Normative decisions about moral status are strongly coupled with beliefs and assumptions about consciousness. Whether an individual is able to experience their environment, feel pain and pleasure or reflect on their own experiences, have all been judged at some point as relevant to the moral question of whether they should be protected by law. The scientific study of consciousness has advanced our understanding of some of these empirical questions by revealing the capacities and limits of these dimensions of consciousness in different states and animal species. In light of the tight link with moral status, scientific discoveries in this field have direct implications on law and ethics. Furthermore, this link with ethics may place implicit pressure on the scientific community studying consciousness to justify current societal norms, rather than challenge them. Finally, given the important role of consciousness in determining moral standing, the use of non-human animals in the scientific study of consciousness introduces a direct conflict between scientific relevance and ethics – the more scientifically valuable an animal model is for studying consciousness, the more difficult it becomes to ethically justify compromises to its well-being for consciousness research. Here we call for a discussion of the immediate ethical corollaries of the body of knowledge that has been accumulated, and for a more explicit consideration of the role of ideology and ethics in the scientific study of consciousness, including the question of animal models of consciousness.
The scientific study of consciousness cannot, and should not, be morally neutral