Animals in Scientific Research 401 their will (Prescott et al 2010) Monkey experiments involving water deprivation were reported on German National Television in 2014, following an undercover investigation at a leading EU neuroscience laboratory (the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tübingen, Germany) The Max Planck Society responded to the release of the film by commissioning an ‘independent expert investigation’ led by Professor Stefan Treue, Head of the German Primate Centre, who subsequently attested that the Institute’s employees exercised great care in the treatment of the animals and that he could find no indication that the animals had been neglected (Max Planck Society 2014) Animal Abuse in Light of Current Science People today have a choice between purchasing cosmetics tested or not tested (‘cruelty free’) on animals However, in the case of pharmaceutical drugs, there is no such choice since all medical products undergo animal testing by law Similarly, proponents of fundamental research who use animals insist that human medical cures will not be possible without some animal experimentation In the face of authoritative assertions made by respected scientists and professors, most members of society accept some animal research as being a ‘necessary evil’ This theme is aptly summed up by a quote in the journal Nature: In the contentious world of animal research, one question surfaces time and again: how useful are animal experiments as a way to prepare for trials of medical treatments in humans? The issue is crucial, as public opinion is behind animal research only if it helps develop better drugs Consequently, scientists defending animal experiments insist they are essential for safe clinical trials, whereas animal-rights activists vehemently maintain that they are useless (Giles 2006) The public debate surrounding vivisection has traditionally been portrayed to the public as ‘science versus animal rights’ or even as ‘scientists versus terrorists’ Until fairly recently, the issue of animal suffering was purely an ethical and moral one, summed up in the words of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham: ‘The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?’ (Bentham 1823) Powerful as these moral arguments may be, they cannot on their own convince society that humans should abandon medical progress for altruistic reasons By the same token, the extension of racism and sexism to ‘speciesism’ (a term coined in 1970 by psychologist Richard Ryder), however logical in terms of moral philosophy, still falls short of the mark