A screening of the documentary Cowspiracy, on animal agriculture and sustainability, is organized by Queen’s Backing Action on Climate Change (QBACC).
When: Thursday 26th of November, from 5:30pm to 7:30pm
Where: Kingston Hall Red Room
With a free vegetarian meal! See Facebook event.
Watch the trailer:
There are two upcoming talks this week on animal ethics at Queen’s University, both by post-doctorate Angela Martin from Centre for Research in Ethics from University of Montréal (CRÉ).
The Queen’s Philosophy Department Colloquium Series will host “Affirmative Action for Animals — What Justice Demands?” by Angela Martin.
When: November 26th from 4 pm to 6 pm
Where: Watson Hall, room 517
Anti-speciesism requires, amongst other things, equal consideration of equal interests, regardless of species membership. Currently, we live in a society that often does not give equal weight to the interests of animals. Most animal groups are at high risk of having their interests unjustly considered by moral agents due to speciesist prejudices. In my talk, I address the question of whether, in order to remedy these discriminations, animals currently have a claim for more than equal consideration, that is, for affirmative action. In the first part of my talk, I make some distinctions about the notions of discrimination and affirmative action. Then I show that any animal groups – amongst others, farm animals, laboratory animals, and wild animals – currently do not have their most basic interests justly considered by moral agents due to speciesist prejudices. In the third part of my talk, I argue that, in order to remedy these injustices, animals have a claim for affirmative action. I outline what this means in practice, and defend my position against potential objections.
All welcome.
The Animals in Philosophy, Politics, Law and Ethics research cluster will host a discussion on one of Angela Martin’s papers titled “Animals as Vulnerable Research Subjects”.
When: November 27th from 10:30 am to noon
Where: Watson Hall, room 517
It is commonly accepted that particularly vulnerable research individuals and populations in medical research should be afforded special protection and attention. Recently, it was argued by some authors that laboratory animals can and should also be identified as vulnerable research subjects. In consequence, they should benefit from similar protections as vulnerable humans in research. In this article, I discuss whether the concept of vulnerability can indeed be meaningfully applied to research animals, and if yes, what it implies from an ethical point of view for animal research.
If you wish to attend, please note that reading the paper is required for participating at this event. Please contact cliffehanger[at]sympatico[dot]ca to receive it. Continue Reading
A recent study (open access) of Canadian pediatricians and nurses notes that “health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research”. Because health care professionals have an important influence on public perceptions of animal research, their advocacy is important for the animal research industry.
The purpose of the study was to investigate whether health care professionals are in fact well-informed about the nature of animal research – its scientific rigour, and likelihood of translating into human health benefits. The study found a significant discrepancy between the beliefs of doctors and nurses, and the reality of animal research. Health care professionals significantly overestimate the scientific rigour of animal-based research, and significantly overestimate the likelihood that animal research findings will translate to human responses to drugs and disease. In other words, health care workers regularly promote the benefits of animal research, but their advocacy is based on serious misinformation.
The study also found that if health care workers were better informed about the realities of animal research, they would withdraw their support.
Image taken from Wikimedia Commons
A recent article in The Globe and Mail (by Ivan Semeniuk) discusses clinical trials for new cancer treatments at Guelph and other universities across North America. The patients in these trials are dogs and cats, not humans. Animal companions share our exposure to carcinogens in the environment, diet and lifestyle factors, and, not surprisingly, develop many of the same cancers as we do.
The Globe article focuses on the possible benefits to humans of cross-species clinical trial comparisons, but what’s really interesting is the situation of the nonhuman participants. These dogs and cats are beloved family members, and their participation in clinical trials rests on two very important conditions. First of all, the animals are sick with life-threatening cancers, and stand to benefit directly from the drug treatments they undergo. Secondly, their participation is conditional on consent by their human companions, who can review the risks/benefits of the trial, and ensure that the well-being of their companion is the primary focus and purpose of the treatment (just as parents consent to treatment, including drug trial participation, on behalf of their sick children). It’s important to remember that the dogs and cats are not protected by the same legal framework that protects the rights of human clinical trial participants, and indeed are exposed to unacceptable risks that humans would not be subject to. However, the protection offered by their family status means that de facto, they are more like human patients than the vast majority of animals involved in biomedical research. Most of the animals used in research are deliberately injured, or have diseases deliberately induced. The purpose of the research is not to help them, but to sacrifice them as tools of science. There is nobody to speak up for them, or protect their interests.
Here is what the Globe article says about why research that benefits dogs and cats is more likely to benefit humans than research that harms laboratory-bred mice (note that rats, dogs, and monkeys are also purpose-bred for harmful research):
“Unlike genetically standardized laboratory mice, which are a mainstay of medical research, domestic dogs and cats are more diverse, just like humans. They also share our home environments and, often, our food. Their cancers are equally diverse and naturally occurring, unlike those of lab mice, which have to be deliberately implanted. This makes companion animals far better analogs for human cancer patients.”
In addition, companion animals, like humans, tend to develop cancer as they age, and in the presence of various other health conditions like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, dementia, etc. The highly artificial disease status of lab mice is one of the key explanations offered by growing numbers of scientists to explain why biomedical research using “animal models” has failed to provide significant breakthroughs in human medical treatment.
The future of ethical biomedical research is one in which all animals, not just humans, are protected by the laws that currently govern the use of human research subjects. It’s a win-win situation.
Queen's Animal Defence 