The Last Smallpox Samples

The Monkey Experiment

Smallpox is one of humanity’s greatest victories. After centuries of killing millions of people, the disease was officially eradicated in 1980. Today, the virus exists only in a handful of secure laboratories.

But what if someone weaponizes it?

Governments worry that stored samples could be stolen, recreated, or used in biological warfare. To prepare for this possibility, researchers continue developing vaccines and treatments. The problem is that smallpox no longer exists naturally, so testing these treatments on humans is nearly impossible.

Instead, scientists often rely on monkeys.

Is it morally acceptable to harm animals in order to protect humans from a threat that may never even occur?

Who Matters Morally?

The debate centers around a concept called moral status. In ethics, moral status refers to whether an entity matters for its own sake and is owed moral consideration.

Historically, many philosophers believed that only humans possessed moral status. According to German philosopher Immanuel Kant, humans are unique because of their rationality. Rational beings are “persons” deserving moral respect, while other creatures are simply things that can be used as means to human ends.

If Kant is correct, then using monkeys in medical research is not especially problematic. The lives of humans would simply matter more.

But many philosophers reject this view.

Expanding the Circle

Philosopher Christine Korsgaard argues that animals should have moral status because they value their own lives and welfare. They seek pleasure, avoid pain, and pursue what is good for them. If that is enough for humans to matter morally, why not other animals?

Utilitarian philosophers Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer take a similar approach. They argue that the capacity to suffer is what matters. Bentham famously asked, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

Monkeys clearly experience pain, form social bonds, and possess impressive intellectual abilities. If suffering is morally important, then their interests cannot simply be ignored.

Drawing the Line

Most people seem unwilling to treat monkey lives as equal to human lives. Killing one human to save five others is often considered wrong, but killing one monkey to save five humans is usually seen as tragic but permissible.

The difficult question is where the line should be drawn.

How many monkeys can be harmed to potentially save one person? Ten? One hundred? Ten thousand?

If animals have no moral status, then sacrificing any number of monkeys to save a single human appears acceptable. But if they do have moral status, even to a lesser degree than humans, then the calculation becomes much more complicated.

Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that no one knows whether smallpox will ever be weaponized. The research may save countless lives, or it may never be needed at all. At what point does a possible future benefit justify guaranteed harm in the present?

The Final Verdict

This dilemma forces us to answer two difficult questions at once. How much is an animal’s life worth, and how much risk are we willing to accept in order to protect human lives?

Whatever answer you give, it should be well justified.

Would you approve the experiments?