dawnwatch.com

While searching the internet for sources on animal testing in the news, I found a site that tracks animal issues in the media and allows you to keep up with current topics. The address is:
http://www.dawnwatch.com/
Below is a posting from the site, that I thought held relevance to my topic:

"There are human safety concerns about testing on animals. Results are unreliable. Though we have much in common with other animals, our systems are not identical. According to the United States General Accounting Office, 52% of the new drugs marketed between 1976 and 1985 caused adverse reactions that were not predicted by animal studies (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99 - "Animal Testing"). Time magazine, February 23, 1962, stated that Thalidomide was released "after three years of animal tests." There was no indication of the severe birth defects it would cause in humans. The discovery of penicillin, however, was made without the use of animals. We should be thankful that the animal tests the researchers were later required to perform on this drug, before its release, didn't include tests on guinea pigs - Penicillin kills them.

An article in the 6/24/02 issue of Insight Magazine tells us: "Of 11,000 anticancer chemicals developed in mice, none help humans. While 5 milligrams of botulinum kills man, 10 grams has no effect on dogs or cats. The differences can be both unknown and very great, researchers say. Some animal tests indeed have led to erroneous conclusions: that smoking is noncarcinogenic and that benzene is safe, for instance."

Between 1998-2000, ten drugs were recalled in the United States because of side effects that occurred almost exclusively in women. Dr Ray Greek explains, "This means that tests on men cannot predict what a drug will do for women so how can a monkey/dog/rat etc predict anything?"

For more information on the Scientific arguments against using animals in biomedical research, take a look at "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" in the Recommended Reading Section. And check out www.CureDisease.com"

Overall, this project has opened my eyes to what is really going on in our world, with animals being treated as commodities and objects that can be used for whatever purpose to benefit the human race.

"Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character." ~George Bernard Shaw

Utilitarianism

Many moral theories have views on the treatment of non-human animals. Some condone treating animals any way in which humans see fit. They are there to be used for our benefit. But the Utilitarian theory holds that everyone, humans and non-humans, who are capable of experiencing pain and suffering, deserve to be treated with moral concern. I agree with this and believe that animals are worthy of moral consideration.

St. Thomas Aquinas stated that the only reason to avoid the mistreatment of animals was for the welfare of humans. Peter Singer discusses this position in his book, Animal Liberation. He describes how Aquinas believed that animals are not rational creatures and, although admits that animals can feel pain; this pain is not the same as that of human suffering in any way. According to Aquinas, “It matters not how man behaves to animals because God has subjected all things to man’s power…”(Singer 195). God created humans as “perfect creatures” who can make their own moral judgments. Animals cannot; therefore, they are excluded from the limits of morality. Christian tradition has long held this view until Pope John Paul II made a statement in 1988, concerning the need to reconsider or moral duties to animals. He rejected “the absolute dominion view” (Singer 97) and stated that it is not God’s plan for humans to do what they please just because they hold a higher intellect. Singer thought that this was promising, but it was only a small step. The Catholic Church still needs to take a different direction with its teachings about the treatment of animals.

Immanuel Kant, a philosopher from the 18th century, held a view similar to Aquinas. He saw animals as creatures that are here on earth to serve human purposes. He claimed that we have no direct duties to them because they are not rational beings. Animals do not share the psychological capabilities of humans and, as Kant put it, are not “self-conscious”. According to his theory and what he called the ultimate law of morality, humans “may never be used as a means to an end” (Rachels 131). But this did not apply to animals. Animals are thought of as things that humans can put a value on. It would only be morally wrong to torture or kill an animal if it has value to another human. The same applies to inanimate objects. They have value only when they are a means to a human’s end. For example, based on Kant’s theory, it would be just as wrong to mutilate a teddy bear belonging to a child as it is to torture a family pet because these are things that a human has put value on. The reason it is wrong to torture the pet has nothing to do with the pain it would experience (which Kant would say does not exist). It is just a “relative end”, dependant on our desires and not an end in itself. Animals do not have rights. It is the people who care about the animals who have the rights and that is the only reason to not harm an animal. The only other motivation Kant gives for not causing suffering to an animal is his argument that it may cause humans to be more violent to other humans. But this still does not give non-humans any of their own rights. Kant is basing his standpoint on human welfare only.

The best argument against these theories that hold no consideration for the treatment of animals is the Principle of Utility. "On their view, what matters is not whether an individual has a soul, is rational, or any of the rest. All that matters is whether he is capable of experiencing happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain. If an individual is capable of suffering, then we have a duty to take that into account when we are deciding what to do, even if that individual in question is not human" (Rachels 98).

Sources:

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy: Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw, 2003.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books, 1975.

Animal Liberation

The PETA Animal Liberation Project is a presentation of the correlation between the suffering of humans throughout our history and the same suffering that animals are going through in present time. To see the exhibit, see the link to the right called Animal Liberation. The paired pictures are moving and the guide provided explains the circumstances.

One that caught my attention as I was considering how this pertains to articles we have read in class, was the section on branding. "Eternal Treblinka" compares slavery to the current treatment of animals. PETA's explaination was similar:

"Slaves were often branded or otherwise mutilated as punishment and to identify them as property. Enslaved blacks who tried to strike a white person were burned on the face with a metal iron. If slaves were caught trying to escape, an "R" was burned into their face to mark them as a runaway. Other slave owners would cut off portions of their slaves' ears or even carve their initials into their slaves' bodies. It was common practice to refer to these marks in advertising for the return of runaway slaves. The law in slave states offered no protection from these abuses or recognition of the suffering of the slaves, protecting the "property rights" of the slave owners. The illustration is from the book Captain Canot: Twenty Years of an African Slaver by Theodore Canot.

Today, ranchers brand cattle so that they can identify which cows belong to which ranch and deter theft. The red-hot branding iron is pressed into the flesh of the animal long enough and hard enough to burn away the hair and outer layer of skin. It can take as many as six people to restrain a cow, who may also be forced to endure castration, ear notching, and dehorning without the use of painkillers. Pigs in factory farms have pieces of their ears cut out for identification. The systems of oppression and abuse have remained the same—only the victims have changed." (http://www.peta.org/animalliberation/guide3.asp)

I know many people believe that PETA has a bad public image and many find them to be a nuisance, but they are just an organization of people who feel strongly about the rights of animals. They do not condone violent protests but, instead use their media contacts and celebrity spokespeople to get their word out. PETA knows how to go through legal and government channels to get things done and I think that is why their adversaries feel such a strong opposition. So, I'm not trying to shove this down anyone's throat, just check out the site if you want to.

Government testing

I found some really great information from the PETA media center -
check the link to the right.

The factsheet on government-required animal testing was eye opening.

"Statistics published by government authorities and research-oversight bodies in North America and Europe reveal that the vast majority of the cruelest and most painful animal experiments are conducted to satisfy government-mandated testing requirements. In these tests, animals such as birds, dogs, fish, guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, rats, and even monkeys are forced to swallow or inhale massive doses of a test substance—which can cause severe abdominal pain, paralysis, swelling and ulceration of the skin and/or eyes, convulsions and seizures, and bleeding from the nose, mouth, and genitals—before they are poisoned to death or killed by the experimenter" (http://peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=125)

Some of these tests gave only 60% accuracy of possible toxcicity to humans. One of the tests, called Draize eye and skin irritation test, consists of rabbits being restrained while different substances are dripped into their eyes or onto their skin for hours. Some of the effects include: redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or blindness in the eyes. Most of the time, the animals are then euthanized, which is probably more humane than letting them live with the horrible condition the test has left them in. And, as I've said before, the differences, in this case, between the reaction of a human eye and rabbit eyes or skin make for an unreliable prediction of toxcicity levels or even irritation. Yet the FDA still claims that the test plays an important role in testing regulated products, such as cosmetics.

I, personally, know I will know always look for "no testing on animals" on the labels when I buy makeup. PETA also has a good resource for finding these products that refrain from this sort of testing.

Animal Pain

Is the pain an animal feels the same as that of a human? Should the pain felt by an animal count for less because they do not hold the same level of intellect as humans? In the essay "Animal Pain" by Bernard Rollin, a leading scholar in animal rights and consciousness, he argues against the theory that animals can't anticipate an remember pain (Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations: Second Edition. New Jersey: Prentice, 1989.). One of the points he makes is that non-human animals have an inability to understand why they are experiencing this suffering and cannot contemplate a possible end to it. He says, "Since animals cannot deal intellectually with danger and injury as we do, their motivation to flee must be correlatively stronger than ours - in a word, they probably hurt more" (Regan and Singer 61).

In the history of animal experimentation, science has referred to the pain reflexes of an animal more as that of a machine. Rollin points out that "the neural mechanisms responsible for pain behavior are remarkably similar in all vertebrates" (Regan and Singer 62). He goes on to discuss more detailed discussion of the similarities in human and non-human animal brains such as the release of serotonin and other neurochemicals , proving that in the presence of these as the body's way to deal with pain, animals do experience pain. They are not just irrational machines that are only reacting to stimuli without any conciousness of what is being done to their bodies. An interesting example Rollin gives is when someone feels chest pain, thinking it is a heart attack, experiences not only the actual pain, but terrifying fear as well. And then only to find out that it was only gas. An animal would feel this pain and experience the fear but have no understanding why it is happening or that it may end. This is what Rollin means when he talks about the helplessness an animal feels during an experiment involving pain.

One last point from Rollins article - He says "...research indicates that all vertebrates have receptor cites for benzodiazepine, which, in turn, suggests that the physiological basis of anxiety exists in all vertebrates" (Regan and Singer 65). The possibilty, or, most likeliness, of anxiety from the pain of an experiment is an even more persuasive argument for the need to give animals moral consideration and not dismiss their conciousness of suffering.

Animal Experimentation

The ethics of animal experimentation is a controversial topic and has everyone, from experts in the medical field to philosophers to celebrities, voicing their opinions. Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher and author of the well known book, Animal Liberation, addresses the ongoing debate on this topic in his essay "Humans are Sentient Too". He discusses the ramifications of the extremist actions of a few animal activist groups and the overall damage these actions have and will do for the cause. He sums it up well when he says "The mainstream animal movement has repeatedly condemned the use of violence against sentient beings, human or non-human. My own statements against it now stretch back nearly 20 years. But every large movement attracts extremists who are impatient at the slow pace of change." Singer is asking for a change to be made; an alternative to vivisection, as are these activists who use extreme actions to get their point across.

I can see how these extremists feel a desperation to make a difference as I read stories of the horrible conditions that some of these animals endure for the sake of science. In Alix Fano's article, "Beastly Practice" (The Ecologist 30.3 (2000): 24-28. H.W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 17 July 2006.), he describes arsenic testing done on rodents:

"Rats, for example, are remarkably resistant to (arsenic) and develop none of the illnesses - liver, bladder, kidney, and skin cancer - observed in humans. Only when researchers have gone to great lengths - implanting high doses of arsenic compounds in rats' stomachs, under the skin of newborn mice, and into the tracheas of hamsters - have stomach and lung cancers eventually been produced."

He also describes tests done by the EPA to test toxcicity levels of certain chemicals. Although the results of these tests are not conclusive in telling the possible effects of the chemical on humans, the suffering of the animals consists of convulsions, bleeding from their genitals, eyes and mouth, and self-mutililation. The levels of chemicals administered to the animals are far greater than is possible for a human to ingest or have contact with in a lifetime. This is done in order to report negative side-effects of the drug or chemical.

As I said earlier in the post, I can see the desperation, but I do agree with Singer when he says that violent protests will get the animal rights movement nowhere. And as I have researched this topic, I can see how a desperate parent, whose sick child is in need of a cure, may rationalize experiments on animals. I think there needs to be more funding to find alternatives to vivisection. Animals were not put here for us to use as we see fit. They are not our property and deserve the moral consideration of having the basic right to not have to suffer unjustly.