Facing the Challenge of Animal “Personhood”

For many years animal activists have argued that animals deserve rights. This viewpoint was once considered extreme, but it has begun attracting attention from mainstream legal thinkers who are exploring the notion that animals deserve more protection than the legal system currently provides.

For the most part, the law considers animals to be property. This means that the owner must take legal and financial responsibility if an animal destroys property or causes harm to a person. On the other hand, if someone harms an animal, the owner is entitled to damages. However, these damages are generally limited to the economic value of the animal. Owners also have significant latitude concerning the fate of an animal, i.e., decisions about its living environment, medical treatment, etc.

The law provides some notable exceptions to the treatment of animals as property. For example, anti-cruelty laws allow the government to intervene if people mistreat their animals. Although in most states research is exempt from anti-cruelty laws, it is still subject to government oversight to ensure humane treatment. However, since many activists distrust researchers and consider research to be inherently cruel, this arrangement is unsatisfactory to them.

There is growing interest in the field of animal rights law. Nearly three dozen law schools offer classes in animal rights law, and a number of local bar associations have established interest sections on animal rights law. These efforts are aimed at passing laws and using the courts to revisit the legal status of animals and provide greater protection for them.

Some of these efforts may seem benign enough. A number of localities have passed ordinances changing the term pet "owner" to "guardian." While this change alone does not affect the content of the laws, some see this change in terminology as a preliminary step toward getting the courts to consider animals as legal "persons." Advocates argue that it is only intended to encourage a greater sense of responsibility towards animals.

The long-term goal of the animal rights legal strategists is to get the law to recognize that animals have interests apart from human beings' interest in them. The traditional view is that human beings are entitled to legal privileges such as rights because they alone have certain mental characteristics such as the ability to use language, make tools, and be self-aware. However, as our understanding of animal cognition has progressed, these distinctions are falling by the wayside as animals demonstrate mental abilities and social behaviors once seen as characteristically human.

One line of animal rights argumentation goes that if an animal has mental characteristics similar to those of humans, then for the sake of fairness, society ought to provide it with the same kinds of rights that a human being of similar mental characteristics would be guaranteed. The argument is not that these animals should vote, but rather that they should have certain protections, such as the right to be governed by their own preferences or by what is in their own best interests. If this view were adopted, it could well mean that an increasing number of animal species could no longer be used as subjects of biomedical research.

One of the intermediate goals of animal rights law activists is to have the courts accept animals as "persons" and to allow court cases to be brought on their behalf. This is known as granting legal "standing," which provides access to the courts for the resolution of grievances. Such a move could open the door to an endless stream of court cases objecting to biomedical research and every other human endeavor that involves animals.

The biomedical research community must find a way to address these challenges. What should be the status of animals before the law? Is there a meaningful distinction between humans and animals, and if so, what is it? Is this a matter of "fairness," or should it be decided on some other grounds? The answer to these questions clearly will not be found in science alone. The APS has joined with a number of other scientific societies in seeking guidance from legal experts on how to answer these questions.