Ontario cats and dogs may soon be off-limits to science.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford proposed banning scientific testing on pets, a move supported by many pet owners in the province. The proposal, announced on Aug. 25, would outlaw the use of dogs and cats in research.
Ford defended the plan by calling pets “family members,” appealing to the close personal bond many people share with their animals. Queen’s Professor of Philosophy and Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics, Udo Schüklenk, cautioned that the proposal risks oversimplifying a complex ethical and scientific issue.
“Justice fundamentally requires us to treat equal things equally,” he said in an interview with The Journal. “If we decide that pain matters in our lives, then we should also be concerned about other beings with the same capacity to feel pain.”
Schüklenk pointed out that protections limited to cats and dogs fail to account for the suffering of other animals widely used in research, such as rodents and fish.
“We have no good justification for subjecting animals to pain any more than we could subject you or me to pain without consent,” he said.
Schüklenk also identified inconsistencies in Ontario’s other animal policies, such as regulations which permit dogs to be used in hunting training exercises against coyotes. “There’s no difference in terms of development or dispositional capacities between a coyote and a dog,” Schüklenk explained. “They’re the same.”
Animal testing has long had an important role in medical discovery and innovation. In the 1920s, researchers at the University of Toronto developed insulin through experiments on dogs, and the polio vaccine, credited with protecting generations of children from a lifetime of paralysis, was tested on rabbits. The same process continues today, as vaccines, chemotherapy drugs, and antibiotics undergo animal trials before advancing to human studies.
“Many important benefits have been derived from animal research,” Schüklenk said. “Without animal experiments, it’s unlikely people would volunteer to take on such high risks.”
Ford’s proposed ban could also negatively affect other animals. Schüklenk warned that outlawing pet testing in Ontario wouldn’t necessarily reduce the overall number of animals used worldwide.
“Prohibiting animal research on pets doesn’t achieve much, because research will simply move elsewhere,” he said. “Another possibility, which I find really disturbing, is that animals not included in the ‘pet’ category could be used instead. Research on non-human primates could increase, which I find far more ethically problematic than research on cats or dogs.”
For Schüklenk, the issue isn’t whether animal research should continue, but how it can be conducted responsibly. “While we can’t yet replace animals in research, we should minimize their use as much as possible,” he said.
This aligns with the internationally recognized the 3Rs framework in research ethics: replace animals where possible, reduce the number used, and refine methods to minimize suffering.
As the proposal develops, Ontario faces a difficult balance between compassion for animals and recognition of the human health advances that animal research has enabled. Schüklenk warns that Ford’s proposal may fail to address either concern.
Tags
animal testing, bioethics, Doug Ford, Research
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.