Research animals lack a proper voice

I am a researcher and lecturer in animal-human relationships in social services within the social work programme at the University of Otago.

Like all of us, I have biases that inform my opinions and underpin this opinion piece.

I come from a dairy farming background on the Taieri, but for ethical reasons I now choose not to eat animals.

I note that my colleagues highlighted in the article on page 4 of the ODT Weekend Mix of April 17 do not state their biases.

In 2018-19 I spent an extensive period of time in Dunedin Hospital.

As I lay in my ICU bed for over two and a-half months I had a front-row seat to watch the construction of the Eccles Building.

I had plenty of time to reflect on what this building represents both for society and research.

I was surprised how few staff in the hospital were aware of the purpose of the building, so far removed is medical research from day-to-day care, or so it seems.

I confess to taking some satisfaction from referring to it colloquially as "the animal torture building".

So what gives us the right to use animals for research testing and teaching (RTT)?

My colleague Dr Mike King suggests that humans are in a privileged position, "at the top of the totem pole”, which gives us the right to use animals to benefit humans.

As well as the misuse of the term totem pole (which is a carving that symbolises ancestors for Native American peoples) I take issue with his argument that more is lost when a human dies than when an animal dies.

Surely it depends on the value society places on the human and on the animal; depending on the context some humans are rated higher than others and some animals are considered more precious than others.

For instance, is more lost when a soldier from an opposing side is killed in battle than when a rare mountain gorilla is killed for bush meat?

In our society we rate animals differently depending on their value to us and their rarity.

We ascribe near-human status to some animals, such as police dogs which are venerated for their service, awarded for bravery and publicly mourned in death.

Animals such as primates and cetaceans are ascribed a higher status by human society than animals deemed pests such as rats and mice. Contrary to Dr King’s argument, many animals, birds and fish are known to have complex social interactions and an excellent ability to problem-solve and care for their familial groups.

Reflecting societal values, the New Zealand government has decreed that animals have sentience under the Animal Welfare Amendment Act (No 2) 2015, which counters Dr King’s assertion that only humans have a sense of themselves.

The current process for ethical approval and monitoring for the work undertaken in RTT is provided by animal ethics committees, which allow for three external members including one lay member.

I wonder, however, what influences come to bear as these members are continually faced with arguments that fit the views of the RTT agenda.

If part of the external members’ role is to be the conscience of society then surely it would be better to involve more lay people in order to be truly representative such as is demonstrated in the jury model.

The criminal justice system endorses the value of new non-institutionalised lay people to decide the fate of a person’s freedom.

Such a logic of non-institutionalisation should be reflected on animal ethics committees as well.

Further, as animals do not have the ability to give consent to partake in the research there is a need for a dedicated animal advocate to be included on the animal ethics committees to speak for the rights of the animals involved.

Prof Blaikie states that the university is proud of the achievements of the science breakthroughs made at their facilities.

However, he fails to list these achievements; one anonymous researcher offers the breakthrough made by one study into polycystic ovary syndrome.

This suggests that the great majority of RTT undertaken at Otago is a replication of studies originating from universities and research institutes overseas or may be just for technical teaching purposes.

If Prof Blaikie is so proud of the Eccles Building and the research that takes place there, perhaps he should arrange regular open days where the public of Dunedin can see what takes place with their tax money and in their name.

There are a number of medical and research organisations worldwide that oppose animal models.

One such is the US-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which has more than 175,000 members worldwide.

As well as animal welfare concerns its objections include the non-applicability of animal studies to human medicine, as the physiology of animals, apart from primates, is so different from humans as to be worthless for study.

Without drastic changes to support the welfare of animals, in time we will no doubt look back on this era of using animals in RTT as being as archaic and problematic as live vivisection in Victorian times is viewed today.

• Dr Peter Walker is a senior lecturer at the University of Otago’s School of Social Sciences.