Animals have been used as experimental subjects for a long time. Early Greek physician-scientists, such as Aristotle and Erasistratus, were known to perform experiments on living animals. Similarly, Galen, a great physician in the history of Rome, carried out multiple experiments on animals to improve the understanding of anatomy and physiology. Ibn Zuhr, an Arab-Muslim physician during the Golden Age of Islamic civilisation, was also known for testing new surgical techniques on animals before applying them to human patients.
Nowadays, animal testing is extended in many ways, including (1) drug efficacy testing on animals in the early phase of drug development before it can proceed to the clinical phase, (2) chemical exposure in toxicity testing such as force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin application, and injection into the body, (3) study of healing by inflicting wounds, burns and other injuries to animals, and (4) creating animal models of human diseases such as inducing cancer in rats.
These procedures expose animals to harm and pain, thus sparking the issue of animal cruelty in the eyes of the public and instigating debate among academicians. Some academicians argue that animal testing is still the best way to establish the efficacy of new medical treatments and protect human safety, whereas others suggest that it could be bypassed for apparent reasons. In order to balance the effort to advance scientific knowledge and protect animal welfare, the Principles of 3Rs are introduced as ethical guidance for scientists.
The 3Rs proposed by William Russell and Rex Birch in 1959 represent (1) replacement which emphasises seeking alternatives before resorting to living animals as subjects, (2) reduction, which stresses reducing the number of animals used to the minimum amount that satisfies the statistical requirement should animal use cannot be avoided, and (3) refinement, which highlights that scientists have to devise test methods that minimise suffering to the animals.
Although the 3Rs are widely accepted, they are also heavily criticised for failing to reduce the number of animal subjects and the invasive experiments performed on animals worldwide. Based on these scenarios, the 3Rs need assistance from various dimensions, including religion, to strengthen the moral sense toward animals.
Islam, for instance, is one of the religions that are incredibly compassionate toward animals. As Islam perceives animals as Allah’s creations for human needs, they must be treated humanely, as narrated in Sahih Muslim, where Prophet Muhammad SAW said, “It behoves you to treat animals gently.” In line with this teaching, other traditions also reported that the Prophet SAW not only forbid killing animals without justified reasons (such as food), but also condemn people who let animals in their care starve and force them to work without rest. Therefore, animal cruelty is a form of transgression and those guilty of it will receive repercussions in the Hereafter.
Indeed, in animal testing, a thin line separates animal cruelty and justified animal use. Several ethical considerations are pointed out by Muslim scholars to be considered by scientists involved in animal research. To begin with, al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri, one of the prominent scholars who extensively discusses animal welfare an exception to the general prohibition in Islam. In order to justify the exception, scientists must thoroughly assess the necessity of the experiment itself and how crucial its output is in protecting human interest.
Besides that, even though Masri does not deny the benefits of animal experimentation for humans, especially in formulating treatments and medications for fatal diseases, he stresses that the assumed necessity must be rethought. This reconsideration is essential because humans often suffer from diseases due to unhealthy lifestyles; thus, experiments conducted on animals to find remedies for self-induced illnesses become morally questioned.
In cases where animal testing is genuinely indispensable and cannot be avoided, the general prohibition is lifted according to one of the Islamic legal maxims, “al-Darūrāt tubīḥu al-Maḥẓūrāt”, which means “a necessity may authorise forbidden acts.” Nevertheless, this permissibility is hooked on to another critical maxim in Islamic jurisprudence, “al-Darūrah tuqaddar bi qadarihā”, which means “necessity is determined according to its degree (extent).” This maxim may rule the limit on (1) the permissibility of similar animal testing in the future, (2) the number of animals to be tested, and (3) the extent of invasive procedures.
Above all, in any form of human-animal interaction, whether it involves slaughtering animals for food, keeping them as pets, or using them for scientific research (given that the necessity is justified), humans are still responsible for ensuring their needs include food, suitable housing, and space to express natural behaviour are fulfilled.