26. Should We Allow Curiosity to Kill the Cat?

As we can see, scientific experiments and animal protection can conflict with each other. We seem to have no other choice but to sacrifice one for the other. But which is a more sensible choice—to hold back our curiosity for the sake of animal protection or to kill animals for the benefit of science? Here Phil Gates argues for a way out of this dilemma.

What would you say to your children if you caught them cutting pieces off butterflies' wings to see how it affected their ability to fly? Killing insect pests is fair enough, but most of us would feel unhappy about our children mutilating animals for curiosity's sake.

What, then, would you say if you discovered that scientists were doing the same thing—not in the interests of medical or agricultural research, but to satisfy their curiosity? They do and I believe it's time society began to ask if we can justify it.

I recently came across some research that investigated the way penguins moved. Those of you who watched TV wildlife documentaries will know that penguins waddle when snow is hard and toboggan on their bellies when it's soft. The scientists wanted to know what made the penguins choose between the two alternatives.

First they dragged an anaesthetised penguin behind a spring balance to measure how much flipper power it would need to toboggan through the snow. Then they calculated how far its feet sank in soft snow so they could compare the energy expended while sliding with the effort needed to walk.

The final question concerned the tradeoff between wear and tear on feathers and the benefits of tobogganing. The only way to do this was to kill the penguin and store it in the snow between periods of dragging its corpse behind the spring balance.

The conclusions the scientists drew from their research were very similar to those that the average TV viewer might have drawn—depending on snow conditions, penguins choose the method of movement that uses least energy, but tobogganing wears out their feathers, so they need to care for their feathers more often.

I have no doubt that the scientists went through a great deal of soul-searching before they killed the penguin. Their work provided hard scientific proof for hypotheses about the way these flightless birds move in the Antarctic environment. It was good science, conducted on our behalf in the best traditions of the discipline for a sound motive—the advancement of human knowledge—but it makes me feel uneasy.

The children and the scientists were engaged in the same pursuit—satisfying their curiosity about how certain creatures move. The child's motive is selfish, while the scientist is trained and paid by society to satisfy our collective inquisitive tendencies and add to the sum of human knowledge.

Whose motives are most worthy—those of the child or the scientist? The child's methods might be unscientific, but the curiosity that drives him or her is the most valuable asset a researcher can possess and is in the best traditions of pure science. Scientists may have similar motives, but they can also be influenced by the need to advance a career, secure grants and develop a reputation in a field of study.

Science allows us to adopt dual standards in our attitude to animal welfare. We pay qualified researchers to conduct animal experiments that would land the rest of us in jail if we performed them on the family pet. Society sets limits on how animals can be treated in medical or agricultural research, based on the delicate balance between the practical value of the information sought and the pain and suffering inflicted. In my opinion that's reasonable, but killing or mutilating animals for pure intellectual curiosity is not.

If we are to develop a relationship with our environment that will allow us to save it from destruction, we must recognise that other forms of life did not evolve merely for our benefit. I believe that biological and environmental ethics should be included in all biological science courses, in the same way that ethics are an integral part of medical courses. Biologists should be trained to ask themselves, on our behalf, whether the satisfaction of our collective curiosity justifies killing or mutilating an animal.

Most important, I think all scientific research papers should carry a short preface that justifies the research, in language that the average person can understand. This preface should balance the intellectual and the physical benefits to humanity against the effects on the environment and the animals used. If experiments are being conducted on our behalf, we should be aware of the purpose and the price. This would go a long way towards dispelling fears that scientists are not accountable for their actions. It would also strengthen a belief within the scientific community that its work should be for the benefit of all life on this planet, not just humans.

From Australian Geographic,

January-March 1995.