Animal Ethics and Behavioral Science: An Overdue Discussion

Abstract

Animal ethics—the field of philosophy concerned with the moral status of animals—is experiencing a momentum unprecedented in its history. Surprisingly, animal behavior science remains on the sidelines, despite producing critical evidence on which many arguments in animal ethics rest. In the present article, we explore the origins of the divide between animal behavior science and animal ethics before considering whether behavioral scientists should concern themselves with it. We finally envision tangible steps that could be taken to bridge the gap, encouraging scientists to be aware of, and to more actively engage with, an ethical revolution that is partly fueled by the evidence they generate.

The Study That Made Rats Jump for Joy, and Then Killed Them

“…[ 2 ] Here we suggest that an overlooked cause of the disconnect between harmful practices, research in animal welfare science, and debates in animal ethics is that scientists themselves fail to engage with the ethical implications of their own work. [ 3 ] This disconnect is clear, and most egregious, when the scientists who generate data on rodent sentience and subjectivity harm or kill them without acknowledging any ethical issues, or offering any justification for this harm. How can we expect society at large to translate updated evidence into ethical changes when science itself fails to openly recognize, let alone change, the contradictions involved in conducting invasive research on sentient animals?…”

“…[ 6 ] We also find these pioneering aspects of the study design worthy of recognition, not to mention the key findings and corresponding insights they generated, which together exemplify how a greater acknowledgment of animal subjectivity can lead to innovative empirical techniques and widen the scope of the hypotheses that scientists of animal behavior can test. [ 3 ]…”

“…Of course, this omission reflects a pervasive and institutionally set, yet false, divide between “objective” scientific inquiry and the value laden‐field of ethics more generally, [ 3 ] as well as a scientific routine where killing rodents is such common practice that alternatives may sometimes fail to be considered. Most tellingly, press coverage of the study emphasizes that hesitation to attribute human‐like mental states to other species is receding, [ 8 ] but this in turn should raise questions about killing animals for scientific research, echoing the ethical questions that recent discoveries about octopus minds raise for octopus farming practices.…”

“…Studies like the one described above have clear and direct implications for pressing moral issues surrounding the welfare and treatment of animals. The scientific community studying animal behavior bears a social responsibility to engage with these implications, [ 3 ] and researchers are at least expected to acknowledge such ethical issues, especially when their own questions and protocols require that animals are harmed and/or killed. Such acknowledgement is particularly expected when research aims to contribute to the knowledge of animals’ mental and emotional states, which directly informs ethical guidelines.…”

“…More specifically, by not openly acknowledging this dissonance, these scientists actually act in an antagonistic manner toward efforts to marry evidence with legislative or political changes for rodents. There is growing recognition that ethical and philosophical debates can have an important and productive impact on science [ 11 ] including those related to the moral standing of animals, [ 3 ] but the absence of recognition of ethical issues in research articles like the one described here shows that engagement between these fields may be overdue.…”