Ethical Dilemmas in Scientific Research

The eradication of smallpox, one of the deadliest diseases in history, is a triumph of public health. However, concerns arise from the existence of virus samples, which could potentially be weaponized by rogue actors. To counter this threat, the US government funds research to improve smallpox treatments and vaccines. Since it is unethical to expose humans to this highly lethal virus, laboratories turn to our closest biological relatives as research subjects. This raises a moral dilemma: is it justified to harm these animals to protect humanity?

The ethical use of animals in research has been debated for centuries, as it often involves sacrificing their lives for the betterment of human welfare. The prevailing belief that human lives hold greater value than non-human lives has shaped this practice. However, diverse opinions exist regarding the ethics and conduct of animal testing. Such debates raise an essential philosophical question: how do we determine the value of a life, whether human or non-human?

Moral status, a tool employed by philosophers to address this question, suggests that beings with moral status have their needs and interests considered when making decisions that impact them. Historically, moral status was viewed as binary, granting moral significance solely to humans. Some contemporary philosophers argue for degrees of moral status, but still prioritize humans' moral status.

Determining what confers moral status is challenging. Immanuel Kant posited that humans possess moral status due to their rational nature and capacity to will their actions. Under a binary framework, beings with these capacities are deemed "persons" with full moral status, while others are regarded as "things" lacking moral status. Thinkers like Christine Korsgaard argue for an expanded Kantian view, encompassing certain non-human animals based on their ability to value their own good.

Another perspective, rooted in utilitarianism, argues that entities capable of suffering deserve moral consideration. This inclusive approach widens our moral responsibility significantly, possibly unsettling some individuals. So where do our closest genetic relatives, the monkeys, fit into this discussion?

Monkeys exhibit high social and intellectual capacities, living cooperatively in complex groups and recognizing individuals within their community. They demonstrate support, learning, and even responses to inequality. Importantly, they are capable of suffering. Yet, prevailing opinion still generally favors human lives over those of monkeys. The common view is that while sacrificing a human life to save others is typically wrong, sacrificing a monkey to save humans is regrettable but morally acceptable, even required. However, this calculation becomes precarious at a certain point. Should we sacrifice 100 monkeys to save five people? What about 10,000? If moral status is binary and monkeys lack it entirely, theoretically any number of monkeys could be sacrificed to save just one person. But if moral status is a matter of degrees, then the balance eventually tips.

Your situation further complicates matters. Unlike previous scenarios, there is no guarantee that your research will save human lives. This uncertainty is inherent in any animal experiment, as scientific discovery occasionally fails to lead to improved medical care. In your case, the stakes are even higher. If the government's concerns about weaponizing smallpox are unfounded, the disease remains eradicated, rendering your research futile in terms of saving lives. Attempting to quantify this uncertainty to inform your decision is challenging. How does one determine an acceptable level of risk? What if the uncertainty is so significant that calculations become mere conjecture?

The complexity of moral decision-making intensifies rapidly when employing these types of moral mathematics, leading some philosophers to question their efficacy. Regardless of the approach you adopt, it is crucial that your choice is well justified. The implications of your decision extend beyond scientific research, touching upon fundamental questions about the value of life and the ethics of using animals in the pursuit of human benefit.

Henrik Leandro