Experimenting on Monkeys: Is it Ethical?
By Rick Marolt
Rick Marolt is an adjunct professor of business in Madison, Wisconsin.
INTRODUCTION
Case Synopsis
This case summarizes the history of experimenting on monkeys, cites examples of experiments
on monkeys at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (UW–Madison), and presents the
arguments that UW–Madison researchers make to justify experimenting on monkeys. It then
presents the arguments made by critics of the monkey research who claim that experimenting on
monkeys is unethical. The case challenges students to answer for themselves whether or not
conducting injurious experiments in basic science on captive monkeys is ethical.
Case Objectives
The main objectives of this case are:
To acquaint students with ethical issues involved in experimenting on non-human animals
To evaluate a utilitarian argument in a real-world situation
To analyze when a utilitarian standard is appropriate and when a deontological standard
(or another standard) is appropriate
To understand and evaluate inter-species bias (speciesism)
To explore how moral status can be determined
1
To become aware of the role of moral intuition in our decisions and the role that more
conscious moral reasoning can play
II. Classroom Management
A. Outline of teaching approach
1. Introduce the topic (three minutes)
2. Ask students to summarize the key points of the case (five minutes)
3. Ask students individually to take a position and write the rationale for their position
in one sentence. (five minutes)
4. Ask one or more students to share his/her position and rationale to start the
discussion. (five minutes)
5. Discussion (35 minutes)
6. Summary of lessons (five minutes)
When the instructor introduces the topic, it is important that the type of experiments in
question be made clear to keep students focused. In the experiments in question, monkeys are
kept captive in an artificial, stressful environment, and the experiments on them cause physical
injury, psychological distress, and, sometimes, death. The instructor should steer students away
from hypothetical questions such as “What if the monkeys are already captive and being used in
one experiment, and researchers want to use them for another one that is not invasive?” and
“What if the monkeys are in the wild and just being observed?” Such questions can be helpful in
exploring the ethical issues, but should be postponed and covered only if time allows.
2
B. Facilitating Questions and Answers
1. What are the most important facts of the case?
2. Is experimenting on monkeys ethical? Why or why not?
Most students will say that experimenting on monkeys is ethical. A few will say that it is not
ethical. Answers of “I don’t know” and “It depends” deserve praise and investigation.
Some students may hold a position without being able to explain why. The instructor should
recognize the role of intuition or feeling when making moral decisions and then challenge the
students to make a rational argument. What exactly makes experimenting on monkeys ethical or
unethical?
Some students will make arguments for experimenting on monkeys by implicitly and perhaps
monkeys is ethical because it helps other monkeys. By keeping monkeys in laboratories and
Some students might say that experimenting on monkeys is ethical as long as the monkeys
are treated humanely. The instructor might ask if the monkeys in the experiments described in
3
be considered humane?” More important, however, is to explore whether or not the quality of
treatment should be used as a criterion in determining whether or not the experiments are ethical.
The instructor might steer this discussion to the issue of similarities and differences. Do
certain similarities between people and monkeys suggest that monkeys should be given the same
Throughout this discussion, the instructor should be aware of the issue of marginal cases and
be ready to ask the students “If moral status depends on certain characteristics such as
Some students will state that experimenting on monkeys is ethical because people matter
more than monkeys or because people are more important or more valuable than monkeys. The
instructor could steer this discussion to the topic of utilitarian interests. What exactly makes
4
The instructor should spend some time focused on the question of costs or harms. Are the
Evaluating the benefits from experimenting on monkeys will be impossible. Some students
will express a belief that experimenting on monkeys, or at least non-human animals in general,
has provided great benefits to people. Very few students will be familiar with the history of
experiments on non-human animals. To make students aware of factors influencing their moral
To explore the implications of a utilitarian approach to these questions, the instructor might
point out the imbalance in power between people and monkeys. Homo sapiens is the most
powerful species on the planet. There are many more people on earth, almost seven billion, than
monkeys. Experimenting on monkeys seems to be the use or exploitation of a less powerful
The instructor might mention some of the history of experiments on people:
J. Marion Sims, the “father of gynecology”, bought and rented slaves, on whom he
conducted experimental surgery without anesthesia. Sims’ work was instrumental in
5
Between 1932 and 1972, 399 poor African–Americans with syphilis were deceived
about their disease and available treatments so that researchers could observe the
An alternative to discussing historical experiments would be to discuss “The Ones Who Walk
Away from Omelas”, a vignette written by Ursula Le Guin. Everyone in the idyllic town of
Some students may say that experimenting on monkeys is ethical because we care more
about people and, moreover, we should care more about people. The instructor could introduce
the concept of “circles of care”, quote Albert Schweitzer and Albert Einstein, and ask “How big
At this point, the instructor should introduce the concept of speciesism. To philosophers,
speciesism means assigning rights or values to individuals based on membership in a species,
6
study says, they are “not us.” Is there an important, species-based difference between people and
monkeys that would justify this kind of discrimination? Or is this instance of speciesism simply
a form of prejudice based on people’s self-interest?
The instructor should then explore the effect of self-interest on our moral reasoning. Three
thought experiments can be useful:
The philosopher John Rawls developed the idea of the “veil of ignorance”, which can
be used here. The instructor can ask the students to imagine that our species
assignments are going to be randomly distributed. Some of us will become monkeys.
Some of us will remain people. We do not know if we will be monkeys or people.
Does experimenting on monkeys seem ethical now?
The instructor can ask the students to imagine an experiment that would be ethical
when done to either a horse or a zebra but unethical when done to the other. The
question should strike most students as absurd because horses and zebras are very
similar. Then the instructor can tell students that the genetic similarity between
horses and zebras is about the same as the genetic similarity between people and
monkeys. If horses and zebras seem so similar that the question is absurd, why is the
question not absurd when asked about monkeys and people?
About 25,000 years ago, there were three human-like species on earth. Our ancestors
were members of one, homo sapiens. If experimenting on members of another
species is ethical, would it be ethical for Neanderthals to experiment on us if they had
survived and become more powerful than us?
Some students may make religious arguments for experimenting on monkeys such as 1) Only
people have souls, and 2) God gave people dominion over the animals. In a class on business
7
ethics, the instructor will probably wish to avoid a detailed theological discussion. Instead, the
instructor might point out that a religious standard of ethical action is a form of moral relativism.
Different religions in different societies at different times hold different views. The instructor
might respectfully suggest that the class focuses more on verifiable facts than on articles of faith.
Some students may say that experimenting on monkeys is ethical because we do not know
that monkeys, who are not able to give informed consent, would not choose to participate in
experiments. The instructor could respond to this idea by asking if experimenting on people who
are not able to give informed consent is ethical. “Should we assume that individuals wish to
suffer and perhaps die for possible benefit to others, or should we make the more conservative
assumption that they do not?”
Some students may say that the experiments are necessary even if they are not ethical
because there is no alternative. The instructor may or may not want to explore this line of
reasoning. In what sense are the experiments “necessary”? How can experimenting on one
animal species to learn about another be necessary? If an action is not ethical, can it be
necessary? The instructor should probably avoid discussion of “alternatives” because the class
cannot evaluate scientific methods. But the instructor may want to ask students why they believe
that there are no alternatives when there are indeed many other ways of conducting bio-medical
research.
If time allows, the instructor might suggest that the question about experimenting on
monkeys may be too complex for an either/or, yes-or-no, answer. Under what circumstances
might experimenting on monkeys be ethical? Now would be the time to consider the
hypothetical questions that students may have expressed an interest in earlier.
8
There is evidence that people make moral decisions quickly based on a feeling or intuition
and then rationalize that decision. There is also evidence of confirmation bias in our
decision-making processes that leads us to seek information that reinforces an opinion. The
instructor could ask the students to compare their initial intuition about experimenting on
monkeys with their current position. Did the students have a strong feeling at first that
experimenting on monkeys was either ethical or unethical? Why? As they discussed the issues
more intellectually, did their positions change at all? Did thinking about the issues more
rigorously make a difference? Did students seek and find information and arguments that
reinforced their initial position?
There is also evidence that we make moral decisions differently when we are directly
involved in a situation and when we are thinking hypothetically about a situation. Students may
feel more comfortable with a utilitarian rationale for experimenting on monkeys as they discuss
the issue in a classroom. The instructor might try to determine if the “hands-off” nature of the
discussion affects students’ reasoning. If the students conducted the experiments themselves,
including cutting open the monkeys’ skulls and damaging their brains, would the experiments
seem any less ethical?
Key lessons to be summarized should include:
How this situation exemplifies utilitarian reasoning (costs and benefits) by both
research proponents and critics
9
Speciesism
C. Application Questions and Answers
1. What are the arguments for and against experimenting on monkeys?
Three arguments for experimenting on monkeys are identified in the case study. First,
experimenting on monkeys is done because the benefits to humans outweigh the costs to
monkeys and thus a utilitarian standard of ethical action is met. Second, laws,
Four arguments against experimenting on monkeys are identified in the case study.
First, monkeys are so similar to people that they deserve similar moral consideration.
2. What is your moral intuition about experimenting on monkeys? Is it ethical or
not? Why or why not?
Obviously, there is no right or wrong answer. Most students will probably have an
intuition that experimenting on monkeys is ethical. Some may have an intuition that it is
10
3. What factors or criteria should be considered to determine if experimenting on
monkeys is ethical? The law? Suffering? Costs and benefits? Species
membership? Similarities and differences between people and monkeys? Which
ones? Something else? Why?
Most of the answers embedded in the question can be defended and are worth
exploring. If a student cites the law as a criterion, the instructor can point out that laws
4. If certain characteristics such as intelligence convey moral status, should people
who lack those characteristics be given the same moral consideration as others?
Why or why not?
According to utilitarian principles, certain people should probably not be given the
same moral consideration as others. The utilitarian interests of people who have severe
cognitive impairment or who are in a persistent vegetative state have much less value
11
D. Concluding Questions: What did you learn from this case?
E. Other References and Resources
Michael P. Conn and James V. Parker, The Animal Research War (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2008).
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Random House, 1975).
Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum (editors), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New
Directions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Jean Swingle Greek and C. Ray Greek, What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment On
Animals? (Bloomington, IN: Trafford, 2006).
www.primate.wisc.edu, accessed 8/18/10: Web site for the Wisconsin National Primate Research
Center, one of eight federally supported (NIH–NCRR) National Primate Research Centers and
the only one in the Midwest. More than 250 center scientists, through competitive grants,
conduct research in primate biology with relevance to human and animal health.
http://www.peta.org, accessed 8/18/10: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),
with more than 2 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the
world.
12