ANIMALS, NATURE, AND ETHICS

Recently, Howard (1993, Journal of Mammalogy, 74:234-235) argued for the defensibility of research on nonhuman animals (hereafter animals). Unfortunately, his essay is unnecessarily combative, lacking in detail, unbalanced, and poorly argued. Howard (1993) unfairly and mistakenly stereotypes as biologically naive anyone who rejects his position that nature's poor treatment of wild animals justifies animal research. Those interested in the morality of animal research deserve better guidance than what Howard (1993) provides. Here, we analyze Howard's (1993) claims and their implications, present relevant literature on ethics and animals, and conclude that much work remains to be done to understand and properly appreciate the moral dimensions of animal research. The questions raised about uses of animals by humans in various activities, including research, are difficult and demand careful interdisciplinary analysis. Simple answers should not be expected. We explore some of the issues and make them accessible to a wide audience, including practicing scientists.