ISLAMIC BIOETHICS AND ANIMAL RESEARCH

The Case of Iran

Robert Tappan

ABSTRACT
Despite growing interest in Islamic bioethics, little work has been done on
research ethics in Islam, and even less on animal research ethics. This essay
explores religious and scientific insights into the lives of animals used as
research subjects, particularly in Iran. The inner lives of animals and their
relationship to their Creator as relayed by the Quran, ethological research on
animal minds, and neuroethical reflection on painience (the ability to feel and
process pain as noxious [injurious] and explicitly hurtful) are brought together
to question the current, relatively unrestricted use of research animals in
Iran. The essay concludes that Islamic sources and the desire of Iranian clini-
cians to treat laboratory animals in line with them could poise Muslims to take
the lead in developing alternatives to animal research. Further, recent sugges-
tions that human and animal research guidelines and protections should be
brought closer together are examined in light of these findings.
KEY WORDS: bioethics, animals, research ethics, Islam, Shiite, Iran

1. Introduction
The development of bioethics in the United States and Europe has
been profoundly impacted by the history of biomedical research scandals
in those locations (see Kuhse and Singer 2001, 710; Jonsen 1998).
These abuses account for a significant portion of the emphasis onas
one examplethe principle of autonomy (and related clinical and labora-
tory dimensions, such as informed consent, coercion, privacy, and so on)
in Western bioethics. However, the growing body of work on Islamic bio-
ethicsincluding both theoretical and clinical studieshas paid little
attention to questions of research ethics (Sachedina 2009, 19699).
Part of this apparent discrepancy likely stems from the different his-
torical circumstances during the rise of contemporary biotechnology in
America and Europe and in historically Muslim-majority countries. But
we await a detailed examination of the history and ethics of human
research in pre-modern and contemporary biomedicine in Muslim

Robert Tappan is an Assistant Professor at Towson University. His research focuses on

Islamic ethics, particularly biomedical ethics and animal ethics. He is a board member of
the Society for the Study of Muslim Ethics. Robert Tappan, rtappan@towson.edu.

JRE 45.3:562578. V
C 2017 Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc.
 Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research 563

societies before any definitive conclusions can be reached. In the mean-

time, we can see some evidence that points to the possible exploitation of
human research subjects in contemporary Muslim countries where this
new biotechnology is being imported, developed, refined, and deployed
(Serour 1994, 87). All of this points to the need for scholars to turn more
of their attention towards exploring research ethics as part of Islamic
bioethics.
If little has been written about human research subjects in Islamic
bioethics, even less has been done regarding Islamic views on the use of
animals1 in biomedical research. This essay discusses that latter topic,
with an eye toward Iran in particular. This project aims at several
important ends. Since animal research is typically included in the wider
theme of research ethics in contemporary Western bioethics, this work
contributes not only to thought about the use of animals, but also serves
as a piece of the underrepresented theme of research ethics in Islamic
bioethics more broadly. Despite this thematic connectionand the histor-
ical fact that the antivivisection movement opposed both human and ani-
mal researchthe treatment of animal research subjects has been much
different than that of human research subjects. As some contemporary
scholars begin to suggest that treating animal subjects (more) like
human subjects is quite logical and defensible (Beauchamp 2015, 270),
considering the use of animals in Islamic views of research ethics can
generate helpful reflections on the use of humans, and vice versa.
Biotechnology is quite advanced in Iran, and during my research
there on assisted reproductive technology (20056), I noticed that several
institutions also perform biomedical research that might include animals
and have ad hoc committees that consider the ethical use and treatment
of humans and animals. Thus, this discussion can aid ethics committees
in Iran in their deliberations of research proposals whether using human
or animal subjects. Further, it adds to our insight into approaches to bio-
ethics from the perspective of Shite thought and from clinical and labo-
ratory practice in Iranboth of which are understudied aspects of recent
work on Islamic bioethics. Lastly, it shines some light on another issue
of growing interest, that of the theological and religious-legal status of
animals in Islam.

2. Islamic Justifications for the Use of Animals in Research

The Islamic faith has long encouraged the pursuit of scientific and
medical research. Prophetic hadith (accounts of what Muhammad did,
said, or silently affirmedShiites include narrations from their twelve
Imams as well) such as God has sent down a treatment for every

1
Animal throughout this essay refers to non-human animals of all types.
564 Journal of Religious Ethics

ailment, and There is a medicine for every ailment such that if a right
medicine hits a corresponding ailment, health is restored by Gods
permission, are examples of this underlying sentiment which helped fos-
ter developments in medicine over the course of Islams 1400-year his-
tory (Rahman 1998, 34).
Furthermore, Islamic sourcesincluding the Quran as well as the
hadithhave long been read as granting human beings the role of Gods
viceregent on earth and elaborate on the various uses of animals, and
indeed all creation, which are seen to have been divinely granted to
humans, including their use for food, clothing, and transport. Some rep-
resentative examples include: And He has made subservient to you
whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, all, from
Himself; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect (Q.
45:13), and And He created the cattle for you; you have in them warm
clothing and (many) advantages, and of them do you eat (Q. 16:5).2 So it
should not be surprising to find that the religiously inspired drive for sci-
entific and medical advancement can be coupled with the religious per-
mission to use animals for human benefit, providing Muslims with a
justification for the use of animals in biomedical research.
But upon further examination, we see that a tension exists between
the instrumental use of animals for human purposes and the inherent
value of the divinely given lives of animals. In addition to the scriptural
sources that support the use of animals for human ends, there are others
that provide many additional insights into the lives of animals and their
relationships to God. We will consider these in a moment. This tension
has received some attention over the course of Islamic historyfrom
early theological debates about the nature of suffering (Ormsby 2010,
74), to contemporary discussions about Islamic views of animals and the
environment (Shomali 2008a), to the use of animals in modern biomedi-
cine (Sachedina 2009, 92).
However, we have seen relatively few detailed discussions, and only lim-
ited attention paid to a deeper, more complex reflection on the nature and
status of animals in Islam, as well as to specific applications of Islamic
scriptural and religious-legal guidelines on animals and how these corre-
spond with their use in biomedicine. There are a few works from contempo-
rary scholars that explore both of these topics in some detail (see Masri
2007, 1986; Ebrahim 2001), but I have not seen either one cited by scholars
concerned with Islamic bioethics or animal researchwhether researchers
in Iran (for purposes of this paper) or Western scholars of Islam.

2
Unless otherwise noted, all translations of the Quran refer to Shakirs translation
(1999).
 Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research 565

In the case of Iran and Shiite thought, Mohammad Ali Shomalia

classically trained seminarian from Qom, and a PhD-holder from the
University of Manchester3has written in several places about the sta-
tus of animals in Islam in a way similar to the works by Masri and
Ebrahim mentioned previously. Shomalis writings are especially impor-
tant as they provide us with textual information about animals stem-
ming from hadith traditions of the Shiite Imamssomething we do not
find in most other considerations of the topic.4 The existence of Shomalis
articles also shows us that Iranian religious scholars are thinking about
the use and status of animals, including, to some degree, in biomedical
research and treatment.
Shomali addresses much of the first part of the tension by exploring
the nature and status of animals in the Islamic sources. Using the
Quran and hadith, he presents a helpful overview of Shiite conceptions
of animals that goes beyond mere reference to them as resources for
human beings. However, since he addresses animals as one component
in larger discussions of Islamic environmentalism or Islamic bioethics,
he does not engage much with the second part of the tension we are
examining in this paperthe specific issue of the use of animals in bio-
medical research. Similarly to most others who have looked at the use of
animals in Islam, he does not elaborate on the theological and ethical
implications of Quranic passages such as The seven heavens declare
His glory and the earth (too), and those who are in them; and there is
not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise, but you do not
understand their glorification; surely He is Forbearing, Forgiving
(Q. 17:44). Nor does he mention the following verse, which would con-
tribute further to a more complex notion of animals in Islam, There is
not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings,
but they are peoples like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the
Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will be gathered
(Q. 6:38).5
What does it mean that animals praise God, or that they form commu-
nities as do humans? While Shomali and others have clearly shown that
animals are presented in the Quran as beings with intrinsic worth, who
cannot be used by humans in arbitrary ways, they have largely and ulti-
mately deferred to the verses which allow for the use of animals by
humans. We will consider below recent research on the status of animals
in the Quran that elaborates on the implications of such passages.

3
Shomali serves as an Associate Professor of Philosophy and Head of the Department of
Religious Studies at the Imam Khomeini Education & Research Institute in Qom, Iran.
4
For another unique collection of hadith about animals from the Shiite imams, see Foltz
2006, 2225.
5
This citation uses the translation by Pickthall 2000.
566 Journal of Religious Ethics

The religious-legal views of the Shiite scholars are central to bioethi-

cal decision making, as we will see below. This being the case, it is cru-
cial to find and underscore the religious-legal justifications for animal
welfare, as Shomali has done, in order to illustrate concerns that should
be prominent in the consideration of animals for research by Muslims
and in Muslim countries. This view is summarized in an excerpt from
the late Iranian religious scholar Allama M.T. Jafari, and translated by
Shomali:
Consideration of the whole sources of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) leads to
the conclusion that animals must not be killed unless there is a legal per-
mission (by God) like benefiting from them or being safe from their harm.
There are adequate reasons for prohibiting hunting animals for fun, and
one can argue from these reasons for prohibition of killing animals without
having a permitting cause. (Shomali 2008b, 2)
Despite this strong position for animal welfare, the religious-legal lan-
guage seen here and elsewhereeven in Masri, long the most stalwart
Muslim advocate for animals in the contemporary periodultimately
permits the use of animals in research when it promises important bene-
fits to human beings.

3. Guidelines for Animal Research in Iran

Iran is an Islamic republic, where state law and religious law intersect.
Any civil law passed by the parliament must be approved by the Council
of Guardians, a body of Islamic and civil jurists who can send legislation
back to the parliament if they feel it violates Islamic law. Hence the
fatwa, or religious-legal ruling of a jurist, plays a key role in state guide-
lines pertaining to the use of animals in biomedical research, beyond any
individual or socio-cultural inclinations towards adhering to Islamic law
and teachings. In Shiite Islam, these rulings are given by a marja al-
taqld (pl. mar
aji al-taqld), or source of (religious) emulationthe
highest-ranking Shiite scholars, one of whom all believers are obliged to
follow. These are not the only Shiite scholars whose opinions might be
taken when considering such matters, but if they have written about or
otherwise provided their opinions, those will carry significant weight.
That Islamic insights are desired by both the state and the general popu-
lace in Iran, with its 95% Muslim population, mean practical and scien-
tific discussions of the use of laboratory animals are not sufficient in this
context (Naderi et al. 2012, 115). Likewise, a piece of research written by
a group of Iranian and Australian clinicians and ethicists called specifi-
cally for increased attention to Islamic teachings about animals and how
these considerations might apply to their use in the laboratory (Mobasher
et al. 2008, 41).
 Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research 567

As with several other aspects of biotechnology and biomedicine, the

Iranian government, in conjunction with universities and research insti-
tutes, has developed some guidelines in this area. While these codes do
not reach the level of some recent biomedical civil lawsincluding those
on embryo donation and therapeutic abortionthey do show the recogni-
tion of the importance of this topic. There has been some criticism of the
codes, and they may even be ignored in favor of other guidelines. For
example, a group of scholars affiliated with the Avicenna Research Insti-
tute in Tehrana major player in biotechnological research on infertility,
nanobiotechnology, and related topicsissued a report that the Iranian
six ethical codes for research both lacked a comprehensive moral the-
ory and included non-moral points of law and scientific and technical
issues. In their view, these codes were not effective guides for the areas
covered, including animal research (Khodaparast, Abdolahzadeh and
Rasekh 2008, 365). Likewise, the director of the Royan Instituteanother
Tehran-based organization which works on reproductive technology, stem
cells, and animal biotechnology (including the successful cloning of a
sheep)relayed to me that they prefer to use the guidelines provided by
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States.6
Further, my contacts at both institutes seemed to mark a division
between religious guidelineswhich call for animal welfareand the
specific moral and technical guidelines which researchers may choose to
implement in their laboratories. Thus we see an acknowledgment of the
Islamic call to respect animals as mentioned above, but again, there is
no further drive to elaborate on the theological and ethical implications
of a more rigorous examination of the status and nature of animals in
Islam, which might shape, limit, or even prevent their use in clinical
settings.
In the Iranian laboratories, as in the thinking of the scholars we have
considered thus far, the core justification to use animals in research rests
on the religious-legal rulings that stem from the theological concept of
animals as a resource for human beings. My hunch that religious-legal
justifications for animal research were similar to those given for the use
of animals for food, labor, clothing, and transport was confirmed by
Dr. Samani. He stated that while animal welfare should be accounted
for, since animals feel pain, they are ultimately not subject to protections
we might extend to humans.7
The few opinions I found in the writings of the Iranian mar
aji al-
taqlid appear to confirm this general trajectory. Only a few discuss

6
Reza Samani M.D., Head of the Department of Epidemiology and Reproductive Health,
email message to author, December 7, 2011. It is not clear which of the various sets of
guidelines sponsored by the NIH and its affiliated bodies are those used.
7
Samani, email message to author, December 7, 2011.
568 Journal of Religious Ethics

animals beyond the standard chapters of their guidebooks that relate to

slaughter, sacrifice, ritual purity, and permissible food products from ani-
mals. Of those who do touch on the topic of animals, I only found two
who specifically mentioned the use of animals in medical research. In
both cases, permission for the use of animals is granted for medical
research and drug-testing if such experimentation is important for
human ends (see Shra
z 2004205, 531; Janna
t 2005206, 65). Sache-
dina similarly found an absence of rulings prohibiting the use of ani-
mals, though he suggests that Islamic teachings on animals may well
have implications for animal research (2009, 92).

4. Problematizing This Approach

Once again, we see in these cases that the tension between the com-
plex nature of animals hinted at in some scriptural passages is overrid-
den by other scriptural passages and their derivative religious-legal
rulings which justify the use of animals by humans. While I have been
informed that there are some Iranian scholars working on animal
ethics,8 I have not seen any so far who take up the larger task of
unpacking the implications of the descriptions of the nature of animals
presented in the scriptural sources before then moving to the discussion
of the use of animals in research. A recent article from scholars at the
Avicenna Institute illustrates this typical approach thus far. While the
authors show that Iranian clinics should follow both international stand-
ards for the welfare of animal subjects, and be attentive to Islamic teach-
ings about animals, there is not a deeper theological and ethical
exploration of the status of animals and how that might shape their use
as research subjects (Naderi et al. 2012).
In her recent book Animals in the Quran (2012), Sarra Tlili looks
closely at the Quranic information on animals and its exegesis. Her tex-
tual and lexical analysis calls into question the rather liberal claims of
near total animal subjugation to human beings for most any important
purpose. Likewise, she looksperhaps more closely than others before
herat the range of implications stemming from those verses that
describe animals as communities and worshippers of God. The examina-
tion of Tlilis work would benefit the Iranian scholars who are consider-
ing the question of animal research by prompting them to examine the

8
The Royan Institute sponsored a congress on animal ethics in the fall of 2011, but the
proceedings have not yet been published. Likewise, in December 2015 the Institute spon-
sored a session on Introduction of Laboratory Animals Application in Biomedical
Research, but the list of topics covered does not include ethical or religious discussion of
the use of animals in research.
 Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research 569

status and nature of animals more deeply, and perhaps to undertake

similar efforts that incorporate the works of Shiite exegetes.
We will examine several of Tlilis claims that are relevant for the use
of animals as subjects in biomedical and scientific research. Though Tlili
does not go into depth on the topic, she does recognize that it is in mod-
ern agribusiness and biomedical research where the largest numbers of
animals are used and suffer (2012, 4). Thus we will be extending her
general arguments about animals into the realm of scientific research.
Contrary to typical readings of the Quran, which are used to empha-
size the superiority of human beings over the rest of creation and, hence,
the subjugation of animals to them, Tlili aims to provide a non-speciesist
reading of the text (2012, 11). Though we cannot fully explore and do
justice to the many layers of her book here, we can engage with some
claims that are relevant to animal research.
Tlili questions the way exegetes have read the Quran as placing all of
creation under the subjugation (tadhll) of humanity (in their exegesis of
Quran 2:29,9 for example). As we saw above, the presumption among
Iranian researchers is that, just as God has permitted animals to be
eaten (and worn and ridden) by human beings, we can also use animals
as biomedical and scientific research subjects. However, Tlilis work
shows that the Quran and classical exegetes did not see this subjugation
as including all animals, but rather, was limited to the category of
an

am. This term is taken to mean some types of livestock, possibly
including sheep, goats, cattle, and camels (Tlili 2012, 76). On the other
hand, wild animals are not considered to be subjugated to human beings
(Tlili 2012, 102).
Further probing of Tlilis discussion here by the Iranian scholars could
have significant implications for animal research. It seems either that
Shiite scholars will need to engage with Tlilis argument and counter it
with scriptural and other justifications that permit the use of animals
beyond an
am as such animals are not widely used in medical research,
or they may need to reconsider blanket permissions to use animals in
research. If wild animals are clearly excluded from this category, this
would mean that many wild-caught animals like baboons, chimpanzees,
and rhesus monkeys would be unacceptable for use in Iranian labs
(Orlans 2001, 400). It also raises the issue of the status of dogs as
research subjects. While seen as domestic animals and pets in much of
the world, for many Iranians (and for Muslims in general) dogs are seen
as ritually unclean and inhabit a liminal space between nature and

9
He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth, and He directed Himself to the
heaven, so He made them complete seven heavens, and He knows all things.
570 Journal of Religious Ethics

culture, having a place on the margins of human settlements but not

directly with human beings (except for religious-legally accepted pur-
poses like hunting, guarding, and shepherding).
However, of the 50 to 100 million animals used in research worldwide
yearly (see Orlans 2001, 400; Beauchamp 2015, 261), most are bred for the
purpose of researchincluding a range of rodents (mice, rats, hamsters,
guinea pigs), rabbits, dogs, cats, pigs, and even primates (Orlans 2001,
400). This array of animals also falls outside of the category of an

am, and
several species raise issues stemming from Islamic sources. Cats are well-
regarded in Islamic texts and cultures with numerous Prophetic reports in
their favor. How might this affect their use in laboratories?
Pigs, forbidden for food in the Quran, are considered religious-legally
impure like dogs. Likewise, there are hadith which claim that Muham-
mad allowed for the killing of certain animals without penalty or con-
cern, including certain snakes, scorpions, mice, rats, crows, kites, and
mad dogs (Tlili 2015, 227). Similar hadith are found in the Shiite collec-
tions as well (see for example al-Kulayn 1988, 4.363). Might these texts
lead researchers to either use more of such animals or to care less about
their humane treatment in research? There is no doubt that cultural
and religious beliefs about various animals can impact their use in
research, with much less concern and fewer protections extended to
despised species (Beauchamp 2015, 262).
There are no statistics for the number of animals used in Iran, but if
global trends are accurate, then rats and mice would be the most com-
monly used species.10 Dr. Samani confirmed for me that the Royan Insti-
tute uses about 25003000 animals per year, the majority of which are
rats and mice.11 Perhaps more potentially harmful to these rodents is
not any social or religious prejudice against them as pests but the scien-
tific procedures and practices pertaining to them taken from the United
States for use in Iran. Recall from above that the Royan Institute said it
prefers to use the NIH guidelines for animal research. While the NIH
does include direction for the use of rodents, it should be noted that the
United States does not include mice, rats, or birds in its animal welfare
legislation (Orlans 2001, 404). Thus, Iranian researchers keen to main-
tain Islamic standards of animal welfare may want to be cautious about
what they take from U.S. animal research practices. Further, the sale of
laboratory animals is big business (Orlans 2001, 400), and with the lift-
ing of U.S. sanctions on Iran, we might expect U.S. companies to see the
Iranian research market as a new target for increased animal sales.

10
This is not limited to Iran, but is the case throughout much of the world. In addition,
many countries in Europe and North America have their own counting systems which exclude
or otherwise count the animals used in an unclear manner. See Orlans 2001, 4001.
11
Samani, email message to author, December 7, 2011.
 Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research 571

5. A More Comprehensive Sense of Animal Welfare

Even if Iranian (and other Muslim) religious scholars are able to
argue that their reading of the Islamic sources gives humans permission
to use animals for research, I would argue that there is a qualitative dif-
ference between the use of animals in biomedical research and in the
traditions approval of their use for food, religious sacrifice, transporta-
tion, and clothing. In these latter cases, animals may be usedand even
ultimately killedto meet certain human needs, but the entirety of their
lives ought to be relatively humane. In other words, animals killed for
food and hides are subjected to the physical and emotional pain of
slaughter only once. Prior to that, they are to be raised in humane and
natural ways, and even the slaughter itself is to be done in as painless
and gentle a manner as possible. Animals used for transport or labor are
not to be overburdened, beaten, branded, or otherwise abused. These
humane guidelines are spelled out in numerous traditions.
However, animals in research laboratories often do not benefit from
such humane considerations. Their births and lives unfold in the unnat-
ural confines of the laboratory. Scientific requirements may prevent labo-
ratory animals from much of the socializing in which they normally
partake. The service they provide to humans in this instance is not
merely that which is within their physical, mental, and emotional capac-
ities as beasts of burden, but is instead often the very suffering of pain,
disease, and discomfort which Islamic teachings seem to specifically
warn against.
This jives with Bernard Rollins analysis of the shift from the symbi-
otic relationship of animal husbandry to the modern practices of factory
farming and animal research. No longer do those controlling the animals
need to maximize their contentment in order to get high-quality, abun-
dant products. Instead, technological innovations could continue to maxi-
mize animal outputs for human benefits, while at the same time
removing animals from their natural environments and lifestyles (Rollin
2001, 411). This puts the question of animal welfare into a sort of limbo.
Traditional cultural or religious guidelines that protected animals from
sadistic humans were not sufficient to address these changed technologi-
cal circumstances. Nor were (most) of those using animals in these new
ways doing so in an intentionally sadistic or purposeless waythey were
trying to maximize benefits for human beings (Rollin 2001, 41112). In
the case of Iran, it is clear that the researchers identify with traditional
Islamic guidelines which aim to protect animals, while still allowing
their use.
However, it does not appear that Iranian scholars and clinicians
(much like their comrades in the rest of the world) have considered the
emerging findings from the fields of ethology, neuroethics, and related
572 Journal of Religious Ethics

disciplines. Scientists continue to gain further insight into the inner lives
of animalsincluding their capacity for suffering and pain, whether
through learning to communicate with them in various ways (with apes,
dolphins, and dogs, for example), or through experiments which allow
for scientific claims about animal behaviors, motivations, thoughts, and
emotions.
One notable example on this topic is the recent study demonstrating
the pro-social or empathetic behavior of laboratory rats, who were found
consistently to free their confined fellows from the experiments trap
(Bartal, Ben Ami, Decety, and Mason 2011). How might this scientific
knowledge affect the use of rats in Iranian research? What does it mean
that animals normally thought to be pests or vermin have lives in which
they value and care for the well-being of their fellows? What to make of
ongoing ethological research that shows that animals have rich social
lives, complex language abilities, a wide range of emotions, and so on
(Orlans 2001, 4012)?
We can see some possibilities in the Avicenna Institute article that
acknowledges that researchers must recognize and treat animals as sen-
tient beings, and acknowledge and account for their ability to feel pain
and distress (Naderi et al. 2012, 115, 119). Neuroethics can also shed
some light on how to treat animals used in research. The concept of
painience, or the ability to feel [and process] pain as noxious (injuri-
ous) and explicitly hurtful, adds to ideas of sentience and can lead to
further protections for animal subjects (Loveless and Giordano 2014, 7,
9). Thus painience ought to be a necessary and sufficient condition for
moral consideration and respectful treatment (Loveless and Giordano
2014, 10)despite any cultural, religious, or civil laws that might down-
play the status of any particular species.
From a more religious perspective, we find verses in the Quran that
attest to the worship between animals and their Creator (Q. 24:41): Do
you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the
heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He
knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cogni-
zant of what they do.
Tlili provides a scriptural argument from this and other passages for
insight into animal lives and minds and, in particular, their spirituality.
She finds the Quran full of examples of animals praising God, relying
on God for sustenance and care, making moral choices, communicating
with their own kind, as well as with certain human beings, and much
more (Tlili 2012, 165). In Tlili, we find an argument for knowing how
and why we ought to very carefully consider our use of any animal. For
believing Muslims, this argument complements or even transcends other
perspectives from ethology or neuroethics in that it comes from the
Scripture itself. The Quran allows humans to hear the voices and
 Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research 573

perspectives of many animals themselves, as well as Gods broad confir-

mation of the lives and value of animals which extend far beyond their
benefits to human beings (Tlili 2012, 206).

6. Potential Impact on Laboratory Animals

If considered thoughtfully, these scriptural and scientific glimpses into
the nature and status of animals may well shape the use of animals in
Iranian laboratories (as well as in the wider Muslim world). One possi-
bility could be the abolition of the use of animals in biomedical and sci-
entific research outright. If it can be argued that the animals subjugated
for human use are only certain types of cattle, then much of the animal
research enterprise would be rendered void. However, it may be that
jurists would justify animal research in spite of this argument, for rea-
ura) or public good (mas: laa). The competing
sons of necessity (d: ar

scriptural calls to seek healing and the divine promise for a cure for all
diseases may outweigh other passages and exegesis limiting subjugated
animals to an
am.
But this need not mean a continuation of business as usual. There are
a number of steps that could be taken to improve the treatment of
research animals in light of the scriptural and scientific perspectives
explored here, which could serve to further reduce and, perhaps, one day
end animal research. While my correspondence with Iranian clinicians
and ethicists and their own recent articles show only a basic concern
with research animal protections, the roots for expanded safeguards are
certainly there.
In fact, the article by the Avicenna researchers shows a very self-
aware position of the human use of animals for research. According to
them, humans are trying to find cures for (largely) self-inflicted diseases,
or are otherwise subjecting animals to suffering and death in laborato-
ries for frivolous needs, in contradiction to Islamic mores (Naderi et al.
2012, 118). Likewise, they support the notion of the 3Rsreplacement,
reduction, and refinementof animal research (Naderi et al. 2012, 115).
The 3Rs were developed by Russell and Burch when they were appointed
by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare to analyze the use of
animals in research. They published their findings in the 1959 book The
Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (Russell and Burch 1992),
classifying humane experiments under the headings of replacement,
reduction, and refinement. The idea of the 3Rs eventually became an
important touchstone for researchers, and in countries where the 3Rs
are legislated or otherwise promoted, they have been effective at reduc-
ing the pain of animals used in studies, in refining otherwise wasteful or
repetitive proposed studies using animals, and have encouraged the
development of replacements, which are often superior to their animal
574 Journal of Religious Ethics

counterparts (Orlans 2001, 408). This corresponds well with our earlier
discussion that showed Islamic permissibility for animal testing only if it
were expected to bring significant positive outcomes for human health.
In cases where animals are deemed crucial for research, we again find
the thinkers at Avicenna poised to push ahead. Tlilis description of the
rich inner lives of animals dovetails with scientific research calling for
enriched environments for laboratory animals. As we mentioned above,
Islamic thinking about the use of animals was always predicated on
allowing them to live a normal and comfortable life, with access to food
and water, with social interaction with others of their species, with pro-
tection from injury and violence, and with as humane a death as possi-
ble. Modern animal research methods, for the most part, have been
antithetical to such concerns. Instead, animals are often kept in cages or
other unnatural environments, are isolated, and are otherwise divorced
from their natural behaviors, which can lead to suffering beyond what
they may face in any experiment itself (Orlans 2001, 4056). Environ-
mental enrichment is on the rise in laboratories throughout the world,
and while the Avicenna researchers do not call specifically for environ-
mental enrichment, they do stress the need for species-appropriate hous-
ing facilities (Naderi et al. 2012, 116). In light of the points above, it
would seem that calling for environmental enrichment in Iranian labora-
tories would not be a stretch.
Finally, if we accept the various perspectives mentioned so far, it might
well be reasonable to move standards for animal subjects more in line with
human subjects. Tlilis work shows a scriptural argument for shared lin-
guistic, mental, emotional, moral, spiritual, and sometimes rational capaci-
ties between humans and animals. Her thought builds on and expands the
widely known (though not always acted-upon) Islamic value of kindness
for animals as was laid out in the works of the Iranian scholars and clini-
cians considered here. We saw ethological writings which confirm scientifi-
cally the complex inner lives of animals. Loveless and Giordanos work on
painience makes a neuroethical case for the consideration of laboratory
animals based on similarities in the ability to suffer pain, whether human
or animal. Even if Muslim scholars were to maintain a sense of human
superiority in the face of Tlilis claimsthe bulk of which we were unable
to examine herethese points show a significant overlap between how we
ought to treat both human and animal research subjects.
In my exchange with Dr. Samani at the Royan Institute, he indicated
that Islamic bioethics is human based and is considered completely
separate from research using animal subjects.12 In light of the evidence

12
Samani, email message to author, December 7, 2011.
 Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research 575

above, such a positioncommon as it isbecomes increasingly difficult

to justify from religious, ethical, or scientific perspectives. Thus we find
Beauchamp calling for a new approach to animal research ethics that
follows human research ethics. Rather than allow animals to experience
pain and suffering beyond what we would tolerate for human beings,
ought we not instead provide them with a level of protection commensu-
rate with their status in the Scripture and their ability to feel pain?
Beauchamp suggests true ethical oversight for experiments employing
animals. While the Avicenna researchers call for the establishment of
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees in Iran to review
research proposals (Naderi et al. 2012, 116), Beauchamp claims that
such bodies ultimately focus on the scientific dimensions of the proposal,
and fail to engage significantly with the ethical factors in play (2015,
270). Instead, he calls for a surrogate to provide consent (or not) for an
animal subject, in much the same way as a human unable to consent to
research is also protected by a surrogate (Beauchamp 2015, 271).
While novel, such a step would seem to fit well with the picture of ani-
mals in Islam we have presented thus far. It also could mesh with Love-
less and Giordanos neuroethical position, where they see the notion of
human/animal differences as distinctions of degree, rather than kind
(2014, 15). The neuroscientific insight of painience further supports
Beauchamps position, and issues a strong challenge to traditional reli-
gious or cultural arguments for the unrestricted use of animals in
research.

7. Conclusion
The rapid development of biotechnology in Iran is set to continue. In
fact, recent news articles report that Iran is set to open the worlds largest
center for neurological research (The Iran Project 2016), as well as an ani-
mal farm to supply animals for scientific and pharmacological research
(Real Iran 2016). These sorts of developments will certainly increase the
use of research animals as well as human subjects. Thus the wider field of
research ethics, and its subfield of animal research ethics, requires more
attention from those concerned with Islamic bioethics.
If it is true, as several of the Muslim authors cited here claim, that
Islam is better poised to provide more humane treatment of animals in
comparison to other faiths and secular thinkers, then taking a closer
look at the use of research animals as provided in this essay can be an
important step towards realizing this end. However it is that Muslim
scholars and clinicians decide to proceed with the use of animals in
research, it is clear that so far there has been only a limited engagement
with both the relevant religious-ethical sources and with contemporary
scientific research in the fields of ethology and neuroethics. But there
576 Journal of Religious Ethics

seems to be a desire by Iranian thinkers to improve the conditions of lab-

oratory animals in line with religious and scientific insights, which
might inspire Muslims to take the forefront in a push to advance the
3Rs of animal research.
However, in many Muslim countries human beings themselves are not
free from exploitation and suffering in biomedical research. Cultural
expectations of paternalistic treatment by clinicians, lack of oversight of
researchers, ignorance of religious and ethical issues related to research,
and motivations of the researchers themselveswhether for fame,
money, and/or benevolenceleave many Muslims vulnerable to exploita-
tion and harms (Sachedina 2009, 19699). Hence, both animals and
humans stand to benefit from increased attention to research ethics in
Islam, and are connected in both religious and scientific terms on a spec-
trumrather than being clearly divided one from another.

REFERENCES
Al-Kulayn, Ab
u Jafar Muammad ibn Yaq
ub ibn Is

aq
1988 Al-K
af. 8 vols. Edited by Al Akbar al-Ghaff

ar. D

ar al-Kit

ab al-
Isl

amyya, Tehran.
Bartal, Inbal Ben-Ami, Jean Decety, and Peggy Mason
2011 Empathy and Pro-Social Behavior in Rats. Science 334 (December
9): 142730.
Beauchamp, Tom L.
2015 The Ethics of Biomedical Research Involving Animals. In The
Routledge Companion to Bioethics, edited by John D. Arras, Elizabeth
Fenton, and Rebecca Kukla, 26173. New York: Routledge.
Ebrahim, Abul Fadl Mohsin
2001 Organ Transplantation, Euthanasia, Cloning, and Animal Experi-
mentation: An Islamic View. Leicestershire: The Islamic Foundation.
Foltz, Richard C.
2006 Animals in the Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures. New York:
Oneworld.
The Iran Project
2016 Iran to Build First Animal Farm in Kerman: Official. The Iran Pro-
ject, February 23. Available at: http://theiranproject.com/blog/2016/02/
23/iran-to-build-first-animal-farm-in-kerman/ (accessed April 11, 2017).
Jann
at, Ibr

ahm
2005-06 Ris
alih tawzial-mas
ail. Qom: Ansarian.
_
Jonsen, Albert
1998 The Birth of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Khodaparast, AH, A. Abdolahzadeh, and M. Rasekh
2008 A Critical Study of the Six Ethical Codes for Research in Iran.
Journal of Reproduction & Infertility 8.4 (March): 36579.
 Islamic Bioethics and Animal Research 577

Kuhse, Helga and Peter Singer

2001 What is Bioethics? A Historical Introduction. In A Companion to
Bioethics, edited by Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, 314. Malden,
Mass.: Blackwell.
Loveless, Sherry E., and James Giordano
2014 Neuroethics, Painience, and Neurocentric Criteria for the Moral
Treatment of Animals. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
23.2 (April): 16372.
Masri, Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad
1986 Animal Experimentation: The Muslim Viewpoint. In Animal Sacri-
fices: Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science, edited
by Tom Regan, 17197. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University
Press.
2007 Animal Welfare in Islam. Leicestershire: The Islamic Foundation.
Mobasher, M., K. Aramesh, S. J. Aldavoud, N. Ashraganjooei, K. Divsalar, C. J.
C. Phillips, and B. Larijani.
2008 Proposing a National Ethical Framework for Animal Research in
Iran. Iranian Journal of Public Health: A Supplementary Issue on
Bioethics 37.1 (March): 3946.
Naderi, Mohammad Mehdi, Ali Sarvari, Alireza Lianifar, Sara Borjian Boroujeni,
and Mohammad Mehdi Akhondi
2012 Regulations and Ethical Considerations in Animal Experiments:
International Laws and Islamic Perspectives. Avicenna Journal of
Medical Biotechnology 4.3 (JulySeptember): 11420.
Orlans, F. Barbara
2001 History and Ethical Regulation of Animal Experimentation: An
International Perspective. In A Companion to Bioethics, edited by
Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, 399410. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Ormsby, Eric
2010 Literature. In A Companion to Muslim Ethics, edited by Amyn B.
Sajoo, 5378. New York: I. B. Tauris.
Pickthall, Muhammad M., trans.
2000 The Glorious Quran. Elmhurst, N.Y.: Tahrike Tarsile Quran, Inc.
Rahman, Fazlur
1998 Health and Medicine in the Islamic Tradition. Chicago: Kazi
Publications.
Real Iran
2016 Worlds Largest Center for Neurological Research Under Construc-
tion in Tehran. Real Iran, April 24. Available at: http://realiran.org/
worlds-largest-center-for-neurological-research-under-construction-in-
tehran/ (accessed April 11, 2017).
Rollin, Bernard E.
2001 The Moral Status of Animals and Their Use as Experimental Sub-
jects. In A Companion to Bioethics, edited by Helga Kuhse and
Peter Singer, 41122. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
578 Journal of Religious Ethics

Russell, W. M. S., and R. L. Burch

1992 The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Wheathamp-
stead: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
Sachedina, Abdulaziz
2009 Islamic Biomedical Ethics: Principles and Applications. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Serour, Gamal
1994 Islam and the Four Principles. In Principles of Health Care Ethics,
edited by Raanan Gillon, 7591. Chichester: Wiley.
Shakir, M. H., trans.
1999 The Quran. 11th ed. Elmhurst, N.Y.: Tahrike Tarsile Quran, Inc.
Shr

az, Mak

arim
2004-05 Istift
a
am Al bin Ab

at jadd. Vol. 3. Qom: Madrasa al-Im
alib.
Shomali, Mohammad
2008a Aspects of Environmental Ethics: An Islamic Perspective. Think-
ing Faith (November 11): 16.
2008b Islamic Bioethics: A General Scheme. Journal of Medical Ethics
and History of Medicine 1: 18.
Tlili, Sarra
2012 Animals in the Quran. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2015 Animals Would Follow Sh
afiism: Legitimate and Illegitmate
Violence to Animals in Medieval Islamic Thought. In Violence in
Islamic Thought from the Quran to the Mongols, edited by Robert
Gleave and Istvan T. Kristo-Nagy, 22544. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Copyright of Journal of Religious Ethics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.