I have just come across an interesting web site: AnimalEthic.net. This site is part of the University of Copenhagen's website.
The AnimalEthic.net site is well worth exploring but I must admit some dismay at the language used on this site and many other similar sites.
I quote the paragraph from its sub-site on Laboratory Animals
"Laboratory Animals: Contemporary research in the life sciences, particularly in biomedicine, involves experimentation on large numbers of live animals. It is estimated that worldwide between 100 and 200 million of animals every year are used for experimentation. The animals on which experiments are performed are sometimes subjected to distressing or painful interventions. They are often housed in ways that limit their freedom, and nearly all of them are killed when the experiment comes to an end. The overwhelming majority of these animals are vertebrates with highly developed nervous systems. They cannot, of course, consent to their own participation in research. Nor do they, as individuals, stand to benefit from such participation. These facts present both the scientific community and society in general with a question: With more or less noble goals, scientists carry out experiments causing discomfort, pain and distress to animals, limit the freedom of animals and eventually kill the animals involved. Are we as human beings morally justified in acting in this way?"
Go to the introductory text 'Ethics of Animal Research'
Although I share the empathy to the sentiments expressed in this paragraph, it always makes me think how academic pursuits including science are not value-free. Bernard Rollins wrote an excellent paper about the fallacy of value-free research (Rollin, B.E. (1993) Animal welfare, science and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, pp.44-50 (Suppl 2)) and unfortunately even this paragraph from the University of Copenhagen is not value-free
The language of the above paragraph already pre-supposes a position on animals in research and prejudices the reader's opinion with the language used.
For example:
"The animals on which experiments are performed are sometimes subjected to distressing or painful interventions"
and
"They are often housed in ways that limit their freedom, and nearly all of them killed when the experiments comes to an end"
and
"The overwhelming majority of these animals are vertebrates with highly developed nervous systems"
and
"Nor do they, as individuals, stand to benefit from such participation"
Surely it is possible to describe the same indroductory scenario using similar language but with a contrary bias.
What if the highlighted sentences now read:
"The majority of experiments performed on these animals are usually benign but where painful interventions are performed the pain is, where, possible ameliorated. "
and
"They are often housed in confined environments and efforts are made to make these environments enriched, and nearly all of them are euthanized when the experiments come to a end"
and
"The overwhelming majority of these animals are vertebrates with developed nervous systems but high levels of sentience demand particular attention to their wellbeing"
and
"Although as individuals, they do not stand to benefit from such participation, there are potentially greater benefits to be achieved from their use in research"
How does the paragraph read if so modified:
"Laboratory Animals: Contemporary research in the life sciences, particularly in biomedicine, involves experimentation on large numbers of live animals. It is estimated that worldwide between 100 and 200 million of animals every year are used for experimentation. The majority of experiments performed on these animals are usually benign but where painful interventions are performed the pain is, where possible, ameliorated. They are often housed in confined environments but efforts are made to make these environments enriched, and nearly of them are euthanized when the experiments come to an end. The overwhelming majority of these animals are vertebrates with, developed nervous systems but high levels of sentience demand particular attention. They cannot, of course, consent to their own participation in research and although as individuals, they do not stand to benefit from such participation, there are potentially greater benefits to be achieved from their use in research. These facts present both the scientific community and society in general with a question: "With more or less noble goals, scientists carry out experiments causing discomfort, pain and distress to animals, limit the freedom of animals and eventually kill the animals involved. Are we as human beings morally justified in acting in this way?"
Similar words conveying the same message - and undoubtly the second paragraph is as biased to a particular viewpoint as the first paragraph was to a counter viewpoint.
Wittgenstein is quoted as saying "The limits of my language means the limits of my world"
Language is one of the most powerful tools available to humankind. Language defines our world so comprehensively that maybe this is why researchers and those concerned for animal welfare not only find it hard to talk about the problems of animal welfare in research but also fail to find common language on which to converse.
Wittengenstein said it so succinctly: "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him".
An excellent quote for the first blog on Animal Ethics, Welfare and Law
If interested read more about Wittgenstein and his quotes.
The AnimalEthic.net site is well worth exploring but I must admit some dismay at the language used on this site and many other similar sites.
I quote the paragraph from its sub-site on Laboratory Animals
"Laboratory Animals: Contemporary research in the life sciences, particularly in biomedicine, involves experimentation on large numbers of live animals. It is estimated that worldwide between 100 and 200 million of animals every year are used for experimentation. The animals on which experiments are performed are sometimes subjected to distressing or painful interventions. They are often housed in ways that limit their freedom, and nearly all of them are killed when the experiment comes to an end. The overwhelming majority of these animals are vertebrates with highly developed nervous systems. They cannot, of course, consent to their own participation in research. Nor do they, as individuals, stand to benefit from such participation. These facts present both the scientific community and society in general with a question: With more or less noble goals, scientists carry out experiments causing discomfort, pain and distress to animals, limit the freedom of animals and eventually kill the animals involved. Are we as human beings morally justified in acting in this way?"
Go to the introductory text 'Ethics of Animal Research'
Although I share the empathy to the sentiments expressed in this paragraph, it always makes me think how academic pursuits including science are not value-free. Bernard Rollins wrote an excellent paper about the fallacy of value-free research (Rollin, B.E. (1993) Animal welfare, science and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, pp.44-50 (Suppl 2)) and unfortunately even this paragraph from the University of Copenhagen is not value-free
The language of the above paragraph already pre-supposes a position on animals in research and prejudices the reader's opinion with the language used.
For example:
"The animals on which experiments are performed are sometimes subjected to distressing or painful interventions"
and
"They are often housed in ways that limit their freedom, and nearly all of them killed when the experiments comes to an end"
and
"The overwhelming majority of these animals are vertebrates with highly developed nervous systems"
and
"Nor do they, as individuals, stand to benefit from such participation"
Surely it is possible to describe the same indroductory scenario using similar language but with a contrary bias.
What if the highlighted sentences now read:
"The majority of experiments performed on these animals are usually benign but where painful interventions are performed the pain is, where, possible ameliorated. "
and
"They are often housed in confined environments and efforts are made to make these environments enriched, and nearly all of them are euthanized when the experiments come to a end"
and
"The overwhelming majority of these animals are vertebrates with developed nervous systems but high levels of sentience demand particular attention to their wellbeing"
and
"Although as individuals, they do not stand to benefit from such participation, there are potentially greater benefits to be achieved from their use in research"
How does the paragraph read if so modified:
"Laboratory Animals: Contemporary research in the life sciences, particularly in biomedicine, involves experimentation on large numbers of live animals. It is estimated that worldwide between 100 and 200 million of animals every year are used for experimentation. The majority of experiments performed on these animals are usually benign but where painful interventions are performed the pain is, where possible, ameliorated. They are often housed in confined environments but efforts are made to make these environments enriched, and nearly of them are euthanized when the experiments come to an end. The overwhelming majority of these animals are vertebrates with, developed nervous systems but high levels of sentience demand particular attention. They cannot, of course, consent to their own participation in research and although as individuals, they do not stand to benefit from such participation, there are potentially greater benefits to be achieved from their use in research. These facts present both the scientific community and society in general with a question: "With more or less noble goals, scientists carry out experiments causing discomfort, pain and distress to animals, limit the freedom of animals and eventually kill the animals involved. Are we as human beings morally justified in acting in this way?"
Similar words conveying the same message - and undoubtly the second paragraph is as biased to a particular viewpoint as the first paragraph was to a counter viewpoint.
Wittgenstein is quoted as saying "The limits of my language means the limits of my world"
Language is one of the most powerful tools available to humankind. Language defines our world so comprehensively that maybe this is why researchers and those concerned for animal welfare not only find it hard to talk about the problems of animal welfare in research but also fail to find common language on which to converse.
Wittengenstein said it so succinctly: "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him".
An excellent quote for the first blog on Animal Ethics, Welfare and Law
If interested read more about Wittgenstein and his quotes.
RSS Feed