Q: I understand that you don't believe animals are ours to use for food, clothing or sport, 

but what about experimenting on animals for medical reasons, like to find a cure for 

disease or to see if something is toxic? Aren’t those examples of uses of animals that 

can be ethical as long as they are humane and necessary?

A: The stand of the animal rights advocate regarding research that involves animals

is very simple: Animals are not ours to experiment on. Period. Now, no one is claiming 

we’ve never learned anything from experimenting on animals in the past. But that isn’t

the point. The point is that using a sentient being, against her will (which is the only 

way it can be done), for your own purposes (whatever they may be), is morally 

unjustifiable.

In order to responsibly address the question asked, however, you’d first have to define 

humane and necessary. Let’s begin at the beginning. Do you think it’s ethical to breed an 

animal for the sole purpose of using her as the subject of an experiment (she’d  more 

accurately be an object, as something would be done to her)? Dogs, such as Greyhounds, 

who are docile and rarely bark, apparently make great “subjects” and are often used for 

heart disease research. Beagles are used often, as well.

Furthermore, do you think it’s ethical to seize animals from pounds or off the streets 

(that’s the other way they get to be “subjects”) for the purposes of caging them, cutting 

them open or exposing them to hazardous substances, collecting data, and then killing 

them? If it were your dog being experimented on, would that be okay? Would it be ethical 

then? Most people say no, as they’re emotionally attached to their dogs and we Americans 

value our dogs.

The vast majority of animals used in research are rats, however, and most people aren’t 

emotionally attached to them and don’t value them. But is that what should matter? Given 

that rats have the same capacity for pleasure, pain and terror as your dog does, is it 

humane to breed them with genetic defects, artificially inflict them with diseases, expose 

them to toxic substances, and kill them? Why would it be ethical to use a rat but not your 

dog? Is it ever ethical to experiment on a sentient being, without her consent, just because 

you can?

As far as necessary goes, it is never necessary to experiment on anyone. It is either a choice 

or it is dictated by a governing body such as the FDA. It might be a legal necessity, but it’s 

certainly not a scientific one. In fact, a growing number of scientists now believe that 

experimenting on animals to gain knowledge about humans is just plain bad science. And 

they have history on their side, as there have been instances where testing done on animals 

showed that a substance wasn’t dangerous, but that has turned out not to be the case 

(e.g., Thalidomide and Vioxx, among others). In fact, adverse reactions to animal-tested 

medicines are now the fourth largest cause of death in America. 

Think about it: Does it make sense to assume that a response you get in a nonhuman 

animal, whom you’ve inflicted with a disease (so it has not organically occurred, and 

might not ever have occurred), will be the same as you’d expect from a different species 

(humans), in individuals whose disease occurred over time, as a result of a certain 

behavior or exposure to certain toxic substances? Does extrapolating from one species 

to another, even with a close genetic relative, like the chimpanzee is to humans, make 

sense when each individual chimpanzee or human reacts differently to disease to begin 

with? Adding species into the mix only makes the results less reliable. Fortunately, 

many alternatives to using animals have been developed, including computer models. 

The most responsible way to find cures and treatments for disease, and to test for 

toxicity, is to allocate research funds to the development of non-animal alternatives, 

such as human clinical and in-vitro research, cell and tissue cultures, epidemiology 

and genetic research, all of which are more effective methods of studying disease and 

testing the effectiveness and toxicity of drugs. 

If you believe in animal rights, you believe that the potential of some kind of beneficial 

result isn’t a valid reason to use the life of a sentient being, against her will, as the 

“subject” of an experiment.

Despite the inherent flaws of animal experimentation, there are political, economic

(read: big business), and social reasons why government and non-government 

organizations continue to fund research on animals. Meanwhile, people who are ill 

continue to be ill while, for instance, billions of dollars are being spent trying to inflict 

diseases in animals, as is the case with AIDS and chimpanzees (who can be 

successfully infected with HIV, but do not progress to AIDS). There's a helpful but 

short explanation of chimpanzee research that doesn't apply to humans at 

www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/chimps. For a more thorough explanation, see the 

work of Ray Greek, MD, at www.curedisease. com/president.html, co-author of 

Sacred Cows & Golden Geese, which is a great mind-opener for someone unfamiliar with 

the reality that animal experimentation simply isn't great science.

To recap, animal experimentation, for the animal rights activist, has a simple answer: 

We shouldn't do it. It’s morally unacceptable. For everyone else, it has an answer that’s 

a bit more complex, but ends at the same place: we shouldn't do it. There are myriad 

reasons why it still exists (there’s a lot of money in conducting the research, breeding 

the animals, transporting the animals, running the facilities, and keeping these 

business machines alive), and it's time we ask questions of charities, research 

organizations, and the government. It's time we ask the tough questions, withhold 

money where we can, and put an end to a practice we never should have started. 

Considering everything we now know, there’s never been a better time.

Q: But if animal rights advocates don’t believe in using animals,  shouldn’t they be 

against keeping cats and dogs as pets?

A: This is the only instance where animal rights advocates might "use" animals, and 

here’s why: We have domesticated dogs and cats and we clearly have not acted 

responsibly by spaying and neutering them, and we now have an overpopulation crisis.

And to make matters worse, we continue to allow the breeding of new cats and dogs, 

when millions of healthy ones are killed each year, often just because there’s no room 

for them at shelters. We have an obligation to fix the problem we have created, and that 

doesn't mean killing healthy animals. This is not a quandary we can kill our way out of. 

For this reason, many animal rights advocates choose to adopt (never purchase) 

homeless animals if they feel they are able to meet their needs: safety, good nutrition 

(and note that many dogs live long, healthy lives as vegans), and plenty of exercise, 

stimulation and love. 

Next time, I'll address what you can do if part of your personal mission is 

nonviolence, and you include all sentient beings in that mission. 

The photo above is the property of Mary Martin. The Greyhound pictured is 

Charles Hobson Booger, III, who lives in South Florida with his adoptive

parents, Dave and Mary.