An Ethical Struggle
[T]he wolf in sheep’s clothing now goes about whispering in our ear that evil is nothing but a misunderstanding of good and an effective instrument of progress.
    — C.G. Jung, The Basic Writing of C.G. Jung

The Ethical Boundaries of Science

At one time in the not-too-distant past, humans were in the crosshairs of science. Indigents, orphans, criminals, the mentally ill, ethnic minorities, soldiers, and others have been the subject of scientific experiments. Sickeningly, at the time, they were viewed as not enough "like us" to receive ethical and legal protection.

The Nuremberg Trials of 1945-49 revealed the horrors that Nazi scientists inflicted upon humans whom they viewed as inferior and unworthy of moral protection. Far too late, in 1972, United States public health officials ended a 30-year research study that allowed unsuspecting African American males to die of syphilis—a treatable disease even at that time—in the now infamous Tuskegee experiments.

Fortunately, times have changed for humans in America. This is due to groups such as the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) that advocated for such change. New ethical boundaries have been placed on the American scientific community. We now recognize that all human beings are worthy of protection. Ethical codes and new laws for experimenting on humans require full disclosure, an individual's written consent, and the right of the human subject to withdraw at any time.

cy
Cy comforted by caregiver
Photo: © Nancy Megna

First, Do No Harm

NEAVS has long advocated that the scientific code of ethics for research be expanded to include non-human species to afford them the same protections. Achieving that goal will take years. But one species—the chimpanzee, increasingly acknowledged as "like us"—is in a unique position to lead the way to great compassion for all non-human species whose lives are destroyed in the name of science.

NEAVS/Project R&R's team has shown that chimpanzees, "like us," suffer when confined and are stripped of agency, repeatedly physically injured, and subjected to constant fear and stress. While the genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees were used for decades to justify their use and necessity in biomedical research (a scientifically erroneous assumption), their emotional, social, and behavioral similarities did not afford them ethical protection against their use. This changed on November 17, 2015, when the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it would no longer support biomedical research on chimpanzees. It would also no longer maintain a colony of 50 chimpanzees for possible future use. All NIH-owned chimpanzees were deemed eligible for retirement.

The mandate for "good" science must include an evolving code of ethics, not just developing new methods and knowledge. In many cases, progress in both of these areas goes hand-in-hand. Ethical consideration must drive scientific progress. Without an ethical system that protects all species, science will continue the cruelties of an over-zealous intellect. This intellect has too often shown itself to be dangerously devoid of heart and blind to its false assumptions.

NEAVS/Project R&R called out to all Americans and scientists to commit to what would be one of the greatest advances in scientific and social consciousness: ending the use of chimpanzees, and therefore all great apes, in research. Next, we must ensure that all rescued chimpanzees are allowed to live out the remainder of their lives in the relative freedom of sanctuary.


Sources

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jun01/stut16061501a.asp

(2) 103d Congress, 2d Session committee Print S. Prt. 103-97. http://www.gulfwarvets.com/senate.htm

(3) CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/29/60minutes/main614728.shtml

(4) Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 6(1) 1998 4-9

(5) National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/

(6) Ibid.

Top Δ