Prof. Dario L. Ringach
On Tuesday evening, I attended a debate on the morality of vivisection between Prof. Gary Francione and Prof. Dario Ringach. Francione is an animal rights advocate, while Ringach is a vivisector. Judging from the audience Q&A at the end, the audience seemed equally divided between the two camps. Throughout the debate and the Q&A, the topic of the burning house came up repeatedly. Namely, if you had a chance to save either a human baby or a mouse from a burning house, which would you choose?
Ringach seemed to feel triumphant that Francione had once written that he would choose the human, but no matter how many times Francione explained that saving X over Y from a burning house doesn't mean it's OK to use Y in biomedical experiments, Ringach thought that Francione's explanation was unsatisfactory.
So during the audience Q&A, I raised my hand.
I stated that I would save the human from the burning house because I have an irrational, emotional attachment to my fellow humans, but the burning house is irrelevant. In the burning house scenario, one must choose to save one or the other. But in vivisection, we can save both by rejecting vivisection and redirecting those resources to other ways of saving human lives. For example, Francione pointed out that the most cost-effective way to combat AIDS would be condom distribution, needle distribution, and public education on safe sex. Resources could also be directed toward experiments on consenting humans and in vitro reserach, like human cell culture and human tissue culture research, which are no less valid, and possibly more valid, than research on nonhuman animals.
Ringach facetiously responded that he supports vivisection because he also has an irrational, emotional attachment to his fellow humans. So I approached him after the debate to continue the conversation.
When I told Ringach that rejecting vivisection would save both people and animals, he disagreed and cited a poll in which 92% of scientists believed that animal research is necessary for advancements in biomendical science. Ringach stated that certain types of experiments, such as those on brain function, cannot be done on consenting humans, cell cultures or tissue cultures. I told him that one can always conceive of experiments that can be done only on live animals, but redirecting resources toward non-animal research will result in different breakthroughs. Rejecting vivisection does not mean that science stands still, and in fact, there is much biomedical research going on right now that does not involve live nonhuman animals. Ringach asked me if a researcher wanted to test a new nanoparticle that fights cancer, how would he test it? I said I was sure that there are plenty of people with cancer right now, who would volunteer for that study, with fully informed consent. Ringach stated that scientists would not be allowed to test something on people that had never been tested on animals, but if the law were different, and the human participants fully understood the risks, he would agree with using human volunteers for that study.
Ringach also stated that he and his children have been threatened by animal activists, and he lives with a guard. Most vivisectors do not speak out because they fear being targeted, but since he is already a target, he is speaking out. He said that he wishes more animal activists would condemn the violence, and the reason he agreed to the debate with Francione is because Francione has publicly condemned violent tactics.
Very few animal activists condone violence, and even fewer engage in it. I'm not talking about civil disobedience or even liberating animals; when I refer to violent tactics, I'm referring to people who physically harm or threaten physical harm against people they disagree with, whether they are vivisectors or abortion doctors. While I do understand the frustration that many activists feel, and have felt frustrated many times myself, I am staunchly opposed to using violent tactics.
I think Ringach's views are unusual compared with other vivisectors. During the debate, he didn't have a problem with experimenting on a nonconsenting human in a persistent vegetative state if that person had no relationships to people who would object. He also didn't even have a problem with someone saving their dog instead of their father from the burning house if the father had Alzheimer's and no longer recognized anyone.
I'm sure that each side feels that their advocate won the debate and that the other side was unconvincing. But I still don't understand how anyone can think that saving a human baby over a mouse from a burning building means that it's OK to use the mouse in medical experiments.
Read more about the Francione/Ringach debate here.
Image ©Doris Lin 2011, licensed to About.com, Inc.
Suggested Links:
Comments
You write: “But I still don’t understand how anyone can think that saving a human baby over a mouse from a burning building means that it’s OK to use the mouse in medical experiments.”
If Dr. Ringach thinks that baby over mouse means using mouse in experiments is condoned then he is simply being irrational. You are correct, the two have no connection and behaving as if they do is engaging in flawed logic and/or fantasy.
Thanks for writing about the debate.
I guess you simply misunderstood.
“When I told Ringach that rejecting vivisection would save both people and animals…” I am not sure how you know this. Are you stating a fact, an opinion, a guess? Most scientists, as I stated, believe stopping the research would be a crime against humanity.
“Ringach facetiously responded that he supports vivisection because he also has an irrational, emotional attachment to his fellow humans.”
No, I said that if your only argument is that you would save the human over the mouse because of some kind of emotional attachment, what prevents from others using the same argument for the case of research.
“Ringach seemed to feel triumphant that Francione had once written that he would choose the human, but no matter how many times Francione explained that saving X over Y from a burning house doesn’t mean it’s OK to use Y in biomedical experiments, Ringach thought that Francione’s explanation was unsatisfactory.”
The point is that the theory does not explain why we have a preference for the human in such extreme circumstances. I explained how such scenario actually arises in very concrete situations (the heart valve replacement scenario).
In any case, Prof. Francione granted me that, according to his theory, it is morally permissible to flip a coin to choose between a human and a mouse. I think most members of the public will fund this unacceptable and thus must reject his theory.
Prof. Ringach, thank you for your comment.
“Are you stating a fact, an opinion, a guess?”
It’s an opinion, just as it is the opinion of some scientists that vivisection is essential for biomedical advancements. I was meaning to contact you to ask for the citation for that poll, because I’m very curious as to how the question was worded. To believe that biomedical science would not advance without vivisection is to believe that all of the in vitro studies and studies on consenting human volunteers are invalid. Do 92% of surveyed scientists truly believe that in vitro studies and studies on human volunteers are worthless?
I would agree with the contention that vivisection may be essential for certain biomedical advancements, but certainly not all. Since we have limited resources, animal welfarists should advocate exhausting all in vitro studies before conducting any vivisection.
We cannot know for sure which advancements would have come about if the resources that are now poured into vivisection were redirected toward in vitro studies.
Similarly, we cannot know for sure how many AIDS cases would be prevented by more public health education, condom distribution and needle distribution. But it’s very likely that people’s lives would be saved. And perhaps even more people would be saved than would be saved if those same resources were put into vivisection.
(cont.)
An emotional attachment cannot be used to resolve a moral question. Emotions (or a coin toss) can be used to make a decision only when the two outcomes are morally equivalent. That is why it is morally acceptable to use emotions to decide whether to save the human or the mouse, but not morally acceptable to use emotions to justify vivisection.
If you have rejected the Cartesian view, and you believe that the number of animals used in vivisection should be minimized, then you see that using animals and not using animals cannot be morally equivalent. If they were, you would not strive to use the minimum number of animals except perhaps for financial reasons.
The hypothetical “burning house” is an overplayed tactical device. It’s used to coerce the other party to capitulate & agree that under lavishly extreme circumstances – Sophie’s Choice of speciest proportions – they would choose a human’s life over an animal’s, ergo they value humans above all other creatures. Consequently, this feedback is exploited to suggest that any/all animals being of lesser value can (& even “should be”) sacrificed for the well-being & life of a human/humankind.
“Burning house” is manipulative & insubstantial, by having no meaningful relevance or real life application. I believe that such groundless flights of fancy are so outlandish as to render them altogether moot. It’s too unspecific to make a reliable prediction, let alone provide useful insight without. If we’re going to oblige a make believe house afire, might it be based in a modicum of reality, since people are being asked to consider what they would “realistically” do in such a contrived moment. This particular house conveniently becomes engulfed, unlike typical home fires that begin in a single room, frying pan or candle, or wildfires that start acres/miles away. In the case of actual home fires there’s often sufficient time to clear out ALL sentient beings.
Given that dogs are the predominant pet in U.S. households, why then is a meager mouse the baby’s rival?
Despite the undeniably imminent threat of fire, people have had the presence of mind to grab infant gear along with their baby, family heirlooms, car keys, cellphones, purses/wallets, important docs, or pets. Both a baby & mouse are marvelously portable, so could be carried out simultaneously w/o the need to choose between them.
More fire stations are adding animal 02 masks, which indicates they don’t expect people to leave pets behind.
(cont.)
Many people save their companion animals from looming disaster with the same fervor as that accorded to their human family. This says more about the morality shift of our species, then does any speculation about what we’d do if the devil himself informed us that we could take the baby or the mouse, but not both.
Doris, I don’t consider your “emotional attachment” to be “irrational”. On the contrary, I believe that you, along with so many of us, have social bonds with animals as well as humans. Therefore, if your house was ablaze, like most animal companions, you’d do everything within your rational power to save every single resident w/o exception: baby, toddler, dog, cat, elderly relative & goldfish alike.
My own summary of the encounter:
http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/03/11/the-human-or-the-mouse-would-you-flip-a-coin/
Dear Doris,
Burning houses and life-boat scenarios are used commonly to test the consistency of moral theories.
Animal rights theory can be applied in this cases too, but you refuse to accept the consequences.
Thus, you have only two choices. Either reject the theory or explain under which “extreme circumstances” the theory fails to apply and why you are now free to appeal to other moral principles.
Which of the two explanations are you putting forward?
As for where to find the poll, here are a couple:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/470452a.html
http://people-press.org/report/528/
In what way am I refusing to accept the consequences?
The moral theory is that animals and humans are moral equivalents, just as my child is the moral equivalent of your child. If I make the emotional decision to save my child over your child, what do you think that means? How is that not accpeting the consequences of their moral equivalence?
As I suspected, the Nature poll is self-selecting and skewed. By first asking questions about the effects of animal rights activists on biomedical research, the poll drew a disproportionate number of vivisectors to answer it, and it put vivisectors on the defensive so that they would exaggerate the importance of vivisection over all other forms of biomedical research, such as in vitro studies and studies on human volunteers.