I recently came across an advertisement for an essay contest in one of my favorite magazines, The New Scientist. The essay contest was asking if science could end the need for animal research. The ad asked: “Can you envisage how advances in technology—perhaps stem cells, tissue engineering or computer modeling—could end the need for animal research?” I thought about this for a bit and found it an interesting question because I frequently come across research studies where animals have been used for the research study.

Unfortunately I missed the deadline on the essay contest, but still felt it was worth thinking and writing about the issue. The question itself is interesting and reminds me of a similar question that we hear debated in much of the popular literature about whether science and technology can save us from global climate change. The answer to both questions, unfortunately, is no.

The reason that science is unlikely to end the process of animal research lies in the very title of the essay contest ad. It suggests that there is a need for animal research. I realize many people will argue with me about this and say animal research is necessary for advances in biomedical engineering, health care, etc. But this isn’t a question about science. It is a question of ethics.

Where do you place yourself in relation to the other creatures that inhabit the planet with us? The idea that science needs animal research is one that is based on the assumption that we as humans have the right to decide how we use other animals without considering if they want to be involved in our research. If we subjected humans to many of the processes that are used in animal research there is no doubt that we would call this torture. Yet, somehow we are able to look the other way and say it is OK because it saves lives. Well, it doesn’t save the lives of the animals that are “sacrificed” in the process.

Eliminating animal research would clearly slow the advancement of many medical procedures and processes. Many people feel that increased human survival offsets any moral obligation we have to the way we treat other sentient beings. I can’t agree with that. It is time to recognize that if we are holding ourselves up to be the most intelligent creatures on the planet, we must also confront the ethical dilemmas of our actions. I would agree with the underlying assumptions of the New Scientist essay contest that science can make significant advances without the need for animal research. But we must go much further than that and recognize that it is really time to end the use of ALL animal research.