UNGS 2080 Ethics and Fiqh of Contemporary Issues

Section 3 Semester II 2018/19

THE ETHICAL DILEMMA IN THE USE OF ANIMALS FOR

SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION

Siddiqui Zubiya 1818874

Word Count: 7268
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 2
HISTORICAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH .................................................. 4
LIMITATIONS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH ................................................................................ 6
COMMON ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION .............. 7
EXTREMISM FOR THE CAUSE OF ANIMAL PROTECTION ............................................. 10
THE MORAL STATUS OF ANIMALS .................................................................................... 11
THE ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE OF ANIMAL RESEARCH .................................................... 13
EVALUATION: DRAWING THE LINE BETWEEN ETHICAL AND NON-ETHICAL
RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................ 16
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING AND THEIR FEASIBILITY ........... 18
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 20

1
 INTRODUCTION
Animal experimentation, which is defined as the practice of using non-human animals
in scientific experiments, has been considered an essential tool for scientific research
throughout history. It dates back to as early as the time of Aristotle (384-322 BC); he was
one of the first people to perform experiments on animals.1 Unlike modern times – where
experiments are conducted only for the purpose of predicting human behavior or response
to certain stimuli – his experiments served to simply understand the biology of the animals
themselves as he believed it was. In fact, it was not until the late 19th century that animal
research was used to treat human conditions, when Louis Pasteur developed a vaccine for
anthrax and rabies using cattle2. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that little has changed in
terms of our curiosity for conducting experiments on animals. With the rise of
contemporary concepts of moral philosophy, however, our attitudes towards the ethics of
animal research may have transformed. While the reasons for such a transformation of
attitude may be due to various factors, one major factor would be the difference of our
understanding of the moral status of animals, from the initiators of animal research.
Aristotle and Plato influenced the creation of what was called the “Great Chain of Being”
in Medieval Christian beliefs. 3 This hierarchical structure showed that animals were
ranked much below humans, and he argued that although animals are capable of voluntary
movements, it does not count as “action” because the decision to perform the voluntary
act was not made based on rational desire. It therefore entails that animal experimentation,
according to his belief, was permissible and could be done without the consideration that
would be given to a person who has the same moral status as the experimenter. Human
benefit, or the issue of whether animals sense pain or not was out of the question. It is
only after the rise of consequentialism – the doctrine that the morality of an action only
depends on its consequences4 – that we have begun to question such issues. This topic
shall be discussed further in this essay.
Animal experimentation, thus, has brought about vastly conflicting opinions with regards
to its justifiability. Is it ethical to make animals suffer for our own good? If not, is it in
any way better to make humanity suffer due to medical disasters that may have been
prevented by animal experimentation? The questions are endless, and such a paradoxical
problem where neither of the two moral options are unambiguously preferable is called
an ethical dilemma. In order to address this issue, this essay shall discuss examples of
successful and unsuccessful cases of animal experimentation. It will attempt to compare
various views on the moral status of man in comparison to animals. It will also discuss
the Islamic perspective of the issue, including verses from the Quran and Ahadeeth. It is
hoped that an Islamic perspective would help in evaluating the issue. While it may be
challenging to draw a line between what makes animal experimentation ethical at times

1
Hajar R., Animal testing and medicine (Qatar: Heart views: the official journal of the Gulf Heart
Association, 2011), 42.
2
Pearce J., Louis Pasteur and Rabies: a brief note. (United Kingdom: Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery
& Psychiatry, 2002), 82.
3
Kristina G., Ethics and the Great Chain of Being. (United States: University of Tennessee, 2017), 1.
4
Consequentialism. (2019). In OxfordDictionaries.com. Retrieved from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consequentialism

2
and not at others, this essay will attempt to do so. Lastly, it shall look into a few possible
alternatives to animal experimentation and their applicability.

3
 HISTORICAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH

With about 17 million to 22 million animals being used annually in the United States in
research, education, and testing 5 , it is evident that animal experimentation is still a
popular research method in the field of medical research and drug testing. Although
disputable, needless to say, this implies that animal research also produces promising
results in majority of the cases. With that in regard, it is essential to study examples of
animal experimentation that have yielded positive results for the human population. The
given examples only serve as representatives of successful cases. Animal experimentation
has aided research in numerous medical fields, including but not limited to Alzheimer’s
disease, leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, and even psychological issues such as anxiety and
substance abuse.
One of the most significant achievements of animal testing is the development of the polio
vaccine. The polio disease was replicated in monkeys by transferring the extracts from
the spine of a boy who had died from polio.6 This provided scientists with a model that
could be studied in order to develop vaccines. The first polio vaccine that was developed
was the inactivated polio vaccine, produced using the virus grown on the kidneys of
monkeys and was inactivated using formalin. This vaccine was used throughout the
United States, and gave promising results. However, this achievement was accompanied
by a large loss as well – 1500 monkeys for every 1 million inactivated doses. Monkeys
were not the only animals used for quality control of the vaccine. Mice were used in order
to confirm whether or not the virus had been extracted successfully and was being grown
in the culture. Dr John Enders and his colleagues did so by injecting the culture fluid into
mice and monkeys in order to induce paralysis, which is a characteristic specific to polio.
While there have been losses of animal life during the development of the polio vaccine,
the vaccine successfully reduced the number of polio cases worldwide from 350,000 in
1988 to just 480 in 1989. However, such success does not prevent animal rights activists
questioning the morality of performing such experiments. Their arguments shall be
discussed in the next part.
Animal experimentation has also played a crucial role in understanding type 2 diabetes.
Various types of mouse models were used with an attempt to represent the diversity of
diabetic human patients, including obese and non-obese models. They had been
genetically modified to represent various degrees of insulin resistance.7 It is important to
know that these research methods are relatively recent (2012). Animals have, in fact, been
used for diabetes research since the early 19th century, when experimentation on dog

5
Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research (Washington (DC): National
Academies Press (US), 1988), 18.
6
Turner T, Development of the polio vaccine: a historical perspective of Tuskegee University's role in
mass production and distribution of HeLa cells (United States: Journal of health care for the poor and
underserved, 2012), 5-10.
7
King A. J, The use of animal models in diabetes research (United Kingdom: British journal of
pharmacology, 2012), 877-894.

4
pancreas led to the discovery of insulin. 8 Although a large number of animals were
sacrificed for this medical advancement, the discovery does not only save human lives,
but of diabetic animals such as dogs as well. Moreover, animal research has also shown
hope for future advancements; scientists believe that animal testing will be essential in
finding a vaccine for AIDS. In fact, medications for HIV patients could not have been
developed without studying monkeys infected with SIV. 9

8
Rosenfield L, Insulin: Discovery and Controversy (United States: Clinical Chemistry, 2002), 2270.
9
Schmitz, J. E., & Korioth-Schmitz, B, Immunopathogenesis of simian immunodeficiency virus infection
in nonhuman primates. (Netherlands: LWW Journals, 2013), 273-279.

5
 LIMITATIONS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
Despite animal experimentation being proven to be essential for the cure of numerous
diseases, antivivisection groups argue that it may not be helping in medical progress to
much of an extent. Rather, it may be misleading. For instance, what is lesser known about
the method used in developing the polio vaccine is that it did not only involve animal
subjects, but humans as well.10 The study is a prime example of the fact that results from
non-human animal models do not always successfully represent humans. The studies
conducted on monkeys initially indicated that the polio virus is transmitted from the
respiratory tract, rather than the digestive route. Animal rights activists have been using
Dr Albert Sabin’s phrase – the inventor of the polio vaccine: “The work on prevention
(of polio) was long delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease
based on misleading experimental models of disease in monkeys”11 in order to support
their claim that using animals for the research was not only unnecessary, but was also a
hindrance.
It is not uncommon to find discrepancies of results like these between animal models and
their human counterparts. Due to misleading results in animals, prescription drugs often
have unexpected negative side effects when tested on humans. In fact, prescription drugs
kill more than 100,000 people every year in the US. For instance, the drug Vioxx – also
known as Rofecoxib – was developed to treat arthritis, and when it was tested on animals,
it was found that it was safe, and even beneficial for the heart. However, in 2004 it was
withdrawn from the global market after about 140000 users in the US alone experienced
heart attacks and strokes.12
With regards to animal experimentation for AIDS drugs, the British Union for the
Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) argues that the most successful AIDS drugs were not
developed using animals, but by non-animal test-tube methods, involving human cells. In
fact, when the protease inhibitor drug Indinavir was tested on three different species, the
results were significantly different among the three where monkeys absorbed only 14%
of the drug, 23% for rats and 72% for dogs.13Conducting studies on human volunteers
was necessary in order to find the effect of the drug on humans. BUAV concludes that
animal models prove useless for testing of AIDS drugs. Additionally, it is also argued
that AIDS research on primates, who are even considered biological relatives of humans
do not serve as predictable models of human physical response. As both species have
vastly different immune systems, testing AIDS drugs on monkeys, for example, would
be pointless as the results cannot be extrapolated to humans. 14

10
Anderegg et al, A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation (United States: Medical Research
Modernization Committee, 2006), 2.
11
Speaking of Research, Albert Sabin and the monkeys who gave summer back to the children, 2014.
Retrieved 2019, March, 17, from https://speakingofresearch.com/2011/02/01/the-monkeys-who-gave-
summer-back-to-the-children/
12
David M. Haugen, Animal Experimentation (United States: Thomson Gale, 2007), 158.
13
David M. Haugen, Animal Experimentation (United States: Thomson Gale, 2007), 149.
14
David M. Haugen, Animal Experimentation (United States: Thomson Gale, 2007), 115.

6
 COMMON ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ANIMAL
EXPERIMENTATION

The major underlying issue with the ethics of animal research as compared to research
involving humans has less to do with their moral status, but more to do with the fact that
animals cannot be informed of the risks that they are subjected to during research. In other
words, it is not possible to obtain consent of participation from animals. This is due to the
massive power difference between the subject and the experimenter, animals mostly
being under absolute control of the experimenter. Ethical issues aside, this renders the
concept of consent irrelevant.15 While animal rights activists have attempted to argue that
animal experimentation should be entirely abolished, they have been unable to construct
philosophical perspectives on their positions. Therefore, the most influential arguments
related to animal experimentation have been the utilitarian argument and the rights
argument.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist concept, as mentioned earlier, which means that its
basic focus is on the consequence of the action, rather than the morality of the action
itself. In utilitarian terms, an ethical conduct would be defined as the act that results in
greatest pleasure, relevant to the pain for majority of people. In such a concept, the
pleasure and pain of every person is considered equal in terms of value. Interestingly, this
concept has been used for the support as well as for the undermining of animal
experimentation. Peter Singer, in his book Animal Liberation 16 argued that the
consideration of the greatest good must also be extended to non-human animals. For
utilitarianism to work, the only condition is for the being to have sentient capacities. His
argument was based on the principle of equality, according to which there is no basis for
elevating the interests of humans above animals, as they have equal interest in avoiding
pain and suffering. This viewpoint contained various difficulties, such as the question of
where to draw the line between species that have the capabilities to suffer and those who
do not. It also did not consider the qualitative difference of pain between species. On the
other hand, many researches use the utilitarian concept in cost-benefit terms. They state
that since the benefits of animal research clearly outweigh the costs imposed on the
animals, using them for experimentation is ethical as it serves for the greater good. This
perspective evidently neglects the “principle of equality” mentioned by Singer, and
considers humans as being superior to animals due to the significant differences between
intellectual capabilities. While this view has received criticisms due to its hidden
assumptions, it is certainly the most popular argument of the majority of animal research
supporters.

15
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
259.
16
Singer, P., Animal Liberation (United States: HarperCollins, 1975), 17.

7
The rights argument is vastly different from utilitarianism in the sense that it assumes that
animals possess certain rights in terms of their “inherent value”.17 This leads to the belief
that both humans and animals have value that is equal in measure that entitles them to a
number of fundamental rights such as moral consideration. In other words, it follows that
animals are entitled to not being used for research even if it has direct benefits for humans.
This argument therefore suggests that since animals and humans are of equal value, and
are entitled to the same fundamental rights, animal research must be abolished. Animals
are not to be treated as renewable resources, but as beings that have rights.
Although the utilitarian and rights-based arguments may apparently seem different, they
have common features, and lead majorly to the same conclusion – that animal research
must be abolished. Both views state that humans and animals have similarities that make
it irrational to make one superior over the other, and also disregards the importance of
apparent differences such as intelligence. While these two philosophical viewpoints
represent large groups of anti-vivisectionists, there are also more general arguments
against animal research. Animal rights activists often cite controversial cases of animal
experiments to accuse scientists of inflicting pain and suffering over animals in the
laboratory. For example, Edward Taub18 was infamously accused of using 17 monkeys
for neurological experimentation, where they were restrained and wounded – most of
which were self-inflicted. It is important to know, however, that although Taub’s
experimental method was what received the most criticism from the public, it was his
abusive husbandry practices that he was charged against (such as inadequate care,
feeding, and housing of the monkeys)19.
Besides this example, other common issues against animal research include the lack of
apparent value in some forms of studies, the frequent disparity between findings from
animals and that of humans, etc. There have also been political issues such as that the
research profession presents a “sanitized and misleading picture of the animal research
enterprise”. This includes the absence of descriptions of animal suffering in textbooks,
which are likely to be the most basic media that would give exposure to students of animal
experimentation. 20
Nevertheless, the entire abolition of animal experimentation is rather far-fetched, at least
in a society where researchers and supporters of animal research are becoming more
assertive with their rebuttals of the arguments against animal research. Their arguments
can be summarized into three basic points. Firstly, humans have benefited greatly from
animal research. Secondly, researches are sensitive to animal pain and use procedures that
ensure the humane treatment of animals. Thirdly, the occurrence of animal research has

17
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
260.
18
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
254.
19
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
261.
20
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
262.

8
decreased as researchers have developed alternatives. In essence, these arguments reflect
the three R’s principle: replacement, reduction and refinement.21 Specific arguments have
also been raised in support of animal research. Using animals provides practical
advantage, as it is easier to control and maintain manipulated experiences or genetic
makeup in animal groups as compared to humans. As developmental changes are rapid,
long term changes can be observed with greater ease. As lifespans of various species are
relatively short, they can be considered “renewable”, although this jargon may trigger
offense. A more persuasive argument for animal research, however, is that animal
research has benefited not only humans, but animals as well. Animal rights activists often
leave these benefits unrecognized. It must be noted that behavioral research in animals
has helped in improving the environment of animals held captive for research, which
helps reduce suffering during their research experience. As mentioned earlier, without
animal experimentation, developments in medical procedures would have been, if not
impossible, extremely delayed. Veterinary procedures are no exception. Vaccines for
diseases such as rabies and feline leukemia, and captive breeding programs that have
saved animals from the brink of extinction are all products of animal research.22

21
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
264.
22
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
266.

9
 EXTREMISM FOR THE CAUSE OF ANIMAL PROTECTION
In order to address the issue of animal rights extremism, it is important to understand the
difference between the goals of animal rights activists and animal welfare groups. Animal
welfare groups’ concerns only relate to issues such as laboratory conditions and
minimizing the number of animals involved in research. They do not condemn the use of
animals for research, but are only concerned with their ‘husbandry’. On the other hand,
animal rights activists are those who maintain that animals and humans have equal rights
and they must therefore not be used as laboratory subjects at all. As a simple example, in
the case of Edward Taub, the public had the mindset of an activist, while the law was
more inclined towards the animal welfare movement as Taub was only charged for the
lack of husbandry. However, this does not entail that all animal rights activists are
extremists.
Animal rights activists such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) or
the followers of such groups may choose to follow a vegan lifestyle, or choose to avoid
products that have been tested on animals. However, these acts are not extremist as they
do not break the law. Although it is challenging to define “extremism” in this context,
some believe that it is comparable to terrorism.23 An example of such an activist group is
the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), whose campaigns were targeted solely at
the shutdown of Huntingdon Life Sciences – one of the largest research organizations in
England that often conducted animal testing. SHAC’s attacks included threatening with
violence, posting real and fake explosive devices to offices and houses, and continuously
harassing HLS employees and their families. Although the campaign ended in 2014 upon
the arrest of the attackers, the issue of animal rights extremism still continues. The Animal
Liberation Front, for example, has admitted to setting fire to two trucks that belonged to
Harlan Laboratories in West Mississauga in 2015. Such extremism, unfortunately is a
product of their irrational sense of justice and their tactical use of intimidation, and can
only be combated by increasing public awareness of animal research procedures.24
Other forms of extremism could include protests conducted by PETA. They are known
for their radical methods of gaining public attention – often involving women stripped
naked. A recent protest against animal research involved PETA activists showing up at
the graduation ceremony of Texas A&M University in order to protest against their dog
tests. The ethics of such forms of protest are difficult to determine. Is it rational to degrade
our morality in order to fight for animals? Are we achieving the so called “greater good”
by exploiting women in order to combat animal cruelty? Such questions call for an
explanation for how we define the moral status of animals, which should aid in answering
whether animal experimentation or AR extremism is morally justified.

23
Emma L. Chandler, (2017). Animal Rights Extremism and the Use of Intimidation (MPhil Thesis,
University of Surrey). Retrieved from
http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/813858/1/Emma%20Chandler%20MPhil%20Thesis.pdf.
24
Upton, Andrew, In Testing Times: Conducting an Ethnographic Study of UK Animal Rights Protesters
(United Kingdom: Sociological Research Online, 2011), Retrieved from
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/4/1.html.

10
 THE MORAL STATUS OF ANIMALS
Arguments that support or refute animal research often talk about the “morality” of using
animals. Historically, scholars have distinguished humans from animals on various
criteria, such as the existence of a soul, presence of rationality, and so on. However, what
we fail to question is why the presence or absence of these traits make a difference to our
moral concern. Figuring out the moral status of animals in comparison to humans is the
central issue in determining what forms of research are ethical and what are not, as we
now know that total abolition is merely a utopian concept. Western moral philosophy has
little consensus in regards to this. Nevertheless, we shall look into the issue of rationality,
language and pain before tackling it from an Islamic point of view in the next section.
Man’s dominion over animals, or our “moral supremacy” originates from the fact that
humans are at the top of the natural food-chain. However, this should not entail that
humans have the right to treat the creatures beneath in any way we desire. From a western
evolutionary point of view, there must however, be a reason that we are on the top of the
food chain. This is where the argument of intelligence comes in. Are we superior because
of our intelligence? This in turn leads to the acceptance of what we call “might makes
right”25. If that is the criteria for dropping the moral status of animals to below humans,
then the issue of morality need not be discussed at all. However, “might makes right” is
not generally accepted in circumstances that involve only human-to-human relationships.
Therefore, moral supremacy must not be a reason to exclude animals from our moral
concerns.
A more morally relevant argument is the concept of pleasure and pain, as discussed by
Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation.26 When pleasure and pain are considered as
the basic requirement for moral consideration, it becomes impossible to disregard the
moral rights of animals. We have sound neurological evidence that animals have a very
similar nervous system compared to that of humans and therefore can assert that they feel
pain. 27 Although some scientists deny that animals feel pain, while others argue that
animal pain is not really like that of humans, they represent a meagre minority. It is also
irrational to argue that animal pain is greatly different from humans, when we use animals
to study pain and extrapolate the results to humans. We may also argue that since animals
cannot communicate, we do not know the quality of pain they feel. But it is worth noting
that most expressions of pain in both humans and non-humans are non-linguistic. When
understanding human needs and interests, we therefore look at the natural signs or
response, and then to linguistic communication. Both act as evidence of human needs and
interest, so it makes little sense to say that animal needs and interests cannot be
understood just through their natural signs.

25
Bernard E. Rollin, Animal Rights and Human Morality (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), 8.
26
Singer, P., Animal Liberation (United States: HarperCollins, 1975), 15.
27
Sneddon, Lynne & Elwood, Robert & A Adamo, Shelley & Leach, Matthew, Defining and assessing
animal pain (United Kingdom: Animal Behaviour, 2014) 201-212.

11
Having discussed the rights of animals to moral consideration, we look at an essential
question of whether or not an animal’s right to life is absolute. Assuming that being alive
is what makes animals moral objects, and that all other interests and needs exist to stay
alive, animals do have the right to life. However, this does not suggest that this right is
absolute. (With the exception minority groups such as Jainists in India who so claim that
the right to animal life is absolute.) An absolute right would mean that its violation would
be wrong under all circumstances and at all costs.28 If we apply this for humans, although
we know that the right to life is very basic, but not absolute. It is usually considered
morally acceptable if a person kills another in self-defense, such as killing a terrorist in
war. The same applies for animals. This means that the right to live for an animal can
only be abridged under the gravest of circumstances. It would be wrong to poison pest
animals who feed on garden crops when they can be relocated to another area, but it would
not be immoral to kill a venomous snake that may harm if picked up hastily without
proper care. This leads to the consensus that killing animals is acceptable only when there
are no alternatives available at that a moment of crisis. This consensus therefore also
supports arguments for vegetarianism – that taking the lives of animal for food is morally
unjustifiable and unnecessary. The simple desire or craving for meat does not serve as a
satisfactory argument for violating an animal’s right to live.

28
Bernard E. Rollin, Animal Rights and Human Morality (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), 48.

12
 THE ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE OF ANIMAL RESEARCH

Most of the arguments covered in this essay so far were from the perspectives of western
scholars and philosophers. These arguments vary vastly in their ideas and often include
loopholes and contradictions. While they do provide a ground for fruitful discussion, they
provide very little consensus on the issue. It is therefore necessary to look at the issue
from an Islamic point of view in order to understand what the Divine law asks for. This
section shall attempt to discuss the status of animals in Islam, and Islamic rulings and
Fiqh related to the issue of animal experimentation, for which we shall look into evidence
from the Quran and Sunnah, and the views of Muslim jurists.

Firstly, it is important to understand the status of animals in Islam. In Surah Al-An’aam,

Allah mentions, “And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with
its wings except [that they are] communities like you.”(Quran 6:38) From this ayah, we
know that all animals belong to communities, and live a social life just like humans. In
another ayah, Allah elaborates, “Allah has created every [living] creature from water.
And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two
legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah
is over all things competent.” (Quran 24:45) The description of those that move on their
bellies represents creatures such as worms and reptiles, and those that walk on two legs
refer to birds and humans. In other words, physically, humans are equal to all other types
of animals as we have been put together with them in the ayah. According to Al-Hafiz
B.A. Masri, the reason why humans have been put together with other species throughout
various ayahs in the Quran is because “even animals possess a psyche.” According to
evidence from the Quran, we know that although the psyche of animals is much lower
than that of humans, it is much more than just instinct and intuition. In the following ayah,
for instance, we are told that animals are conscious of their Creator, and they therefore
show praise and worship of Allah: “Seest thou not that it is Allah Whose praise all beings
in the heavens and on earth do celebrate, and the birds (of the air) with wings outspread?
Each one knows its own (mode of) prayer and praise, and Allah knows well all that they
do.” (Quran 24:41). As they individually worship Allah, it follows that they act
voluntarily and consciously. Such an act cannot be performed by mere instinct and
intuition.29

This difference in the level of psyche, however, is what makes man distinct from other
animals. It is the difference in spiritual volition, or “Taqwah”. This gives man a greater
balance between the unconscious and conscious mind, and therefore greater freedom of
choice. We have the ability to determine how things are and how they should be, and
differentiate from the good and the evil, but animals do not.30

29
Al-Hafiz B. A. Masri, Animal Experimentation: The Muslim Viewpoint On Animal Testing And Islam
(Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press, 1986), 2.
30
Al-Hafiz B. A. Masri, Animal Experimentation: The Muslim Viewpoint On Animal Testing And Islam
(Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press, 1986), 4.

13
Secondly, it is important to note that apart from consumption, Allah has clearly permitted
the use of animals for other human benefits: It is God who provided for you all manner
of livestock, that you may ride on some of them and from some you may derive your food.
And other uses in them for you to satisfy your heart's desires. It is on them, as on ships,
that you make your journeys. (Quran 40:79-80). Regardless, this ayah alone does not serve
as enough evidence for the permissibility of animal experimentation, since it does not
explicitly mention that nature of usage. On the other hand, various scholars have referred
to the following hadith to argue against animal experimentation: Verily, Allah has
prescribed excellence in everything. If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you
slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his
animal feels no pain. (Sahih Muslim 021:4810) Looking at the previously mentioned
hadith about the permissibility of using animals for our benefit, along with the instruction
in this hadith to kill in the best manner, if necessary, we know that the use of animals for
human benefit is permissible so long as the animal does not suffer in the process.
Even during the pre-Islamic period, when the pagans inflicted pain to animals through
their superstitious acts, Allah revealed in Surah Al-Maidah, It was not Allah who
instituted (superstitions like those of) a slit-ear she-camel, or a she-camel let loose for
free pasture, or idol sacrifices for twin-births in animals, or stallion-camels freed from
work: It is blasphemers who invent a lie against Allah. but most of them lack wisdom.
(Quran 5:103). This ayah was revealed in condemnation of pagan practices of slitting the
ears of she-camels, ewes and nanny goats that gave birth to five young ones, and the last
of which was a male. In ch4 v118, Allah also reveals that such acts are those that Satan
had aided. It is needless to explain further that Allah the Almighty has strictly prohibited
cruelty against animals.

Additionally, one may argue about the ethics of animal experimentation by comparing it
to the slaughtering of animals for food, as both result in the death of the animal. With
regards to this, Allah has mentioned: “Oh believers! Eat what We have provided for you
of lawful and good things, and give thanks for Allah's favour, if it is He whom you serve”
(Quran 2:172; 16:114). According to this ayah, Allah has commanded mankind to eat
what he has made lawful, and this includes all animals except which He has forbidden.
Most anti-vivisection groups resort to vegetarianism, which has caused many of them to
believe that non-vegeterian Muslims are pro-animal research. As to vegetarianism
however, some Muslim scholars argue against it, as vegetarianism would be making
haram of what is made lawful to us, which is impermissible. “O you who have believed,
do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress.
Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” (Quran 5:87). However, according to a story
narrated by Al-Nasaai, choosing to eat or not to eat animals depends on whether one does
it because of personal likes and dislikes – in which case vegetarianism is mubah –, or as
a form of worship, in which case the act becomes haram. Unlike western philosophical
perspectives on animal experimentation, it is quite clear that the issue of killing animals
for their meat is distinct from using them for experimentation. Therefore, further
discussion of the issue of vegetarianism is beyond the scope of this essay.

The last and most important factor in this issue is the concept of predestination or “taqdir”.
In Islam, although we believe that it is possible for animals to adapt to certain
environments by gradually changing anatomical structure, or by developing abilities such

14
as camouflaging, there are unalterable factors in nature. For example, species cannot
transgress beyond the limit set by the divine law, and this is what is known as
predestination. This helps in determining the role of humans towards animals. Taqdir in
its literal sense is the pre-fixation of something, including capability, function etc. Within
these pre-fixed limits, humans may change conditions for the better, such as avoiding
suffering. Killing animals for research, or altering their biological characteristics by drug
testing, for example holds very little difference from attempting to transgress their
predestination, and this is against the teachings of Islam.31

31
Al-Hafiz B. A. Masri, Animal Experimentation: The Muslim Viewpoint On Animal Testing And Islam
(Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press, 1986), 5.

15
 EVALUATION: DRAWING THE LINE BETWEEN ETHICAL AND
NON-ETHICAL RESEARCH

Having discussed the advantages, disadvantages, moral implications and the Islamic
perspective of this issue, we have begun to approach a conclusion that animal
experimentation is more unethical than ethical. However, we also know that the total
abolition of animal research is too far-fetched to be applicable in real life. So one question
remains: is it possible to distinguish between ethical and non-ethical methodology of
animal research? In order to tackle this issue, it must be reviewed considering the
perspectives of Western scholars, and then the Islamic perspective.
Firstly, the utilitarian argument, as discussed earlier, does not support animal
experimentation as they have sentient capacities, and are therefore equal to humans. The
argument begins to fall apart when we attempt to differentiate between which animals
sense pain and which do not32. While it is commonly argued that invertebrates do not feel
pain, research has shown that some of them may.33 If it were possible to determine which
ones do not feel pain, however, would experimenting on them be morally acceptable?
According to the utilitarian argument, it would be, since in that case humans would be
superior to non-sentient animals. However, as for the rights argument, all animals would
have the same inherent value, so pain would make no difference. It is worth noticing that
the rights argument is nearly in line with the Islamic point of view. If we are to assume
that all animals have equal value as humans, according to the rights argument, animal
experiments must be abolished at all costs. Since that is not a viable option, we are once
again left with a dilemma, where experimenting on animals is a necessity, but treating
them as mere objects of human use is unacceptable. Rollin34 argues that the significance
of a piece of research may be weighed using the utilitarian argument, and if the infliction
of pain is unavoidable – such as infecting the animal with a disease – then the animal may
be given analgesics in order to comply with the rights argument.
However, the consequences of infecting with a disease are not predictable (which is why
the experiment is being conducted in the first place), so the analgesics are only a
“remedy”. The animal does have to go through pain during the process, and will only be
given medicine if pain can successfully be detected. Therefore it is difficult to objectively
declare that such a method is ethical. Therefore the Western ideas regarding animal
experimentation provide little conclusion in this aspect. Let us return to the Islamic
perspective. It was discussed earlier that inflicting pain to animals is strictly prohibited.
However, Allah does not prohibit all use of animals in science, as his instructions are to
not inflict pain. Therefore, experimentation that is painless is permissible. As long as an
anaesthetic is used, and the animal is not disfigured, the researcher should not be accused

32
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
261.
33
Robert Elwood, Pain and Suffering in Invertebrates? (United Kingdom: National Research Council,
Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, 2011), 181.
34
Bernard E. Rollin, Animal Rights and Human Morality (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), 95.

16
of maltreatment of the animal. We have also discussed about the animals’ right of life,
and concluded that it is not absolute. However, killing an animal is equal to committing
a suicidal act on behalf of the animal that does not have a freedom of choice to wilfully
terminate its own life.35 Whether or not the animal dies with pain, the sinfulness of the
killing would solely depend on the person’s intention. Therefore, in evaluation, animal
experimentation is permissible so long as the animal does not experience pain, or is
disfigured. This means that experiments that may inflict pain must be conducted in the
state of unconsciousness and insensitivity to pain.36 The experiment must also not cause
damage to the anatomy and psychological state of the animal. If such methods are
employed with transparency to the public, it is also likely to at least reduce the intensity
of animal rights extremism, and additional issues caused due to it because the animal
would be experiencing minimal pain during the procedure and would not have sustained
permanent damage.

35
Al-Hafiz B. A. Masri, Animal Experimentation: The Muslim Viewpoint On Animal Testing And Islam
(Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press, 1986), 13.
36
Rahman S. A., Religion and Animal Welfare-An Islamic Perspective (Bangalore, India: Animals: an
open access journal from MDPI, 2017), 11.

17
 POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING AND THEIR
FEASIBILITY
Returning to the three R’s principle by Russell and Burch 37 as mentioned earlier –
replacement, reduction and refinement – replacement yet remains for discussion.
Although we have defined “ethical” animal testing, not all form of medical research can
be conducted painlessly on animals, or without permanently damaging parts of their body.
Therefore, it is essential to look for alternatives for animal research.
One method of entirely eliminating the use of animals in research is the Ames test, as
described by Bruce Ames and his group in the early 1970s.38 It is a bacterial test for
identifying carcinogens that tests for mutagenicity in bacteria. Firstly, bacterial assays are
used, and are followed by testing the chemical on mammalian cells in vitro. This is the
Ames test. It may or may not be followed by an in vivo study to assess the accuracy of
the first test, and test whether or not the mutagenicity detected in the first stage is
expressed in the whole animal or not. Usually, if the result for the in vitro test is negative,
it is considered enough to indicate lack of mutagenicity. However, a positive result is not
considered as sufficient indication of a mutagenic hazard because it could be a misleading
positive. In this case, the in vivo testing may be inevitable. This two-step method of testing
is also the most dominant method, although it differs from one regulatory authority to
another. It is also difficult to assert that such bacteria-based testing would entirely replace
animal research. Animal care being very costly, the research industry is constantly
seeking methods that do not involve animals. Tissue and organ culture, for example are
therefore very commonly used in place of animals in a large number of research areas. 39
Some argue that computers should be able to replace animals, because it should be able
to model animals such as mice. However, needless to say, that is impossible – at least as
of now. Computers essentially only perform calculations, and must be pre-programmed
to perform said calculations. We would need to have enough knowledge about mice such
as its molecular biology and physiology in order to model it, and by the time we do, we
would not need such a model for experimentation. In the case of behavioral sciences,
however, researchers have used mathematical simulations, mechanical models and
anthropomorphic dummies, in place of animals. Behavioral scientists also consider using
human volunteers instead of animals as it is more practical to set limits and consent with
human subjects. While some researchers believe that using “lower animals” for research
is permissible as they do not sense pain nor do they suffer. For example, Drosophila fruit
flies are very commonly used in scientific research, because of its inability to sense pain,

37
Bernard E. Rollin, Animal Rights and Human Morality (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), 104.
38
Romualdo Benigni, Cecilia Bossa, Alternative strategies for carcinogenicity assessment: an efficient
and simplified approach based on in vitro mutagenicity and cell transformation assays (United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press, 2011), 455.
39
Bernard E. Rollin, Animal Rights and Human Morality (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), 104.

18
accelerated lifespan and rapid breeding. 40 However, this is where the line becomes
blurred once again. It is normally not morally questionable to use fruit flies or bacteria
for research, but all organisms are, in terms of value, equal to others in the eyes of Allah,
as they all worship Him. In the end, it boils down to one’s intentions for the
experimentation.

40
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
273

19
 CONCLUSION

Upon discussion of various perspectives towards animal experimentation, it has become

somewhat clear that the dilemma of using animals in experiments is less about whether
we should or should not use them in research, but how we use them. This is because while
animal experimentation does often produce results that saves human lives, it comes at a
great cost of animal lives. Additionally, these results only arise after numerous failures –
all tested on animals. However, this does not mean that we abolish animal
experimentation entirely. Such an act would mean to risk human lives that could have
been saved, and to ignore health crises that could have been solved by from medication
animal research. However, the utilitarian and the rights view of this issue looks at animals
much too objectively, and results in a rather ambiguous conclusion. Even though the
rights argument says that animals have fundamental rights and value, so should not be
used for human good, scholars also conclude that animal experimentation is permissible
as long as medication is given later on.
However, the best we can do is to reduce, refine and replace wherever possible. Reducing
using the Deichmann and Leblanc method for drug safety evaluation, for example
involves only six animals, as opposed to the LD50 method that involves between sixty to
one hundred animals.41 Refinement would of course include the reduction of pain using
anesthetics, and by maintaining health and hygiene conditions for the animals being
tested. Of course, such regulations have already been set up by organizations such as the
USDA.42 As an addition to the refinement element of the three R’s, some organizations
have also created a pain scale for animal research that helps to measure the degree of
invasiveness in order to set a line between ethical and unethical experiments. The only
issue is that this scale only prohibits severe pain and permits moderate pain that would
result from surgery recovery.
Lastly, looking at the Islamic perspective we have somehow concluded that in order to
solve this ethical dilemma, it is important to understand that humans have been created
as vicegerents of Allah on earth, "He [God] it is who made you vicegerents on earth; / So
he who disavows, will bear its consequences.”(Quran 35:39) Man must develop divine
attributes, such as compassion, love, mercy, justice etc. in order to establish Allah’s
kingdom on earth in harmony with the laws of nature. Allah’s kingdom does not only
encompass humans, but all creatures, including animals and insects so it therefore our
responsibility to be compassionate to other creatures on earth. Although they have been
created for the benefit of man, they are a trust from Allah. They can only be used for
research as long as they suffer from minimal pain, and it is strongly predicted that doing
so will result in great benefit for humanity and improve quality of life so long as it does
not reach the extent of extravagance.43 Allah knows best.

41
Bernard E. Rollin, Animal Rights and Human Morality (New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), 104.
42
Kimmel J. A., Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research (United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, 2007),
269.
43
Al-Hafiz B. A. Masri, Animal Experimentation: The Muslim Viewpoint On Animal Testing And Islam
(Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press, 1986), 13.

20
 REFERENCES

1. Al-Hafiz B. A. Masri. 1986, Animal Experimentation: The Muslim Viewpoint

On Animal Testing And Islam, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, USA.

2. Anderegg et al. 2006, A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation, Medical

Research Modernization Committee, United States.

3. Bernard E. Rollin. 1981, Animal Rights and Human Morality, Prometheus

Books, New York, USA.

4. Consequentialism. 2019, In OxfordDictionaries.com. Retrieved from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consequentialism

5. David M. Haugen. 2007, Animal Experimentation, Thomson Gale, USA.

6. Emma L. Chandler. 2017, Animal Rights Extremism and the Use of

Intimidation, University of Surrey, United Kingdom. Retrieved from
http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/813858/1/Emma%20Chandler%20MPhil%20Thesis.pd
f.

7. Hajar R. 2011, Animal testing and medicine, Heart views: the official journal of
the Gulf Heart Association, Qatar.

8. Kimmel J. A. 2007, Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research, Blackwell

Publishing, United Kingdom.

9. King A. J. 2012, The use of animal models in diabetes research, British journal
of pharmacology, United Kingdom.

10. Kristina Gehrman. 2017, Ethics and the Great Chain of Being, University of
Tennessee, USA.

11. Pearce J. 2002, Louis Pasteur and Rabies: a brief note, Journal of Neurology,
Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, United Kingdom.

12. Rahman S. A. 2017, Religion and Animal Welfare-An Islamic Perspective,

Animals: an open access journal from MDPI, Bangalore, India.

13. Robert Elwood. 2011, Pain and Suffering in Invertebrates?, National Research
Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, United Kingdom

14. Romualdo Benigni, Cecilia Bossa. 2011, Alternative strategies for

carcinogenicity assessment: an efficient and simplified approach based on in
vitro mutagenicity and cell transformation assays, Oxford University Press,
United Kingdom.

21
15. Rosenfield L. 2002, Insulin: Discovery and Controversy, Clinical Chemistry,
United States.

16. Schmitz, J. E. & Korioth-Schmitz B. 2013, Immunopathogenesis of simian

immunodeficiency virus infection in nonhuman primates, LWW Journals,
Netherlands.

17. Singer, P. 1975, Animal Liberation, HarperCollins, United States.

18. Sneddon, Lynne & Elwood, Robert & A Adamo, Shelley & Leach, Matthew.
2014, Defining and assessing animal pain, Animal Behaviour, United Kingdom.

19. Speaking of Research. 2014, Albert Sabin and the monkeys who gave summer
back to the children. Retrieved 2019, March, 17, from
https://speakingofresearch.com/2011/02/01/the-monkeys-who-gave-summer-
back-to-the-children/

20. Turner T. 2012, Development of the polio vaccine: a historical perspective of

Tuskegee University's role in mass production and distribution of HeLa cells,
Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, United States.

21. Upton, Andrew. 2011 In Testing Times: Conducting an Ethnographic Study of

UK Animal Rights Protesters, Sociological Research Online, United Kingdom.
Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/4/1.html.

22. Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research

(Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 1988), 18.

22