Originally published 31 March 1986
When I was a boy growing up in Tennessee I once snitched my uncle’s .22 rifle and went hunting with my friends. My first shot brought a gray squirrel tumbling down through the branches of a tree. The squirrel lay on the ground at my feet, its belly pierced by a neat red hole, convulsed with pain. I watched, paralyzed by horror at what I had done, until one of my friends dispatched the squirrel with the butt of his rifle.
The sight of the suffering squirrel moved me deeply. Never since that day have I gratuitously injured another living thing. I tell this grim little story to indicate the kind of deep emotions that can color our thinking about the highly-charged issue of animal rights.
The animal rights movement and current practices of scientific research appear to be on a collision course. Opposition to the use of animals in research is not new. What is new is a growing public interest in the philosophical issue of animal rights, and the ability of antivivisectionists to attract powerful political support.
Public outrage
In this country, the issue was pressed upon the public consciousness two years ago [May 1984] when animal rights activists broke into the head-injury research lab at the University of Pennsylvania and stole videotapes of violent experiments involving baboons. The tapes were widely disseminated and evoked a furor of outrage. This particular use of animals clearly violated the public sense of what is morally acceptable.
The University of Pennsylvania was subsequently fined $4000 for abuse of the animals. The episode led to a tightening of government and professional guidelines for animal research, and Congress enacted new laws in 1985 aimed at insuring the welfare of laboratory animals.
A broader public debate on animal rights and scientific research has been going on in Europe, where the influence of radical “animal liberation” philosophers like Peter Singer and Tom Regan has been widely felt. The storm seems almost certain to blow our way.
In Switzerland, animal rights activists succeeded in forcing a referendum on a constitutional amendment that would have abolished all use of vertebrate animals in research. The ban was rejected 2‑to‑1 by Swiss voters. The amendment was supported by animal rights groups and many environmentalists. It was fiercely opposed by Switzerland’s multinational pharmaceutical companies and university research workers.
In Britain, animal rights groups have caused Parliament to reconsider a century-old statute on animal welfare. Again, the demand is for an outright ban on animal research, but the outcome will be something less than that. Public controversy has exploded onto the covers of several British magazines.
Last year more than 100 million animals were killed worldwide in the cause of science — mostly rats, mice, and guinea pigs, but also large numbers of cats, dogs, and monkeys. In this country the figure is something like 20 million. To put these figures into perspective, Americans killed 4 billion animals last year to fill their stomachs, and the number of animals used in research is down by almost half from a decade ago.
No simple answers
As an informed citizen, what should be my attitude about all of this? I would like to think of myself as compassionate toward my fellow creatures. But I do eat my share of them. And I am grateful for the advances in public health and safety that have accrued from the responsible use of animals in education and research.
The Office of Technology Assessment in Washington has recently reviewed alternatives to the use of animals in research. The report accepts that the use of animals must continue — but argues that fewer animals would be needed if researchers changed their habits and adopted new technologies. In general, the recommendations of the report seem well-meaning and sensible, and they are likely to have an ameliorating influence on the welfare of research animals.
There are no simple answers to this complex moral question. But scientists should be among the first to nurture public awareness regarding the use and misuse of animals in research and education. No one knows more about the many and subtle ways we are bound to one another — mouse, baboon, and human — than those who study the life sciences.
Compassion, like life itself, is a seamless web. I recall something Thoreau wrote about animals and their rights: “I have found repeatedly, of late years, that I cannot fish without falling a little in self-respect…I have skill at it, and, like many of my fellows, a certain instinct for it…But always when I have done I feel that it would have been better if I had not fished. I think that I do not mistake. It is a faint intimation, yet so are the first streaks of morning.”
