To view the diacritics on this page, you must install the Indic Times font on your machine and have a browser capable of displaying the Unicode (utf-8) character set.
Research Note: Animal Use in Biomedicine: An Annotated Bibliography of Buddhist and Related Perspectives
By Bill Slaughter, M.D. M.A.
Seattle, Washington
b.slaugh@u.washington.edu
This article is offered as a resource on the
general topic of animal use for healthcare purposes from Buddhist perspectives.
Some works focusing on Buddhist ethics, including in healthcare, already contain
material regarding animals in this area (e.g. Florida, Harvey, Hughes and
Keown, Kennaway). In particular, information is included here on one special
area in which Buddhists have over the past several decades made seminal contributions,
namely by leading a growing movement to publicly acknowledge and reflect on
the use of animals for biomedical purposes.
In a very practical and applied way, Buddhism has for
decades now contributed methods for reflection on the use of sentient beings
other than humans in the biomedical field. This could be seen as a fresh addition
to often polarized general public discourse on this issue. It was in Buddhist
East Asia (e.g. Thailand, Korea, and Japan) that the first examples of organizations
publicly acknowledging and reflecting on such animal use appeared. A range
of specific vehicles have been used, such as ceremonies and memorial markers
within animal-using organizations (Asquith, Choi, Iliff, Kast). In the past
ten years, this movement has spread outside East Asia as well, adapting to
and respecting the ethnic/religious diversity of parts of the world where
Buddhism is not the predominant depth/wisdom tradition. In North America for
example, activities acknowledging animal use have often not used overtly Buddhist
symbolism, although in various ways Asian Buddhist influences have been key
factors in initiating some of the leading animal acknowledgement events there
(e.g. Lynch and Slaughter, Taylor and Davis).
Additionally included here are a few citations
of seminal works on the growing body of Western literature regarding relationships
between humans and other beings (Arluke, Davis and Balfour). Though some of
these citations are not specifically on Buddhist perspectives regarding animal
use in biomedicine, they are included as links to broader general public and
scientific discourse on this topic. This is because contributions of Buddhist
thought and practice to world biomedicine will take place through dialogue
with non-Buddhists, and familiarity with broader discourse on human relations
with other species can enrich that dialogue. Indeed, traditional Buddhist
perspectives acknowledging close ties between humans and the rest of the natural
world may have much in common with emerging scientific information and ideas
on relationships and boundaries between humans and other beings (Kitahara-Frisch),
perhaps more so than mainstream thought in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition.
In the West since the 1950s, the most widely-cited guiding principles for
animal use in biomedicine are the "three Rs": Replacement, Reduction,
and Refinement of animal use (Russell and Burch, Smith). Interestingly, Buddhist
authors sometimes arrive at very similar positions (Kennaway).
Worldwide, the large scale use of animals
for biomedical research intended to benefit humans and other animals is a
relatively new development. It is also an area where different strains of
Buddhism may have, or may have come to have, different views. New thinking
may have to be applied, as this use of others may not square well with some
reference points sometimes used by Buddhists regarding taking the lives of
sentient beings. What might various strains of Buddhist thought conclude regarding
use of some experimental animals to benefit large numbers of humans and other
sentient beings? Discourse on this topic will of necessity include attitudes
towards death: for example, how essential is the prolongation of human life?
And at what costs to other sentient beings? Perhaps the best discussion of
varying Buddhist viewpoints in this general area is Harvey:
From the traditional Buddhist
perspective, it is more certain that killing an animal is wrong than that
generating better drugs etc. from experiments on it is good (cf. King, 1964:
281). If the early Buddhist attitude to meat eating is applied in this area,
though, it will be acceptable for a Buddhist to take drugs that others have
developed using animal research. The Mahayana ethic would give an ambivalent
answer: the precedent of vegetarianism would suggest opposition to drug-testing
in that way; the principal of skilful means might suggest that it was acceptable,
where really necessary. However, the precedents of skilful means cases only
give possible legitimation for killing someone about to do a heinous act:
not for killing innocent beings supposedly to help other beings. (p. 169)
Certainly, a tradition as diverse, flexible,
and growing as Buddhism gives no one unified approach on this or other ethical
questions. Perhaps, indeed, as one author suggests, "There is very little
commonality in theoretical approaches to ethical reasoning in Buddhist texts
and traditions . . . no unified answers or approaches can be expected, and
such are really not to be hoped for in the Buddhist tradition which respects
diversity" (Florida, footnote 2).
At the same time, Buddhists worldwide have
been leaders in developing gatherings for respectful reflection regarding
sentient beings outside our own species that are now being used in biomedicine.
Although such gatherings do not of course solve the current and longstanding
passionate public debate on the pros and cons of such animal use,
perhaps Buddhism's reflective contribution on this issue will be beneficial
to people worldwide. Other animals may benefit from this trend as well, as
reflection on animal use could lead some to reduce, replace, or simply stop
using other beings in this way.
Please feel free to forward comments and suggestions
for updating this listing to the author.
Bibliography
Arluke, Arnold. 1994. "The Ethical Socialization
of Animal Researchers." Lab Animal June: 30-35.
One article of many by this prolific sociologist/anthropologist
who researches the culture and ethics of animal use in biomedicine.
Asquith, Pamela. 1983. "The Monkey Memorial
Services of Japanese Primatologists." Royal Anthropological Institute
News , 54: 3-4.
A brief article describing ireisai and kanshasai ceremonies (comforting and giving thanks) in Japanese university primate
centers beginning in the 1950s by this anthropologist who focuses on Asian-Western
scientific cultural issues including perspectives on animal use.
Choi, Hae. 1998. "Koreans Honor Dead
Lab Animals." Wall Street Journal , November 10: B1.
Describes South Korea's Food and Drug Administration's
annual event acknowledging research animals.
Davis, Hank and Dianne Balfour, eds. 1992.
The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions .
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Examines the complexity of non-humans used
in research and recent scientific literature probing bonds between people
and animals. The lead editor established the first ongoing organizational
animal acknowledgement event in North America (University of Guelph, Ontario,
Canada).
Florida, Robert E. "The Lotus Sūtra
and Health Care Ethics." Journal of Buddhist Ethics. http://www.buddhistethics.org/5/flori981.htm
Discusses traditional Buddhist inclusion of
all living creatures in social teachings regarding health care provision.
Suggests ahiṃsā (non-injury)
as "central to any Buddhist medical ethical system."
Goodwin, James. 1997. "Chaos and the
Limits of Modern Medicine." JAMA [Journal of the American Medical Association], 5 November:
1399-1400.
Commentary on the importance of humane care,
rather than a quest for complete understanding of nature, as the core of medical
education and practice.
Harvey, Peter. 2000. An Introduction to
Buddhist Ethics . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Discussion of "sentience, the ability
to experience and suffer" as the key distinction in classical Buddhist
views (p. 151), breaking precepts against killing when there is motivation
to help others, and accepting responsibility for killing animals (pp. 134-137).
A two-page section entitled "Animal experimentation,"
in the chapter "Attitude to and treatment of the natural world,"
briefly discusses several issues. This includes meat-eating and experimental
animal use (e.g. how taking drugs developed through animal experimentation
could be comparable to eating animals killed by others). Other authors are
cited on how "the tension with Buddhist norms [regarding animal use in
research] is dealt with by many companies and research facilities performing
annual memorial rites to honor the animals they 'use'" (p. 170). Also
stated is: "[M]ost Buddhists would see any angry and violent means of
opposition to animal experimentation . . . as unwholesome. Acting more in
line with traditional Buddhist behaviour would be to liberate animals by buying
them from establishments that would otherwise experiment on them" (p.
169).
Hughes, James J. and Damien Keown. "Buddhism
and Medical Ethics: A Bibliographic Introduction." Journal of Buddhist
Ethics . http://www.buddhistethics.org/2/dkhughes.html
Briefly mentions Buddhist Indian Emperor Asoka's
attention to human and animal health, and cites others' discussions of personhood
and animal rights, and karma and killing animals.
Iliff, Susan. 2002. "An Additional 'R':
Remembering the Animals." ILAR Journal [Institute for Laboratory Animal Research], January:
38-47.
A survey of various activities acknowledging
human use of animals around the world, including a listing of Buddhist and
other ceremonies for this purpose. Suggests "an additional 'R' R emembering the animals" be added to the "three
Rs" guiding ethical use of animals in the West.
Kast, A. 1994. "Memorial Stones for the
Souls of Animals Killed for Human Welfare in Japan." Berliner-Muenchener
Tierarztliche Wochenschrift , May:
166-171.
Discusses Buddhist and Shinto influences in
Japanese animal memorial stones at 170 research laboratories as well as at
other sites where animals are used for human consumption or welfare.
Kennaway, Rev. Saido. 1980. "Classroom
Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes," in Buddhism and Respect for
Animals , collected excerpts from
the Journal of Shasta Abbey , Mt. Shasta, California, USA. Vol. XI, nos. 7 and 8.
Reflections on animal use in education by
a Sōto Zen priest, including:
It should be possible to teach
about life without needless killing and the resulting karmic consequences
. . . However . . . [i]t is useful for some people to learn about the practical
aspects of biochemistry and physiology through dissection and experimentation,
bearing in mind that the knowledge they gain can be used to save lives . .
. From a Buddhist point of view, anyone prepared to do this has to know and
accept the karma of his actions. This would entail trying to do as little
harm as possible, killing only if absolutely necessary, treating the being
with tender respect and making sure the knowledge is put to good use. (p.
23)
King, W. L. 1964. In the Hope of Nibbana:
An Essay on Theravada Buddhist Ethics, La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
Cited in Harvey (above) regarding attitudes
on killing animals for drug development.
Kitahara-Frish, Jean. 1991. "Culture
and Primatology: East and West," in The Monkeys of Arashiyama: Thirty-five
Years of Research in Japan and the West , eds. L. Fedigan and P. Asquith, Albany, NY: State University
of New York, 74-80.
Discusses "the lack of clear distinction,
in a Buddhist worldview, between human and other living things" (p. 75)
and how that influences human interactions with other primates.
Lynch, John and Bill Slaughter. 2001. "Recognizing
Animal Suffering and Death in Medicine." Western Journal of Medicine , August: 131-132 and data supplement 131-a.
Acknowledges Buddhist influences in the founding
of one of the oldest annual university animal acknowledgment gatherings in
the USA, at the largest public medical school in North America. Gives suggestions
for establishing such events in other organizations, including reasoning for
developing a reflective rather than opinionated tone.
Russell W. M. S. and R. L. Burch. 1958. The
Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques . London: Methuen.
Seminal work that proposed the now widely-cited
ethical guideposts for animal use in the West, "The 3 Rs": Replacement,
Reduction, and Refinement.
Severinghaus, L. L., and L. Chi. 1999. "Prayer
Animal Release in Taiwan." Biological Conservation ,
89: 301-304.
Survey of the Taiwanese and other Asian Buddhist
practices of releasing animals from human control as a vehicle for prayer.
Smith, Richard. 2001. "Animal Research:
The Need for a Middle Ground." BMJ [British Medical Journal], February 3: 248-249.
Uses the perspective of the "three Rs"
of animal use in research (replacement, reduction, refinement) to reflect
on current animal use in research, arguing that polarized positions oversimplify
current public discourse on the issue.
Taylor, Allison and Hank Davis. 1993. "Acknowledging
Animals: A Memorial Service for Teaching and Research Animals." Anthrozoos ,
6: 221-225.
Describes North America's oldest annual event
acknowledging animals used in research and training, as well as Buddhist-based
and other events elsewhere.
Waldau,
Paul. 2000. " Buddhism and Animal Rights, " in Contemporary Buddhist
Ethics ,
ed. Damien Keown, Surrey, UK: Curzon, 81-112.
Perhaps the most comprehensive and nuanced overview and
analysis published of various strains of Buddhist thought regarding non-human
animals. Discussed are on the one hand Buddhism's inclusiveness ("all
sentient beings") regarding compassion, and, conversely, hierarchical
distinctions made in the tradition between humans and other species. Suggestions
on how evolving scientific understanding of the complex lives of higher non-human
primates might fit with contemporary discourse on animal rights, and how Buddhist
thought may need to be renewed in the light of new biological discoveries
are some of the many areas touched on.
" Of course, important caveats regarding [Buddhism ' s] acceptance
of certain negative assumptions about all other animals, and the resultant
shortcomings in its claims about the realities of their lives, are in order,
but, in summary, the Buddhist tradition offers a profound understanding
of the moral agent 's responsibility for his or her own intentional actions.
This is pertinent to human 's ability to choose between alternatives to
harmful uses of animals, human or otherwise. The emphasis on compassion
alone, which pervades the tradition so thoroughly, makes the Buddhist tradition
a fertile source for insights regarding the shortcomings and even immorality
of many contemporary practices with regard to other animals. " (p.
106)
Copyright 2001
