|
Video courtesy of PETA.ORG Thank you, PETA
IF YOU ARE A DECENT PERSON, the video on this page describing the inherent cruelty involved in the use of animals in laboratory experimentation should provide many powerful reasons for you to oppose or question this practice. Experiments on animals is a very difficult subject and there is no denying its inherent controversiality. This is an issue that cuts very deep, to the core of human health and self preservation, and is therefore protected by elaborate arguments not likely to be encountered when debating more "optional" issues such as hunting, furs, or even dietary preferences. Still, even when its advocates adduce that experimentation on animals is needed to advance veterinary science, a case can be made that were it not for our complete dominion over the animals we use in our labs, these subjects would not be there of their own volition. Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that the respected label of biomedical research condones the use of huge numbers of animals in heinous and frivolous experimentation unworthy of serious researchers, while continuing to endorse lab routines whose outcomes are already well known to most investigators. Such is the case, for example, with cosmetics or consumer goods testing involving substances whose properties are well known to all concerned parties but which are nonetheless tested over and over again to ward off the possibility of lawsuits for negligence. Those experiments, therefore, are conducted to spare someone a monetary risk and not to advance knowledge.
Some animal defenders have argued over the years that testing on animals may actually delay finding cures or even yield misleading results as animal and human models encompass many significant differences. The case of Thalidomide is frequently trotted out to prove this point, as indeed this drug unleashed horrible effects on unsuspecting human populations even though it did no such thing when tested on animal models.
My own position is one of principle over utility and expediency, and I remain suspicious of attempts to help animals under the pretense that we are primarily or only concerned with human health (we are, of course, but that is a separate question). |
First, because such attempts are appeals to self interest, of which we already have far too much in this highly individualistic and meretricious society. Second, because the effort of many animal defenders to camouflage their concern for animal suffering is transparent, cowardly, and finally self-defeating. Yet it is the track most often taken by those who feel there is always a way to have their cake and eat it too. Animal research is where this tendency has manifested itself most prominently (and of late, food & health issues).
The draw of this line of thinking is powerful. At times, even supposedly "fire-eating radicals" have leaned toward a position of "pragmatism," preaching the shopworn factoid that animal-based biomedical research has led to great human tragedies. Thus, marching under the banner of human self-interest, these cunning defenders tirelessly refer to the well-recorded disasters and backfires in medical experimentation, the 40-year-old Thalidomide affair, as mentioned earlier, being their flagship example.
But the fact is that reality is more complex. Despite its implicit risks, biomedical research does yield useful knowledge, perhaps not as often as its sponsors would like us to believe, and therefore it is possible that one day it may even conquer cancer and other dreaded diseases. If such a day should come—and we certainly hope it will in the not too distant future—the argument that biomedical research entails prohibitive risk to humanity will probably be disabled permanently. So where will that leave us?
We must argue with fact and principle. We must use both tracks for both carry value in the desired transformation of human society. Science uninformed by compassion, by elementary kindness, by human decency, is not complete; it is bad science because no human endeavour should ever be presumed to be exempt from the test of morality. It is precisely morality that elevates us above the rank of very sophisticated flesh and bones machines. In sum, bending to the reality we face, namely the relative backward development of human morality, if animals are to be employed in experiments, the most rigorous safeguards should be instituted regardless of the species utilized, and every effort should be made to assure minimum pain, distress and unnecessary duplication. Furthermore, enforcement of these principles should be guaranteed by the introduction of real oversight procedures, Surely that's not too much to ask from the vaunted moral standards we are always crowing about? Why do I use the 'should" as if none of this existed already? For the simple reason that in practice it doesn't. Some regulations have been passed, but enforcement remains spotty or non-existent. And researchers remain justifiably jealous of their prerogatives, including, in pure science research, to do as they please. In sum, the laws, such as they are, have no teeth. And this simply reflects the level of interest that society places on this issue.
Animal models, I'm afraid, will be replaced in time not so much by the pressure brought to bear by activists, but by the simple fact that better, more economical and faster models not involving entire living creatures will become the new standard. In this context, computer models, tissue cultures, retroactive diagnostic series, volunteer human samples, and other methods, may gradually edge out the active use of animals in our labs. In the meantime, activists must make sure that the animals subjected to this form of enslavement get the best deal we can obtain.
(For more on this discussion, please see "Principle must come first"— Animal People, 07.02).
|
