I. Introduction
The Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) aims to understand, promote, and improve human health worldwide through the study of nonhuman primate (NHP) models, or in layman’s terms, monkeys. The ONPRC has a division solely focused on Reproductive and Developmental Sciences, who use the monkeys to study and someday prevent issues with human pregnancies such as premature labor and stillbirths. In order to further understand why these issues occur, the Reproductive and Developmental Sciences Division conducts experiments on these monkeys with the anticipated result of a stillbirth or a premature labor. This division has also attempted to find potential treatments for these pregnancy problems through cesarean section (“C-sections”) on pregnant monkeys. Once the fetuses are removed, they are killed to allow the researchers to study their brains, lungs, and other tissues. These experiments are specifically tailored to remain in accordance with the guidelines of care and use of research animals.
The issues that arise with these kinds of experiments is their morality. Based on the goals defined by the ONPRC, the research center aims to serve as a model for humane and responsible animal care that meets the highest ethical standards. Killing the babies of monkeys held captive in a research center, however, does not seem to meet ethical standards. I believe that their experiments on the fetuses and babies of the monkeys are morally wrong. In this paper, I intend to prove this by first explaining why these experiments are ethically and morally wrong (II). Subsequently, I will describe possible objections to my argument (III), and then evaluate these counterarguments and rebut them (IV). Finally, I will conclude my argument with an overview of the previous points mentioned (V).
II. The Argument against ONPRC’s Experiments
The argument against the experiments being performed by the Reproductive and Developmental Sciences Division is as follows:
1. The ONPRC is responsible for the physical and psychological welfare of the monkeys.
2. Performing experiments through forced stillbirths and premature labor physically and psychologically harm monkeys.
3. Physically and psychologically harming monkeys is morally wrong.
The experiments being performed by the ONPRC’s Reproductive and Developmental Sciences are morally wrong.
This argument can be viewed through several different perspectives which all lead to the same conclusion. I will reinforce my argument through reasoning with obligations (a) and through analogy (b).
a. Obligation
As human beings, we have a universal obligation not to kill others. We also have a universal obligation not to cause pain to others. “Others” in these cases can be defined as “sentient beings,” or living beings who have consciousness. A living entity requires a centralized nervous system in order to have any sort of consciousness. Monkeys not only fall under this category but arguably should be referred to with higher regard to their consciousness. This is due to their genetic similarity to humans, of which we share 96%. The scientists conducting these experiments are not exceptions to these obligations; they also are morally obligated to treat others with respect by not killing them and not causing them pain. The Reproductive and Developmental Sciences Division is failing to comply with both these obligations by forcibly impregnating them and killing their fetuses for examination.
As a research center using living beings for testing, they have a role-based obligation to respect and care for their physical and psychological health. This is not only common knowledge but explicitly stated in the ONPRC’s mission statement. When inseminating the monkeys, they intentionally force the births to be problematic, resulting in either a stillbirth or a premature birth. This not only potentially harms the monkeys physically, but emotionally as well. Changing the natural order of a birth with the intention of creating complications can put the mother’s health at risk as well as the fetus. As sentient beings, these monkeys physically and emotionally prepare themselves for the birth of their children and the responsibilities that follow, just like human mothers. Rhesus macaque monkeys are the primary NHP models used by the ONPRC. This breed of monkey specifically forms a bond in a similar way to human mothers and their infants. The infants cling to their mother’s belly, gaze at their mothers, and communicate through light noises and imitation. These monkey models used by the Research and Developmental Sciences Division prepare themselves for up to 165 days for the birth of their child, and these researchers intentionally engineer the birth to result in a stillbirth or premature birth that they will end up killing anyway. To prepare for a child for such a long time just to have it killed bears an emotionally hefty toll on these monkey mothers, whether or not they understand that the scientists have killed their children. This clearly demonstrates how severely the ONPRC has failed to follow through with their role-based obligations.
b. Analogy
The purpose of the experimentation on these monkeys is to find complications with human birth and determine their causes to prevent them from reoccurring. On monkeys, or as the research center refers to them, NHP models, this research is groundbreaking and can help many people. This kind of experimentation, however, would be considered ludicrous if it had been performed on humans.
Imagine that a research center takes a group of women captive without their consent. These women are their new experiment subjects. They forcibly impregnate them through artificial insemination, having fiddled with the natural order of birth to ensure that their child ends up a stillborn or a premature infant. The women are held captive for the 9 months, aware that they are now pregnant, and going to have a baby, but are unaware that their child has been modified and designed for death. All these women have been put at risk because of their pregnancy. Let’s say a few of these women’s childbirths result in stillbirths, as predicted. Another few women go into premature labor, and their children make it alive and well, but are killed for study. Maybe one of the women dies during the birth of her child due to the complication of the birth imposed by the researchers. The rest of the women, whose births were successful, on time, and without a hitch, lose their babies because they are ripped away from them by the researchers, and also killed for examination.
This is unethical by any means and would be considered morally wrong. But what about this case differs from what is going on in the ONPRC? 4% of their DNA? Primates are the most closely related animals to humans and can show us how our health inflictions attack us, unlike any other animal. Does this not mean that they suffer most closely to how we do from these health inflictions? This sort of experimentation should never be performed on humans, nor should it ever be performed on monkeys or any other sentient beings.
III. Objections to the Argument
The most evident argument against this can be seen through a consequentialist’s viewpoint. The consequences of these experiments can be perceived to outweigh the moral obligations that must be ignored in order to perform them.
The results of these experiments would be monumentally beneficial if they provide an answer to our pregnancy problems. Should these experiments be successful, they can prevent the deaths of every 1 in 115 children in the U.S. who die of stillbirth or improve the lives of the 1 in 10 infants born prematurely. These experiments could save many human lives, and do not put any human lives at risk. Besides that, the ONPRC’s mission states that they follow the highest ethical standards, and are a model for humane and responsible animal care.
Another argument that those for the experiments have behind them is history. Animal testing has been around since the late 1800s and has proven to provide a significant amount of information that has aided the human race immensely. From Louis Pasteur’s sheep to Ivan Pavlov’s dogs, animal testing has been conducted on all sorts of species, in all sorts of ways. The experiments being conducted on the NHP models is nothing new when the history of animal testing is taken into account.
Monkeys in specific have provided us with lots of new information because of their genetic similarities to humans, which makes these experiments more ethically reasonable than conducting them on animals like dogs or cats, who have a much more limited number of similarities to us than monkeys. Monkeys can give us more accurate information than any other animal, reducing the risk of a false treatment harming the humans that it is tested on.
IV. Rebuttal
The first argument mentioned above deals with consequences of the experiment but does not take into account all of the consequences of the experiment. Although there may be a treatment found through the monkey experimentation, the suffering the monkeys go through outweighs the benefits of the treatment. Intentionally harming a sentient being is morally worse than a naturally caused illness like a stillbirth or premature infancy because a natural illness is not purposefully imposed on the person suffering the illness. It is also argued that the ONPRC states that they serve as a model for humane animal care. If they are serving as a model, and their work is inhumane, they can potentially inspire more research centers to follow their ethical standards, which are incorrect and put more animals like these monkeys, or even humans, in danger.
The next objection describes how long animal testing has been going on. My rebuttal to this is simple: just because it happened does not mean it should continue to happen. Where would we be if we couldn’t learn from our mistakes but instead made them over and over? We have learned through experience with animal testing that it is wrong, and it should not be done, no matter what results we may get from it.
The final rebut argues for the genetic similarity between humans and monkeys, and how the research could not be more accurately conducted with any animal but monkeys due to this. The truth of this statement is exactly why we should not be performing these experiments. If they are so genetically similar to us, who’s to say they don’t experience the same pain that we do? The analogy provided in section II, subsection a, is strong for that reason. The difference between us and monkeys is mere genes and provides us with a great reason not to treat them in ways we wouldn’t treat ourselves.
V. Conclusion
The ONPRC performs a myriad of experiments on the NHP models held in captivity there. The Reproductive and Developmental Sciences Division is only one of several divisions conducting similarly gruesome and cruel experiments on these monkeys. The ONPRC repeats that they follow the highest ethical standards and that all their experiments are up to par with their guidelines. If the physical and psychological harm of innocent beings is within their guidelines, are these guidelines right? These guidelines are in place to protect the monkeys, but if this kind of behavior is tolerated, then the guidelines are incorrect and should be amended immediately. The ONPRC has a duty to protect the health and welfare of the subjects they test on, and they are failing to do so. They are ignoring both their universal and role-based obligations, and what they are doing to these monkeys is comparable to human abuse. These experiments are morally wrong and should not continue.
2017-10-23-1508726104.php