might argue that some animals are more intelligent than other, but on the other hand neither dogs nor mice write books or even book reviews. So much for the intelligence then.
European Parliament voting to limit animal testing
In September, The European Parliament will vote about limiting animal testing. A proposal by the Agricultural Committee published in July seems to be well founded since a large proportion of the Europeans demand banning animal testing. At least on some animals. Limiting animal testing for ethical reasons sounds good, but some of the proposed ways to do it sound a bit dubious.
There is some support for banning the use of primates in animal testing. On the other hand, we know that for now studying Alzheimer’s and some other neurological diseases is not possible without using apes. Gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees we might be able to give up, but then we would have to use smaller apes. So no banning primates, but the use of them has to be justified with good reasons.
It seems, however, that being big gives you more rights. Being small, furry and cute doesn’t save the monkey this time.
Will animal suffering be reduced?
If the parliament votes for the proposal, animal tests in EU would only be allowed if no other option is available. To study e.g. human, animal or plant diseases animal testing is still allowed but only if results are to be expected. The Committee suggests that if animal tests have to be done, the animal should be killed after the test to avoid extra suffering.
In the future the degree of suffering is divided into four categories. The original proposal was that animals that have suffered “mildly” could be re-used in tests. Commission wishes that animals that have suffered “moderately” could still be used again. This sounds at first a bit surprising but on the other hand, if animals can be re-used, the total number of animals used in tests will be reduced. So is reusing one animals less cruel than taking a new one, or vice versa?
Ethical problems seldom have a clear solution
Discussion about animal rights and animal testing isn’t straightforward. The stricter the limits get, the more severe the tests are still left to be done. So does raising the limit really reduce suffering or should the tests be banned for good? Animals used in tests are not given away from the laboratories as pets even though they might not carry deadly viruses or anything. Is killing an animal after a single test okay?
Did you know that a laboratory mouse can be killed by placing a ruler on its neck and pulling its tail? This is a lot less painful for the animal than poisoning it. And if you want to bring in the climate change discussion, this probably also causes less carbon dioxide emissions. Accordingly, in the Eurobarometer survey, 62% of people agreed that science and technology may sometimes cloud our moral judgement.
Jan Jansson is a chemistry teacher that spends his little free time doing molecular gastronomic experiments.