HERDSA: Animal Ethics

[Coral Watson]

A further posting from Lee Andresen:

____________________________

On The Ethics of Killing Animals for Teaching and Research

Di Adams has generously supplied historical background to the ongoing
debate on the humane and ethical use of animals in teaching and research;
this is indeed helpful. It did come as a surprise to me to discover how
early the "Three Rs" evaluation code was adopted. I would strenuously
challenge, however, the implied notion that the debate is now over.

"Is animal use really necessary or can the research or teaching be done in
another way? Di appropriately identifies as a critical question in evaluation.

This, if I may mention some background, is where Andrew Knight entered the
picture. Some time last year, if my memory serves me, he successfully got
Murdoch University to agree to accept conscientious objection by individual
students to participating in the killing of animals in veterinary studies,
those students being assured of no detriment to their learning assessment
or the value of their ultimate degrees. That was where I first heard of
him. The University accepts that a student can learn as much and as well
(of knowledge relevant to vet studies) by not killing animals, as s/he can
by killing them.

This was an step with far-reaching implications. One of those is (as Di
correctly observed) that in their most recent move "The Committee agreed
that Murdoch was in a position to and should aim to conduct teaching that
does not require animals to be killed specifically for this purpose
(teaching) by 2005". 

I am deeply perplexed by the rejoinder offered, namely: "Can you really
teach some subjects to the necessary level of Bloom's hierarchy without
using animals killed for the purpose?" 

As this is an issue that should directly interest a substantial number of
teaching members of HERDSA,(as well as being an ethical issue that should
indirectly interest every member) I consider it something worth looking at
more carefully.

Therefore I seek leave to make the following two contributions by means of
questions, without at all trying to close the issue but rather open it a
little wider. 

1. An historical-pedagogical observation. At the time of the inception of
the UK Open University there was outright hostility by the other
universities at large (the Academic Establishment) at the very idea of
studying to degree standard externally. "It is quite impossible" was the
most common rejoinder. Since then, as the current vogue (fetish?) for
flexible learning glaringly indicates, universities can now gain brownie
points by demonstrating how well students can do such things as learning
externally, wherever and whenever and however they want to. It has passed
from "impossible" to "de rigeur" without even a blush of historical
embarassment. My question therefore is: 
Might not the virtually unchallenged dictum that it is utterly impossible
for students (particularly in medicine and vet sciences) to properly study
subject matter without killing animals, be subject to the same kind of
historical falsification in time? In principle, I see no reason for not
accepting that as a real possibility. Nobody with any historical nous would
be wise to rule it out of court. Time (and absolutely solid beliefs)do
change; sometimes radically.

2. As an ethical proposition, I would like those who presently argue that
it is "impossible to teach some subjects to the necessary level ... without
using animals killed for the purpose" to consider the following
hypothetical. If the discussion were to be about the teaching of human
medical science, and the pedagogocal question became how to teach knowledge
of human physiology and anatomy "to the necessary level", how comfortable
would those people be with replacing "animals" with "humans" in the
proposition? Very uncomfortable, naturally. So in practice what Medical
Pedagogy did was to study only humans who had already died, and the
tradition continues to this very day. It gives only an approximation to
anatomical and physiological truth because the absence of life changes
certain things, and creative imagination (plus alternative pedagogies) are
needed to bridge the gap. They have been invented and are in operation.
Why, then, should not the same principle apply where the lives of animals
are concerned? That would be: Study only those who have died naturally (as
with humans); Accept that this is only an approximation to the pedagogical
ideal (as with humans); and look for creative pedagogical alternatives (as
with humans). How about it? If this policy proved adequate in one area of
studies, why should it not be possible in another? Does vetinerary science
demand higher standards of verity in its pedagogy than medical science? 

I am aware that, as readers will remind me, animal deaths are incurred even
in teaching medical science. In response, I am reminded of a quote Andrew
himself uses on his correspondence:

"We all recall dissecting frogs; we all recall learning nothing." (Bernard
Rollin, (1981), "Animal Rights and Human Morality," p. 105)

I take it Di's reference to Bloom is a metaphor for 'if we want students to
learn at the highest level'. I would suggest that when animals are
unnecessarily killed for pedagogic purposes,
the content of this 'highest level' of learning that students achieve may
in fact be a desensitisation to the value of other lives, and of life
itself, and an uncritical acceptance of the dictum that animals only have
value in so far as they serve the immediate and uncriticised wants and
intentions of humans. I personally find that ethic to be erroneous in the
extreme, and dangerous to the future of life on earth, but I acknowledge
that many others think differently."

With best regards to all

Lee

____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

	  "Style is the ultimate morality of mind"
	[A.N. Whitehead, The Aims of Education, p.19]

	* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
	*  Dr Lee W. Andresen                    *
	*  45 Silver Gull Drive                   *
	*  Ballina NSW 2478 Australia             *
	*  Tel/Fax: 02 6681 3557                  *
	*  E-mail: andresen@sydney.dialix.oz.au   *
	* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *