What does it mean to be “subhuman?”
If animals can’t give consent, then are humans entitled to do research on them?
Where do scientists draw the line?
For three hours, a panel of six experts attempted to answer these and other philosophical questions by voicing their opinions for and against using animals in scientific research.
UCLA’s Pro-Test for Science and Bruins for Animals co-hosted the panel discussion, which took place Tuesday evening in the Young CS50 lecture hall. David Lazarus, a business columnist for the Los Angeles Times, served as moderator for the evening.
The event marked one of the first collaborations between two opposing groups at UCLA to encourage open dialogue about using live animals in the laboratory, said David Jentsch, founder of Pro-Test for Science and professor of psychology.
According to their Web site, Bruins for Animals advocates the elimination of animal exploitation and cruelty in all industries.
Pro-Test for Science was founded by scientists in response to opposition against researchers who performed experiments involving animals.
Both groups claim to promote free and open dialogue about the issue of animal rights, something which Jentsch said first prompted him to approach Bruins for Animals about organizing a discussion. He also said he approved of Bruins for Animals’ refusal to condone violence.
“I disagree with their point of view, but BFA has all the right objectives, and their pathway to achieving those is great,” said Jentsch, who frequently uses rodents and monkeys in his lab.
Bruins for Animals co-founder and president emeritus Kristy Anderson said she had mixed feelings when Jentsch first proposed the event.
“I was a little skeptical, but also curious,” Anderson, who now works for PETA, said. “Then I thought that it would be positive to have an event where we could all speak.”
The panel was composed of scientists, doctors and philosophers, each of whom argued for or against animal-aided research for 15 minutes. Following the presentations, audience members submitted written questions for specific panelists.
Throughout the presentations, audience members nodded enthusiastically and scoffed in reaction to points made by the panelists.
Lazarus began his role as moderator by directly confronting his beliefs about animal use in science.
“I am a Type 1 insulin diabetic, and that said, I am directly benefiting from animal research,” he said.
Following Lazarus’ comment, Dario Ringach, a UCLA neurobiology and psychology professor, began his presentation in favor of animal research.
Ringach did not deny that animals are capable of feeling pain, and he said it is a scientist’s duty to treat them humanely.
“To anyone declaring an entire field of science doomed to failure because it uses animal research, I offer my skepticism,” Ringach said.
Others offered more philosophical arguments involving the ethics of using animals in research.
“We do view (animals’) suffering as a bad thing, but our duties to humans are stronger,” said Janet Stemwedel, associate professor of philosophy at San Jose State University.
Robert Jones, assistant professor of philosophy at California State University Chico, opposed this viewpoint.
“We treat animals in ways we would never treat human beings,” Jones said. “There is a serious asymmetry.”
Sporadic jokes broke up the tense atmosphere, many of which came from Niall Shanks, professor of history and philosophy of science at Wichita State University.
“If you had an animal of an IQ of 70, you wouldn’t experiment on it to make it the governor of Alaska,” Shanks said, inducing both laughter and exclamations of shock from the audience.
However, the panelists were serious when asked what they would do to change the current policies regarding laboratory animal use.
Ringach appealed to the audience with a more passionate plea.
“(I don’t like) having to check the back of my car (for car bombs),” Ringach said. “I don’t want masked people banging on my window anymore.”
Several panelists stressed the importance of transparency by allowing cameras inside labs. Many encouraged the dissemination of information to the public. Several also said additional open dialogue was necessary in coming to a compromise.
Anderson said Bruins for Animals is in the process of organizing a follow-up debate, which is slated for next quarter.