Lab animals, “test tubes with hair”? How do we come to discredit these guinea pigs to appease ourselves?

In the face of laboratory animals, we are caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, we feel empathy for their suffering and living conditions, but on the other hand, we are often willing to accept the necessity of animal experimentation. To address this discomfort, a new study shows that we tend to recognize less that laboratory animals possess complex inner lives and mental abilities than other animals.

Each year, it is estimated that more than 190 million animals which would be used in laboratories around the world (incl over 2 million animals in France). By using non-human animals, animal testing allows us to perform experiments that we do not want to do directly on humans. whose fate matters more to us.

The severity of the tests performed varies widely, from simple blood sampling or food ingestion to more extreme scenarios such as simulated drowning for try antidepressants Or the induction of painful tumors to study their evolution.

despite INCENTIVES when using substitute methods, this practice still seems to be necessary, by the scientists who practice itbut also in certain circumstances by the population which can perceive the suffering it causes as being justified if benefits to human health are expected.

Ambivalence towards animal experimentation

However, many surveys indicate that the population is increasing against animal exploitation. For example, in France, animal experiments are disturbing, and the population reject massively. A strong one ambivalence therefore, there is between the perceived necessity of this practice for human health and our sensitivity to the suffering of animals in particular those who are most like us. But then, how do we resolve this apparent paradox and how do we react when faced with what laboratory animals endure?

If we are concerned about animal experimentation, it is because the animals used in the laboratory (mostly small mammals) are endowed with mental capacities and are therefore capable of experiencing suffering. For example, if we bring people to imagine the emotional activity of a lobsterthey are more opposed to him being mistreated. Instead, there is several ways to silence our empathy for laboratory animals and thereby legitimize animal experimentation. One of them, very widespread, consists of reduce their mental abilities.

In this context, a new study published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychologyexamined whether simply presenting an animal as a laboratory animal would denigrate its cognitive abilities. Photographs of animals (rabbits, hamsters, dogs, macaques) were shown to 3405 participants, accompanied by descriptions showing the animal either with descriptive characteristics such as fur color or size (control group) or presenting the animal as an animal laboratory (experimental group). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the presented animals possessed 15 mental abilities (eg, hunger, joy, fear, pride, distress, or planning).

Choice of animals

This protocol showed that participants systematically assigned fewer mental and cognitive abilities to animals depicted in a laboratory context compared to animals presented only by their physical characteristics. It is all the more interesting to note that this denigrating effect on cognitive abilities has been systematically replicated across the various studies conducted and despite experimental variation. The results are similar when faced with photos of different animals (a hamster, a mouse, or even a beagle), or even in different situations (suffering lab animal or non-suffering lab animal).

It has already been documented that the use of euphemisms was common in laboratories, where animals are no longer “killed” but “sacrificed”, and that it is also widespread in don't name them for easier objectified. This new research demonstrates this time that we are also motivated to deny the cognitive capabilities of animals when they are labeled “guinea pigs.” Using euphemisms, not naming animals and reducing their cognitive abilities, ultimately fulfill the same function: erasing the traces of individuality of animals to reduce them to the status of a test tube and thus facilitating and justifying their “sacrifice”.

This study supports the idea that classifying laboratory animals as nothing more than “hair test tubes” devoid of cognitive abilities facilitates psychological detachment. This makes it possible to justify their use in scientific experiments and thus shorten any internal moral conflict. Thus, if animal experimentation bothers us, objectifying animal test subjects and not recognizing their mental capacities is psychologically more comfortable.

Legitimate the “sacrifice” of animals

This work is in addition to others showing that simply presenting an animal as destined for the slaughterhouse will automatically denigrate its cognitive abilities to justify meat consumption.

Many factors influence individuals' attitudes towards animal testing and the perceived legitimacy of this practice, such as gender differences or even madness for science. However, this research is the first to demonstrate that simply classifying an animal as a guinea pig will inexorably denigrate its mental abilities.

The benefits of animal testing are much discussed. For example, on 20 extended summaries systematic review of the biomedical literature, only two concluded that animal experimentation was useful. One of the limitations concerns low research reproducibility. This lack of stability of scientific results is extremely expensive for society.

In common with ethical principles aimed at limiting the use of laboratory animals, or even targeted political projections accelerate the transition to research without animals or even prohibitfurther questioning of animal experiments is necessary. Indeed, their mere presence in laboratories may be enough to make us believe that their sacrifice is not alone: ​​who cares about mere hairy test tubes?

www.fc3r.com)