Is brain surgery on primates in basic research morally acceptable?

In the contemporary controversy about the legitimacy of vivisection a few b asic assumptions are shared by nearly all participants of the discussion. I I) Pur-e Research in the service of medicine is of great value for humankin d It contributes to prolonging human life and the alleviation and preventio n of human suffering. (II) Brain surgery for the sole purpose of pure resea rch is morally unacceptable in the case of any human being. (III) Primates are sensitive beings which lead a rich social life and are endowed with rem arkable intellectual capacities. (IT) Primates have a moral standing, possi bly to a lesser degree compared with human beings, certain acts are therefo re art injustice toward them. The controversy then is about the question whether premise (I) outweighs (I V), i.e. whether the benefit of the pure research is from a moral point of view more important than the suffering of innocent primates. I shall presen t four arguments against such a conclusion. I) According to premise (I) brain surgery on human beings for the sole purp ose of pure research is morally unacceptable. Since this prohibition is mea nt to include all human beings it cannot rest on the exclusive human posses sion of reason because e.g. so,ne mentally handicapped humarz beings lack t his faculty. All other properties which may be named as basis for the ascri ption of a moral status which forbids brain surgery for pure research, are possessed also by some animals, especially primates; therefore it is imposs ible to deny them the same moral status. 21 Brain surgery on primates is co nfronted with an insoluble dilemma: If the characteristics of the primate b rain are very similar to that of human beings, the scientific benefit is ob vious, but the procedure appears to be morally unacceptable exactly because of this similarity If on the other hand, the characteristics differ signif icantly brain surgery may seem legitimate but the scientific benefit become s doubtful at bear. 3) We could guile easily save hundreds of human lives i f e.g. speed limits would be reduced (say) by half: Most of us, however; ar e unwilling to accept such a loss of quality of life in order to save a cer tain number of human lives. Since we are no prepared to pay this comparativ ely modest price, we have, in my eyes, no moral right to impose considerabl e pain and suffering on a primate to save human lives. 4) Pure research in the service of humman medicine is from a moral point of view view of great importance. Since most of the work in this area is done or financed by priv ate corporations and not by slate institutions, from an economical point of view the aim consists in making profit. Since the latter aspect has gained more and more weighs in the last years the moral worth of pure research ca nnot rule out any other moral concern.