Key Takeaway:
Spain has announced plans to ban harmful experiments on great apes, as part of a broader initiative to extend rights to creatures that more closely resemble the ones humans enjoy. This move raises complicated questions about the ethics of animal testing, as only animals that are similar enough to humans would be granted the right to live free from harm and suffering. The journey toward giving great apes more rights isn’t entirely new, as Spain attempted to grant these animals “personhood” over 16 years ago. Great ape experiments are already banned in 29 countries, including the UK, EU, and New Zealand, at least when they’re deemed “unnecessary.” The ethical dilemma raises questions about whether we are heading toward a system where only animals that resemble humans can be saved from suffering. As we continue to develop alternatives to animal testing, the onus is on us as humans to push science toward more humane, reliable methods.
Picture a world where some of our closest animal relatives, the great apes—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans—are given legal protections almost akin to human rights. It sounds like a plot twist in a science fiction novel, but Spain’s recent announcement pushes us closer to this reality. The Spanish government has unveiled plans to ban harmful experiments on great apes, part of a broader initiative to extend rights to these creatures that more closely resemble the ones humans enjoy.
Spain’s move, while visionary, raises complicated questions about the ethics of animal testing. The decision could establish a new precedent where only animals that are similar enough to humans would be granted the right to live free from harm and suffering. But this also begs the question: What about the countless other species that may not mirror our physiology but still experience pain?
A Step Toward Personhood
The journey toward giving great apes more rights isn’t entirely new. Over 16 years ago, Spain attempted to grant these animals “personhood,” a move that generated significant debate but ultimately didn’t make it into law. The recent announcement revives that conversation, bringing Spain to the forefront of an issue most countries have only scratched the surface of. Today, great ape experiments are already banned in 29 countries, including the UK, EU, and New Zealand, at least when they’re deemed “unnecessary.” But how do we define what’s necessary?
Often, the line between necessary and unnecessary is drawn by crisis situations, like pandemics, or brain-related research, where some scientists argue that great apes are the only suitable models due to the similarities between their brains and ours. Alzheimer’s disease, brain trauma, and even behavioral studies rely on these creatures in ways that no other animal seems to match.
New Zealand was one of the first countries to push the conversation forward, proposing human rights for great apes in 1999 but stopping short, opting instead to ban invasive experiments. Austria followed suit, going even further by outlawing all live surgery on any primate, great or lesser. And now, Spain’s latest decision seems to signal that this once-radical idea is gaining momentum.
The Ethical Tightrope
As progressive as these bans may sound, they come with a complicated philosophical backdrop. Are we heading toward a system where only animals that resemble humans can be saved from suffering? It’s a moral dilemma that exposes our species-centric view of the animal kingdom—what philosophers call speciesism.
Humans have long positioned themselves at the top of the animal hierarchy, deciding which species deserve protection and which are fair game for experimentation. But if we choose to protect animals based on how human-like they are, does that mean other species that don’t share our features can continue to be exploited?
This is a point animal rights activists have been making for years. Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri, founders of The Great Ape Project, have campaigned against experimentation on great apes for decades. Their efforts highlight a stark contradiction in how we treat these creatures. While great apes are close enough to humans to act as medical models, they still aren’t granted the same consideration when it comes to their suffering. This logic extends to less human-looking animals too. Consider the plight of lab mice, genetically modified to mirror human diseases like cancer. If their DNA is humanized enough to be used for research, shouldn’t their pain matter, too?
The Faces That Stir Empathy
There’s another troubling aspect to this discussion: our tendency to empathize with animals based on their appearance. We see our own facial expressions in the soulful eyes of a chimpanzee or the playful face of a bonobo, and our protective instincts kick in. But what about the lesser-known, less “human-like” primates? In February 2024, the UK charity Animal Aid released shocking findings on the treatment of marmosets, small monkeys often used in experiments. At the University of Cambridge alone, dozens of experiments involved drilling into the skulls of these creatures and injecting substances into their brains.
Then there’s the unsettling reality that some of the animals we might invite into our homes as pets are also victims of this system. Beagles, with their friendly demeanor, are commonly used in lab experiments because of their gentle nature. In one part of the UK, there’s even a breeding facility that supplies these dogs for research, where they may be force-fed toxic chemicals to test their effects. The juxtaposition of family pets and lab animals underscores just how selective our empathy can be.
Are We Ready to Look?
Animal rights activists often suggest, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, the world would be vegan.” Now, imagine if vivisection labs had glass walls—how many of us could bear to watch? The reality is, much of what happens in these labs is hidden from public view. While some scientists argue that animal testing is unreliable and harmful, alternatives such as stem cell research and AI-based modeling are slowly emerging. Yet, the question remains: Why, in a world of advanced technology, do we continue to rely on methods that are not only archaic but also ethically questionable?
It’s a fair question. As a society, we pride ourselves on technological advancement and scientific progress. But in light of Spain’s decision, maybe it’s time to ask: Why haven’t our scientific methods evolved to reflect our ethical standards?
The Bigger Picture
As Spain takes this bold step, it’s important to remember that the debate doesn’t end with great apes. If we decide that certain animals deserve rights based on their similarity to humans, where do we draw the line? Every animal—whether a mouse in a lab, a dog in a kennel, or a monkey in the wild—has a life that matters. They are not just “whats” in our experiments, but “whos” in their own right.
As we continue to develop alternatives to animal testing, the onus is on us as humans. We need to push science toward more humane, reliable methods. The real question isn’t just about whether great apes deserve rights, but why, in a world brimming with innovation, our methods of discovery remain so brutal. In the end, perhaps the most telling marker of progress isn’t how far science can take us, but how compassionately we choose to get there.
