Often, testing on animals is dismissed by students, philosophers, laymen due to the inability to extrapolate across species. Testing results, it is often said, are useless because nonhuman anatomy is different than human anatomy.
This epitomizes, or so it seems to me, a lack of interpretive charity. Yes. There are substantial qualitative differences between the anatomy of a human and the anatomy of a non-human. Do we not think that scientists know this? I would credit them with enough intelligence to not assume a direct applicability of test results. It may just be me, but I think the scientist understands that a rat is not a human. I think the scientist that experiments on a rat understands that there might be a different result if done to a human. As living beings there are some things that affect us both, in the same way, some in similar ways, and yes, some in completely different ways. It is ridiculous to assume all test results will be applicable to us, but it is equally, if not more inane to assume, on that basis, that no test results are applicable.
An apple is substantially different than a computer. The apple falls if let go of. Be careful not to assume that the computer will as well. They are different after all.
Question: To what degree can we, absent scientific education, criticize the actions of the scientist?
I think we would need actual data to address this question. You are right of course that rats are in some respects like humans, and in other respects different. Things that cause cancer in rats sometimes (but not always) cause it in humans. Unless we know quite a lot about the mechanism of causality, and can thus craft a meaningful hypothesis about the likelihood of crossover, it seems that the information is really no information at all. It only tells us what we already knew, that something may (or may not) cause cancer in humans. Does anyone have any scientific accounts suggesting that it actually (at least sometimes) gives us more concrete information than the excluded middle?
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the tardiness of my response. You are right, of course, that scientific testing on non-humans may not actually produce concrete information. The likelihood of crossover is an essential fact to know before beginning testing, I agree. But why are we to assume that scientists don't know this or account for this before they begin? I know that this testing will not always produce the applicable information we're looking for, but the entire enterprise cannot be dismissed by the differences between humans and non-humans.
ReplyDeleteI agree the mere fact that the species are different does not by itself invalidate results of animal tests. I shouldn't have to take it on trust that scientists know what they're doing, though. Has anyone laid out the evidence and reasoning for the efficacy of animal testing, or is it simply an entrenched institutional procedure?
ReplyDelete