The arguably most honest thing my high school research mentor has ever said to me, coincidentally, had to do with honesty. “There are these moments,” he said “these ’uh oh’ moments in research when there is evidence against what you have believed all your life staring you straight back in the face. It is what you do with this ‘uh oh’ evidence that defines the kind of scientist you are.”
A vast number of scientists will have a chance to prove themselves as a result of recent studies on the moral perceptive abilities of monkeys reviewed in the London Times. The studies reflected the animals’ innate sense of right and wrong, fairness, and altruism through experimental conditions using reward-and-punishment systems. The research teams applied their results to the evolutionary theory of morality and the human conscience, suggesting that evidence of such features in chimpanzees and other precursors to man correspond to proof that man is not defined by having a conscience at all, but rather a deeper sense of conscience.
These new findings also raise an important question in the minds of bioethicists around the world: an ‘uh oh’ moment for many, if you will. For the vast portion of the history of medical science, we have tested our most far-fetched theories, our most commonly held beliefs on animals. We have considered them worthy enough to serve as parallels to our own bodies and yet manipulate their bodies in ways we could never allow on fellow men. We once clearly distinguished men from animals based on our mental aptitude to recognize beyond base emotions and needs, based on our awareness of our own ‘knowing.’ Part of this distinction lies in our consideration of transcendent laws such as those governing morality and religion.
Uh oh. We have begun to investigate the possibility that animals may possess these metacognitive abilities as well. What does that mean in the realm of animal experimentation? Can we still test on animals the way we have before, given that we now understand their internal standards of right and wrong? Can we still utilize them as ‘lower beings’ if we are no longer sure what truly distinguishes man from mammal?
It may make us more dishonest as scientists, more selfish as occupants of this Earth, but also better to our fellow man. We may possess the nobler judgments of kind treatment to other species, but this special metacognition cannot uproot our base instincts of survival. We are human and as such are morally obligated to defend our fellow man and posterity. We may consider it immoral to harm other species in order to better understand our illnesses, but is it not more immoral to harm our own kind through inaction?
Read the article. It’s interesting. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5733638.ece
1 comment:
Natalie,
You certainly raise a good point here. Experimenting on animals has always been a really interesting problem when the ethics of it is concerned. The fact that there is proof that animals have some sense of right and wrong and what is regarded as conscience, may in fact change the way people view the experimentation on animals, but I doubt it will decrease the number of animals being used as lab rats. Since the notion of morality and ethics exists humans have tried to justify the abuse of other species using reasons such as the existence of conscience or the fact that they are somehow immensely superior to animals and therefore the life of a human should be valued more than the life of an animal. Viewed from a purely scientific point there is nothing so significant about humans compared to other species. It is mere chance that we are species that posses what is called intelligence. Humans did not in any way earn their superiority besides the fact that they realized the potential that they had. We just had the luck of being able to evolve into what we are now. How can there be any morality in abusing species that had the same chance of being intelligent as us but did not get it.
Humanity has always been too self centered and arrogant in its approach to the universe, assuming inferiority of everything else. The sad fact is our intelligence has not reached a point when we would be able to comprehend our own insignificance and realize the fact that it is natural to take advantage of inferior species, but not in any way moral. Even if monkeys are found to have conscience people will find different ways to justify their abuse.
Post a Comment