Lab Animals: Necessary or Evil?

When the inevitable Penn State Plague hits three weeks into every semester, we do not fear for our lives because we have antibiotics to save the day. Thanks to research with lab animals, previously fatal illnesses such strep throat and pneumonia are no longer a concern. However, there is controversy regarding the ethics of using countless animal lives solely to benefit humans. Is there still a place for animal research in our society? Should certain species (mice, rat, fruit fly) be used instead of more complex species (chimpanzees, rabbits, dogs)? How will removing animals in labs impede future medicinal advancements?

Credit

To analyze this civic issue, it is important to understand that animals are used in research because they make particularly good models to study human diseases. According to report by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, it is currently unethical to use a drug or technique first on a human being because of the potential risk of harm. Animals are used as models to replicate human subjects. Animals are fed experimental diets, tested with new vaccines, and exposed to certain toxins to observe the effects. 

Animals Used it Research Credit

An article published by the Humane Society of the United States estimates that 25 million vertebrate  animals are used annually in the United States for research. The most common animal used is the mouse, followed by rats, birds, dogs, and primates. 

Those against the use of animals in research, focus on the fact that animals feel fear and pain like we do. The infliction pain is not an uncommon practice: force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, and the infliction of wounds to study the healing process are present in research. In 2010, the USDA reported that 91,123 animals suffered pain during experiments and were not given anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters.

Credit

Those against research involving animals  question what happens to the animals once the experiment ends. In cases that an animal does not die during the experiment, most are euthanized after the experiment is over. Rarely, the animal is used for additional experiments. It is extremely uncommon for animals to be adopted out or placed in a sanctuary, aside from Chimpanzees, which have national protection. 

From the other perspective, using animals has led to life-saving cures and treatments. HIV treatment, vaccines, antibiotics, and insulin are all results of experiments involving animals. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals.

Credit

Dr. Mary Kennett, director of lab animal use at Penn State, used the polio vaccine as one example in support of animal use. Years ago, mothers warned their kids against swimming in pools or lakes in fear of the spread of polio, which causes paralysis and difficulty breathing. The constant fear of contracting the disease loomed over the summer fun. Fortunately, research involving mice and monkeys led to the development of a vaccine that has almost completely eradicated the disease worldwide. 

Alternatives to animal testing include using cell lines and computer models. Those against the use of animals in research, argue that these methods can replace the need of animals. Studying human cells in a petri dish or using artificial skin can be used to solve research questions instead. The counter argument is that there is no alternative to testing on a living, whole body system. Living beings are too complex to be simulated on a computer. Furthermore, interrelated processes between varying body systems cannot be studied in a petri dish. 

Credit

Personally, it is difficult to come to a decision on whether animals should be used in research, which is indicative of the current controversy. As someone with a future in the scientific field, I fully appreciate the value that lab animals play in advancing the field and human care as a whole. In the end, the question is once again boiled down to whether a human life is worth more than an animal life. Although I believe that animal and human lives are equal, I cannot discount the importance of the treatments developed from animal research. 

Where do you stand? Is there a role for animal based research in present day? If so, should only certain species of animals be used? Let me know what you think! 

Hunting: Barbaric or Natural?

Hunting originated from survival. In the past, we needed to kill another animal if we wanted to live, whether that be food based or for protection. Simple. But now it is more ethically complex, as the main reason behind hunting in the United States has changed. We no longer hunt for food, but pick it up in our local grocery store. If we no longer hunt for sustenance, then why do we do it?

Credit

Some Americans are die hards, out hunting before than can walk, and shooting their first deer before they are even five years old. Others are admantant that hunting is cruel and should be completely banned. But where do you stand?

An article in Scientific American presents the point that "nothing could be more natural than hunting." All animal species, humans included, have been predator or prey at some point. Since humans have hunted other predators to low numbers, hunting herds of prey animals is a way to control populations below carrying capacity.

In high school I spoke to a Game Commission Officer about his perspective on the hunting controversy. In his opinion, hunting actually made life better for the deer. Without hunting, the herds of deer would be well over carrying capacity and starving on dwindling resources. Hunting lowers the population enough that the living deer have ample resources to live without suffering. In other words, lower numbers of deer caused by hunting mean healthier deer.

Another proponent to hunting is that it can be fun. Spending time outdoors, tracking game, and learning about nature are times that many people enjoy. Watch the video on the right of a young girl reacting to her first successful hunt.

Credit

On the other hand, others such as animal rights groups are adamantly against the practice of hunting and believe it is ethically wrong to kill an animal. The main reason people are against hunting is animal suffering. It is not uncommon for animals to die a significant amount of time after they are shot. Therefore, the death is not painless and is unnecessarily prolonged. I searched "how long does it take for a hunted animal to die after being shot?" and was surprised by the results. Pages entitled How Long Should I Wait? and You Shot a Deer. Here's How to Find It were only a couple of the many pages implying the significant amount of time it takes animals to die after being shot. In the How Long Should I Wait? page by Cabelas, hunters are advised to wait 6-8 hours if they believe they had a single lung shot. 6-8 hours!

Glenn Kirk of The Animals Voice states that hunting is “gratuitously cruel because unlike natural predation hunters kill for pleasure…” He also argues that hunting disrupts the natural balance of the ecosystem. 

Credit

Trophy hunting issues are another downfall for the hunting argument. Sometimes people hunt for just the head of the animal, and nothing more. Only the head of the animal is removed and the rest of the body is left to rot. Infamous trophy hunting pictures of the safari animals such as rhinos, giraffes, lions, etc. are commonly plastered across media. The US denstist who killed Cecil the lion is one of many examples. Watch this video if you are unfamiliar with this specific case. Is hunting ethically sound if it is only for the head of an animal or the thrill of the kill? 

To hunt or not to hunt is a question I find difficult to answer. On one hand, there's the fun of the hunt and the practicality of population control. From the other perspective, killing animals for pleasure, which causes animal suffering is unethical. Ultimately, I believe that hunting has a place in our society as long as it is for animal welfare reasons, to control populations. In this respect, people can still have fun outdoors tracking and hunting animals. However, I am fully against trophy hunting because solely the thrill of the kill is in no way worth the death of an animal.

Where do you stand? Do you believe that hunting in any respect is moral? Should we only hunt for food? Is trophy hunting an ethical practice? Let me know where you stand on these issues!

Zoos: Education or Exploitation?

As a young girl who watched Animal Planet instead of cartoons on a Saturday morning, zoos were my ideal trip. My family once visited 12 zoos in one summer, and I sit here with a smile on my face reminiscing on the time when a 2000 pound elephant stroked my face with a touch like a feather. But zoos are not necessarily a fairytale, and with maturity, ethical questions have become entangled in my precious memories. We must ask ourselves, is it moral to keep wild animals in captivity? Should animals be used for entertainment like orcas, or only for breeding of endangered species like rhinos?

Credit

From the pro viewpoint, one key contribution of zoos that cannot be dismissed is their involvement in breeding animals that face extinction. Once a species becomes critically endangered, captive breeding is often the only way to bring the species back from the brink of extinction. Watch this video for a case study on the important role of zoos in conservation.

Credit

Another argument for the use of zoos is their role in education. Many zoos run educationl programs that teach people about properly caring for animals and conservation efforts. From personal experience, learning about zoo life first hand as well as the reality of poaching, endangered species, and extinction was invaluable as a youngester. There is only so much you can learn about an animal from the TV, but actually seeing a giraffe in real life is a whole new experience.

Credit

Even with  conservation and educational positives, negatives still permeate the morality of zoos. According to an article in animal-facts.org, the main argument against zoos is the belief that zoos cannot provide the ideal environment for every type of animal. Currently animals in zoos are housed in "mini-habitats" that replicate their natural environment. This includes streams, real trees, grass, etc. to keep the animal in a similar habitat. Animals are kept contained with natural barriers such as moats and rock walls as a opposed to a chain link fence or iron bar cage. Even with all these actions, it is nearly impossible to make it like the wild. For example, elephants can walk 50 km a day and travel in a herd of 30 to 40 in its natural habitat.  In a zoo, elephants only live on a couple acres and often live with only a couple elephants.

Credit

One disturbing aspect of wild animals in captivity is zoochosis. Zoochosis is defined by wildlife.org.nz as an obsessive compulsive type behavior such as "bar biting, head bobbing, pacing, circling, excessive grooming, self-mutilation, etc." The causes of this behavior include separation from natural habitat, direct control by humans, and caging. Unfortunately, it is prevalent in the current zoo system. In a 2001 study of 257 captive Giraffe in 49 United States zoos, 80% exhibited some form of zoochosis. Read this article to find out more about the different symptoms and effects of zoonosis.

Those that are supportive of zoos fight back on the alarming statistics stating zookeepers are trained with specialist knowledge and are often in charge of one particular species. Each zookeeper creates games for the animals for mental stimulation that prevents the animals from becoming bored or depressed.

Credit

Those against zoos have a counter claim to the conservation efforts of zoos, stating that in one case study there were 167 attempts to introduce a certain species, only 16 of which were sucessful. Even though this is better than nothing, protesters claim that this is not worth the suffering of the animals that are kept within zoos.

From a personal perspective, all of these statistics and examples are pushing me away from supporting that animals should be kept in zoo. Yes, zoos are bad because an animal is deprived of its true natural habitat leading to mental issues, but benefits from education and conservation of endangered species are invaluable. I sit here feeling against animals being confined, yet I have a trip to the zoo planned this weekend. At the end of the day, I believe it is fair if zoos are only for conservation and animal welfare. In this respect, I don't think zoos are exploiting animals for profit.

Do you believe that animals have an intrinsic right to liberty? Does the need for conservation outweigh the animal welfare issues?  Let me know your thoughts on this morally complex issue of keeping animals in zoos.

The Value of Life: From the Veterinary Office to Harambe

The value of life is a topic entangled in our morals, values, and culture. It's complex idea, viewed differently by everyone, and significant in our perspective on life and living itself. To present the issue at hand, I will take you back to a memory that I ponder frequently, a moment in time that makes me question what I stand for, who I am.

Credit

Credit

I work at a Veterinary office, full of puppies and kittens, but also euthanasia, unsolved cases and moral questions that cannot be answered. A small Shitzu, just 10 pounds and named Allie, was sitting on the exam table. Allie had bladder stones so large that an inexperienced hand like mine could feel them through her belly. She needed surgery, she was in pain, and her owner could not afford any of the treatment. The owner pleaded that the surgery be postponed until the end of the month, once she got her paycheck. The problem was that Allie did not have a month, she was extremely dehydrated, her kidneys were failing, and her eyes sunken in. Allie had 24 hours to live without a surgery that cost money that no one seemed to have. The doctor recommended euthanasia, the result of many cases involving financial dilemmas in veterinary medicine. Allie's life was on the line due to something as simple as money.

Courtesy of PicMonkey

Perspective is important, so lets take a look into the human world, specifically in the United States. When a human's life is on the line, if a life saving surgery is needed, it happens, no matter what. A human life is considered priceless in our society. However, the life of an animal has monetary value. Should a life be worth a certain amount of money? Is a human life more valuable than an animal's life? If so, why? Who has the power to determine what lives have more value than others?

Credit

An important case study to delve into is Harambe. (Cue the laughter, jokes, and endless memes, but seriously, this story adds to the value of life analysis) If you are unfamiliar with this example, please watch this video. An article in Huffington Post asks its readers to respond to a simple statement: An individual gorilla is more valuable than an individual human being.  Everyone disagrees, in other words, no one argues that an animal life is worth more than a child's. Yet there is still controversy.

Conservation Biologist Reed Noss: Credit

Conservation biologist Reed Noss argues that the value of a human life decreases proportionately with the size of the population. In other words, the value of an endangered individual is greater than an individual human.

How do you react to Noss's statement above? Whether it is religious based or personal values most, including myself, find it difficult to agree with this statement. This idea is anthropomorphism, the idea of human-centered ethics, or quite simply human-supremacy. But why do we we feel this way?

Courtesy of Excel

Moving on from the Harambe example, we must also consider the comparison of animal execution and human execution. Humans are only executed if they have committed a heinous crime or if they are on the verge of death from a terminal illness. However, animals are killed for sport, for their furs, their horns, and the thrill of the kill.  An eye-opening counter on adept.org shows that the number of animals killed in a year is over 150 billion as opposed to 53.3 million humans. Both numbers are extremely painful to consider, because ideally no one should be killed, but look at the extreme difference. It conveys how the value of an animal life is so much less in our society.

Through these examples it is obvious that humans lives are worth so much more. Money determines if an animal lives, Harambe is an example of human supremacy, and execution standards blatantly display the differences in how we perceive the value of life. As a future veterinarian, everyday will involve this moral question. I wonder if I will be able to put an animal to sleep because an owner can not afford its care. Will I be able to end a life knowing that it could live if money was not a concern?

Where do you stand on this moral dilemma? Can you full-heartedly say that a human's life is worth more than an animal's in all cases? Where do you think we place value, in other words, how do we determine when a life is worth more than another?

Human-Animal Bond: The Consumption of Meat

The human animal bond is a complex relationship that has evolved with humans for thousands of years. Dogs became human's companion over 15,000 years ago and livestock production allowed the first colonists to survive and eventually prosper in the New World. On a simplistic level, we would not be who we are today as a human race without this pivitol interaction with animals. However, times have changed, and there are advanced ethical questions that need to be answered regarding this relationship. Should we even eat meat? Should animals even be kept as pets? Is the value of an animal life the same as a human?

Credit

Each blog post will tackle one of these multi-faceted questions with the goal not to find a complete solution, but to present all sides of the issue, and allow you to draw a conclusion, all the while I offer my thoughts as well. This week, the focus is on consuming meat. Is it ethical? Is it sustainable? Should we eat continue to eat meat?

Credit

According to National Geographic, our ancestors have been consuming meat for at least 2.5 million years, directly shaping our evolution to have smaller jaws, larger teeth, and a tolerance for a higher fat diet. It is this ecological niche that has allowed the human race to succeed. But it is important to note that today's society is different. We don't need to consume meat anymore to survive, we are no longer competing in the forest for food, and we have the capabilities to produce enough food to sustain the current population without the need to kill animals. So why do we continue to consume meat? Simply put, it is a luxury and we like the taste of it.

Credit

We need to ask ourselves if the positive aspects from eating meat today are worth the downfalls of meat production. An article in Scientific American discusses a sharp increase in demand for meat created a rapidly expanding meat industry with mass-scale production farms. The development of factory farms has led to stressful conditions for animals that compromise their welfare. Animals are crammed into windowless sheds for their short life, and eventually killed and sent to market. Is it ethical to keep animals in such conditions for meal? Is our happiness in our diet worth the production issues? Most importantly, is the current treatment of production animals morally sound?

Credit

If you believe that livestock systems treat animals justly, then you must consider if it is sustainable to continue to consume animal products.  From an energy perspective, it is more eco-friendly to eat plant-based diets rather than consuming meat. When raising cattle, only 10% of the energy from the grain they consume is passed on to the person when someone eats the meat from the cow. That means 90% of the energy is lost. Therefore, if humans ate from the first level of production (i.e. grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts), no energy would be lost and we would still be able to maintain a balanced diet. Not only is this better for the sustainability of the environment, but more food would be available to help impoverished nations. This video discusses the many benefits on the environment if the entire world went vegetarian.

There is research that suggests that a diet without meat is actually healthier than consuming one with meat. Eating meat increases cardiovascular stress, and according to a study highlighted in the video to the right, it could lower life expectancy by 4-5 years.

Overall, my research seems to indicate resoundingly that we should not eat meat. Not only does it subject animals to suffering and death, but it is more sustainable to switch to a vegetarian diet. Furthermore, I would be healthier and even possibly live longer as a vegetarian. But why don't I?  Personally,  I love to consume hamburgers, ribs, and grilled chicken and don't think I can get enough protein in my diet from sources that I would enjoy without meat. It is about convenience. Is it selfish of me to put my own taste preferences over the suffering of an animal, feeding more humans, and preserving the environment? Where do you stand?