SCIENCE
You've heard both sides of the de-ate--passionate demonstrators
decrying every lab experiment using animals, pitted against detached
scientists pushing any research protocol regardless of the costs to
critters.
But between these extremes lies a vast middle ground, and that's
where most of us take refuge, according to one psychologist. Rather than
make a blanket judgment on the ethics of animal research, we tiptoe past
the emotional minefield and rationally weigh the pros and cons of each
experiment.
Under the direction of Carl Kallgren, Ph.D., undergrads at Penn
State, Erie, read descriptions of fictional research projects and rated
each on its ethics. The research promised either a high or low benefit
for humans--a stomach cancer vaccine or a pleasant-smelling air
freshener--at either a great or small cost to the research
animal--temporary restraint versus death and dissection. In some
scenarios the creature was a rabbit; in others, a rat.
The students' reactions indicate that they're doing a rational
cost-benefit analysis to reach a verdict, conclude Kallgren and colleague
Teneke Warren. The project rated most ethical was the one that tested a
cancer vaccine on shackled animals (high benefit, low cost), while the
least virtuous involved killing animals in pursuit of a pine-scented air
freshener (low benefit, high cost).
"It appears that people say, 'If there's a benefit to humans, do
the research,'" Kallgren explains. "But as the costs accrue to the
non-human species, they aren't quite as favorable,"
Nonetheless, the "cuteness factor" does come into play. Students
said that icky rats were more suitable lab subjects than cuddly rabbits.
Kallgren believes such species attributes--the creature's cuteness, how
close it is to humans, and whether it is considered harmful of
helpful--may be more likely to influence the judgments of folds outside
the ivory tower. Collegians may hold animal research in higher regard:
They learn about the results of studies in their classes.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Sign of the times: animal research under
fire.
Tags:
air freshener,
animal,
animal research,
cancer vaccine,
cost benefit analysis,
critters,
cruelty,
cuteness factor,
demonstrators,
dissection,
ethic,
experiment,
human species,
judgments,
killing animals,
lab experiment,
minefield,
penn state erie,
pros and cons,
rabbits,
research,
research animal,
research protocol,
stomach cancer,
undergrads
