| Animal welfare
and animal studies - what scientists think
There is no doubt about it: animal studies are controversial.
Are they compatible with the idea of animal welfare? Can they
be justified at all? Scientists too have grappled hard with
these questions - sometimes with surprising results.
Take Albert Schweitzer, for example: medical doctor, Nobel
Peace Prize laureate and cat lover. “It is man's sympathy
with all creatures that first makes him truly a man,”
he had stated. In the same breath, he also declared that anyone
who conducts animal studies with a view to using the results
to help humans must keep a constant critical eye on what they
do. According to Schweitzer, researchers “must have
always considered first, in each individual case, whether
it is necessary to sacrifice an animal’s life for the
sake of humans. And they must take the greatest care to minimize
the pain inflicted where possible.”
Or Professor Bernhard Grzimek. The renowned zoologist had
worked intensively for the Serengeti and other wildlife reserves
in Africa. At the same time, he recognized that “our
entire medical knowledge - the successful treatment of many
diseases and plagues in humans and animals - has been made
possible by animal studies. It is pointless to try and close
your eyes to this.”
Or Albert Sabin. This medical doctor is also a proponent
of animal studies. Preliminary studies on almost 9,000 apes
and 150 chimpanzees were necessary, he wrote about his research.
Without them, it would not have been possible to achieve the
big goal - namely “to develop a safe vaccine against
poliomyelitis”.
Or Ivan Petrovich Pavlov. The physiologist and Nobel Prize
Laureate wrote: “When I start a study which ultimately
leads to the death of an animal, I feel a deep regret that
I am cutting short a life in full bloom..., that I, with my
rough, uncouth hand, am destroying an indescribably elaborate
mechanism. But I endure it in the interest of the truth, for
the benefit of mankind.” |
