Abstract
The use of laboratory animals in biomedical research is a matter of intense public debate. Recent statistics indicates that about half of the western population, sensitive to this discussion, would be in favor of animal testing while the other half would oppose it. Here, outlining scientific, historical, ethical, and philosophical aspects, we provide an integrated view explaining the reasons why biomedical research can hardly abandon laboratory animal testing. In this paper, we retrace the historical moments that mark the relationship between humans and other animal species. Then starting from Darwin's position on animal experimentation, we outline the steps that over time allowed the introduction of laws and rules that regulate animals' use in biomedical research. In our analysis, we present the perspectives of various authors, with the aim of delineating a theoretical framework within which to insert the ethical debate on laboratory animals research. Through the analysis of fundamental philosophical concepts and some practical examples, we propose a view according to which laboratory animals experimentation become ethically acceptable as far as it is guided by the goal of improving humans and other animal species (i.e., pets) life. Among the elements analyzed, there is the concept of responsibility that only active moral subjects (humans) have towards themselves and towards passive moral subjects (other animal species). We delineate the principle of cruelty that is useful to understand why research in laboratory animals should not be assimilated to a cruel act. Moreover, we touch upon the concepts of necessity and "good cause" to underline that, if biomedical research would have the possibility to avoid using animals, it would surely do that. To provide an example of the negative consequences occurring from not allowing laboratory animal research, we analyze the recent experience of Covid-19 epidemic. Finally, recalling the principle of "heuristics and biases" by Kahneman, we discuss why scientists should reconsider the way they are conveying information about their research to the general public.