Researchers confirmed that a male sheep’s preference for other male partners does have biological underpinnings, according to the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine. Since this finding was released, people have begun debating the ethicality of conducting research experiments on animals.
This gay sheep experiment strikes a controversial chord because of the nature of the debate, abolish animal suffering vs. the progression and understanding of the human species. There is evolution versus animal sanctity. But is it ethical to allow significant breakthroughs in human insight to come at the expense of animal life?
This sort of thinking suggests that because animals are less intelligent, their ability to feel pain and emotion is much lower than ours, and thus they are undeserving of comparable rights. But then it seems inconsistent that if the argument to test on animals is that they are so different and less intelligent, then why would we test on them in the first place?
Either they are so similar that they are deserving of comparable “rights” or they are so different that they merit no meaningful trans-species comparison.
But we are not the masterminds behind the planet, and we shouldn’t have complete say in the purpose of its species. It seems that we judge animals by their benefit to humans. The value of a non-human life should not be judged by its utility to us.
Nonetheless, animals being subjected to experimentation has been the norm for many brand-name companies for years. But the unknown torment behind the experiments is clouded by metal doors and unmarked laboratories concealed to the general public.
I hate animal experimentation. The torment we bestowed onto animals behind closed doors puts even Saddam to shame.
But the controversy is, what if such animal testing could result in meaningful findings and significant medical advances? It’s a tough call, but when it comes to profound research, such as getting to the bottom of the biology vs. homosexuality debate, I grant it my support. Advancement toward a better understanding of ourselves necessitates this evil and understanding homosexuality falls into such a category.
Humans are curious creatures. Anything we cannot completely understand we question until we have a reasonable explanation. For years, homosexuality has been an unsettled discussion, not yet fully understood. Is being gay hormonal? Is it a choice? Is it curable? Is it genetic? And these questions have a chance of being answered, simply by observing and modifying the brain structure of 18 sheep? Not to say that it is completely cruelty-free, but in this case, the ends justify the means. And 18 sheep pales in comparison to the 4 million we slaughter every year for other uses.
So if an experiment mandates animals testing, so long as the experiment is worthy and results in a meaningful contribution to our society, then I support it. But it is the over-the-top, meaningless tests that provide no real advancements that I strongly oppose.
An example of the kind of experimentation I oppose is when scientists says, “I wonder what will happen if I flush three gallons of bleach into the bloodstream of this baby monkey,” and have the liberty to go forth with such an experiment.
Honestly, is that really necessary, or couldn’t we just use common sense to determine that such an action could result in sickness or death? And the barbarity of cosmetic testing is needless as well.
Now I’m sure almost anyone with a heartbeat will feel sad or sorry for the animals being tortured, but place a higher level of importance on the benefits being contrived. Again, they figure the ends justify the means. But logically, couldn’t we figure out a way to appease both aspects?
According to a Jan. 15 broadcast on BBC, Europe can. They have been making reforms in animal testing, thus decreasing the number of animals being experimented on by two-thirds. Using alternative testing methods has become a large priority and has still been able to produce comparable results. They have learned that the lack of cruelty doesn’t mean a lack of validity. Why can’t we?
If animal experimentation produces a significant contribution to society’s well-being or discovers some explanation to a hot-button issue, then I’m willing to look past the vulgarity of it.
But the propriety of deliberately poisoning and torturing animals for the sake of marketing a new beauty product is atrocious. Simply using a bit of common sense could eradicate so much of the unnecessary experimentation.
Celine Dilfer is a senior communications major.
