Legislation Watch
So-called "Pet Safety Bills" don't protect pets but they do pose a threat to medical research. More information
Science Policy Announcements
For the latest news from the APS Science Policy click here.
Resource Book Now Available
Click here for more info on The APS Resource Book for the Design of Animal Exercise Protocols.
"First, animals aren't people"
by Adrian Morrison, D.V.M., Ph.D.
The Wilmington Morning Star
August 5, 2002
See Fair Use statement, below.
Certain activist lawyers have grabbed headlines recently in their campaign to grant legal rights, first, to chimpanzees and then to other animals. They believe that these animals deserve legal protection, including an end to their use as subjects of medical research. As a research scientist who for 40 years has used animals in sleep studies, I am deeply concerned.
Proponents of animal rights build their case with these arguments: (1) certain animals share qualities of consciousness that have heretofore been seen as uniquely human; (2) animals are brutalized in research; and (3) research with animals has been made obsolete by computers and other technologies.
While perhaps superficially credible, these assertions are simplistic and, in my view, simply wrong. First, limited similarities of consciousness are not sufficient grounds to make the quantum leap of granting legal personhood to animals. Second, scientists have every reason to treat animals humanely because good science depends on healthy animals, an ethos buttressed by laws ensuring humane care. Last, and perhaps most important, there is no substitute for animal research to understand biological processes that affect a living organism. Think of it this way: Why use costly animals if equally useful non-animal research tools were available?
Granting "personhood" to animal species deemed to share qualities with us, such as cognition, autonomy and self-awareness, is not a benign campaign to protect animals. It is an effort to use the legal system as a tool to enforce a flawed ethic concerning the relationship between humanity and the animal world.
With every medical breakthrough of the past century the direct result of animal-based research, such research is not only ethical but is our obligation. This obligation emerges clearly through, what I believe, are the four "First Principles of Research."
- All human beings are persons. This is obvious to most—but not to some in the animal rights movement. Philosopher Peter Singer first made the argument that some animals ought to count as "persons," whereas mentally defective humans should not and that the lives of healthy animals ought to be weighed equally with human beings. Mr. Singer says parents of a newborn with Down's syndrome would be justified in euthanizing her to make room in their lives for a baby with normal intelligence. Recall, though, that Nazi Germany used the same kind of personhood criterion to justify killing the physically and mentally handicapped.
- Our first obligation is to our fellow humans. As a biologist, I say that the most powerful imperative for the use of animals in research is that of survival, of protecting kin and, by extension, other persons from conquerable disease and untimely death. Viewed this way, scientists' work seems no different from nor less supportable than a mother eagle's dismembering prey to feed her fledglings. We would be foolish, at best, to ignore the realities of Nature and the power of natural impulses for survival.
- Animals are not little persons. The necessity of distinguishing between a person and animal strikes at the heart of the dilemma faced by a scientist who is very fond of animals, yet who uses them in research. I have come to realize the obvious: we decide what animals are to be in relation to us. I adore my cat, Buster, but I also used members of his species in my research for years.
- We have a great obligation to the animals under our control. We have a moral responsibility to care for animals and should not treat them cruelly. And we scientists are obligated to perform critical experiments as skillfully and humanely as possible.
Polls show that most Americans sense a duty to their fellow humans that supersedes obligations to other species. Those who try to draw other species into the human fold by emphasizing intellectual abilities that are but shadows of our own, demean those species, in my opinion. Animals cannot come close to us intellectually. Let's appreciate them in their own right: as wonderful creations of nature.
Adrian Morrison is a researcher in the Department of Animal Biology in the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
This article was syndicated by Knight-Ridder, which retains copyright title. It is posted here in accordance with the 'fair use' clause of U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, Section 107), which permits the use of copyrighted material for nonprofit educational purposes. Please contact the copyright owner for permission if you wish to use it for any other purpose.
Back to Top Back to Bioscience Briefing