The ethical considerations of rat research: A personal reflection
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
The conversation surrounding animal testing has been a controversial one to say the least. But we also have to consider how beneficial these tests are to our research, especially when it comes to health-related research.
SUNY Geneseo has two active research labs on campus that utilize rodent animal models. I entered one of them in the spring of my freshman year.
As a Neuroscience major, I was innately interested in growing my understanding of the brain in any capacity. I wasn’t quite sure what my specific interests were— was it pharmacology, physiology, pathology, or any other innumerable area of neuroscience research? I had no clue, but I knew I found the brain to be a beautifully complex organ.
The lab I joined —and remain part of— investigates how tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) affects gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate neurons in the hippocampus and how these cellular changes might contribute to learning deficits. This research is significant, as it seeks to advance our understanding of THC's impact on maternal and fetal health, especially considering marijuana’s widespread use during pregnancy despite potential risks to fetal development.
Walking into the lab for the first time, I was immediately enamored by the space. I lit up walking through the maze: the wet lab, where tissue is stained and plated, the microscope used to visualize structures, and the array of posters from past undergraduate research projects ornamenting the walls. I marveled at the photographic atlas of the rat brain, which featured sections of the brain regions discussed in class, such as the hippocampus’s CA1 region, which is critical in memory formation and retrieval, and the ventral tegmental area. It was the rat-keeping room, however, that truly piqued my curiosity.
Despite the rats being well cared for —properly housed, fed, and watered— I couldn’t help but question the ethical implications of using animals in research. Philosophy, as it relates to the mind, is hugely underrated as an underbelly of the subject of neuroscience. Therefore, examining the ethical considerations of animal testing in the context of neuroscience research seems fitting.
Considering its relevance and popularity to animal ethics, it's critical to recognize utilitarianism in this discussion. Utilitarianism justifies moral practices on the grounds that potential benefits maximize good outcomes for the majority. In animal research —medical advancements such as disease treatments and improved understanding of human biology— outweigh the harm caused to the animals. In this view, the suffering of individual rats is justified by the broader good that their use may bring to society.
The animal research conducted in the labs at Geneseo is led via the Neuroscience department. The contributions of animal research extend far beyond our laboratories, though. A teenie weenie list of global health contributions includes insulin for diabetes, polio vaccines, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) treatment, cancer treatments (chemotherapy and radiation), organ transplants, vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella, antibiotics like penicillin, heart surgery and bypass procedures, antidepressants, antipsychotics, EpiPens, stem cell research, etc.
While these contributions are significant, the question remains: do these advancements outweigh the potential for pain, suffering, and exploitation of sentient beings? I’d argue that animal research rooted in progressing biological understanding is justified by our ability to rationalize, which separates us from the animals being tested.
Is it ideal to use sentient creatures for animal testing? The answer is, almost universally, no. When considering the broad medical advancements that have been made possible through animal testing, however, it is hard to deny the necessity of using animal models for critical health-related research. For example, if you had to pick between saving the life of your friend in anaphylaxis via an EpiPen or the lives of the rats killed by the means of EpiPen research and development, which would you pick?
Our status as conscious moral agents distinguishes us from other animals and places an obligation on us to adhere to higher ethical standards than the mere exploitation of animals. Yet, when the benefits of using animals for research directly contribute to human health and well-being, I argue that moral justification exists, provided that the research adheres to strict ethical guidelines and the line is drawn before secondary needs, such as cosmetics or food production. Ultimately, it demonstrates the importance of minimizing harm through ethical guidelines (such as the 3Rs: replace, reduce, refine) and institutional review processes (e.g., Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee).
The growing use of alternatives to animal testing includes developing three-dimensional cell culture and organ-on-a-chip technologies and branching out into machine learning. If we can get more funding in these areas, less animal testing may be necessary. Unfortunately, the models mentioned have present weaknesses.
To say it bluntly, if you're looking for treatments against diarrhea, for instance, you can't make culture cells or organoids have diarrhea. You need a complete organism. So, many of the questions asked by researchers can only be answered using lab animals at the moment.
Additionally, given most medical research in the US is funded by the National Institutes of Health, but a new Trump administration policy would significantly lower the agency's funding for major research institutions across the country, it doesn’t seem likely the progress of these projects will dip into the realm of practical application, and even less likely into a smaller liberal arts college like Geneseo.
Ultimately, researchers should continue to work towards reducing reliance on animal models through alternative methods, but animal research remains an indispensable tool for many medical advancements. The key is ensuring that animal use is carried out with the utmost care and consideration, keeping in mind the moral responsibility to minimize harm while pursuing scientific progress.