The Fuzzy Boundaries of Animal Experimentation

From accusations of eyelid suturing in infant monkeys to descriptions of the separation of young macaques from their mothers, a recent letter condemning nonhuman primate experiments conducted in Harvard Medical School professor Margaret S. Livingstone’s lab certainly pulls at the heartstrings of its readers.

The authors of the letter — members of Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and Policy Clinic and the University of St Andrews’ Wild Minds Lab — claim that the experiments conducted by Livingstone lacked “ecological validity” and involved “cruel and unnecessary treatment of laboratory animals,” ultimately calling for the National Institutes of Health to revoke funding for her research.

In a debate ruled by pathos, our Board’s first instinct might be to condemn Livingstone’s research practices. At the same time, we feel under-equipped to evaluate the ethics and reasoning that surround experimentation procedures in medical science – a field that is renowned for its rigorous research standards, yet admittedly feels inaccessible to us.

From an official standpoint, it seems unlikely that Livingstone broke any rules. As a researcher at HMS, Livingstone was held to guidelines for animal experimentation that were set and enforced by the school’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, as well as national entities such as the NIH’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Indeed, HMS has strenuously maintained that Livingstone followed all applicable guidelines for the humane and safe care and use of animals, and Livingstone herself responded to earlier criticism of the same nature with an extensive letter defending and explaining her practices of eyelid closure and maternal separation.

The fight between researchers and animal rights activists seems to have stagnated, with neither side — and neither impassioned letter — yielding to the opposing viewpoint. Such complexity invites us to look further at the contested borders of scientific research and ethics, spotlighting a debate around animal experimentation that remains, well, fuzzy.

We are suspicious of the claims that Livingstone’s research “cannot add any meaningful contribution to our knowledge,” as stated by authors of the recent letter to the NIH. As Livingstone’s letter points out, techniques like eyelid closures — as unsettling as they may sound at first — actually helped to pave the way for modern non-invasive methods of studying early visual experiences. Furthermore, Livingstone’s work on maternal attachment could potentially be relevant in developing interventions to help women deal with loss in the aftermath of a stillbirth. We’d also be remiss not to note that Livingstone was awarded the Society for Neuroscience’s Lifetime Achievement Award — a distinct honor that speaks to the enduring caliber and impact of her research.

Still, despite our suspicions about the claims levied against Dr. Livingstone’s work, it is prudent to acknowledge that many prominent scientists and primatologists have raised concerns with her research. Emotional reactions, too, belie ethical concerns that cannot be easily rationalized out of existence.

As such, HMS and Livingstone should not gloss over such accusations. Instead, they should actively work to clarify the methods and merits of this research to the public — particularly when immediate emotional reactions to the subject of animal experimentation have proven, time and time again, to be potent.

From allowing biologists to discover the causes of diseases to helping researchers isolate the side effects of medication, the undeniable reality is that ethical animal experimentation has played a crucial role in some of the modern era’s most important scientific advancements. As such, while we continue to support humane alternatives to animal testing when possible, we believe this recent call for a complete withdrawal of funding from Livingstone’s lab is an inappropriately strong response to the issue at hand.

As a Board, we often prioritize harm mitigation; here, the competing appeals of both perspectives — one pulling at our heartstrings, the other at our budding scientific rationality — makes it difficult to draw a universally unobjectionable ethical line.

But that doesn’t mean that we, or any other party to this discourse, should shy away from the blurry boundaries of animal experimentation. Instead, the recurring nature of conflicts and controversies such as this battle of letters demonstrate the importance of investing in education at the nexus of science and ethics. Armed with a stronger understanding of the nuanced debate surrounding research practices, we hope students like us will be able to articulate more confident and informed opinions surrounding issues such as these in the future.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.