Pet, Dinner, Research Subject – Our Complicated Relationship with Animals
Thursday, August 20th, 2009
Animal Rights Activists are vowing to continue their protests against Michael Vick and the Eagles. The NFL is no stranger to player misconduct. Gun violence and drunken driving by players have made headlines. But they have not sparked the kind of passionate outrage that the Vick provoked. When WHYY's behavioral health reporter Maiken Scott set out to understand the passion of animal rights activists – she got a lesson in ethics along the way.
Listen:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Let's face it. When it comes to animals, most people are hypocrites.
Serpell: They will have one category of animal which they looove and lavish affection on and then another category they just eat.
James Serpell speaks from experience. A pet owner and meat eater, he is professor of animal welfare at the University of Pennsylvania. He says how we determine which animals make a good pet….and which make a good dinner – doesn't make a lot of sense:
Serpell: It's not as if pigs are stupid and dogs are smart – they are both at about the same level of intelligence and probably quite affectionate, pigs, if you get to know them.
Serpell says he continues to struggle with how he categorizes animals.
Not a problem for Maria Pandolfi. A passionate animal rights activist, her position is unwavering:
Maria Pandolfi holds one of her pet rats.
In her activism, Maria champions an animal that elicits about the same level of compassion as bugs – RATS. Close to a dozen of them roam freely in her South Philadelphia home:
Pandolfi: I love that they are very intelligent and they just love you back.
An art teacher by day, Maria is the president and founder of Rat Chick Rat Rescue. Her organization takes in rats given up by families, and rescues them from pet stores and laboratories.
Maria Pandolfi's rats enjoying some time around the house.
Maria is vegan, and opposes all research on animals. She says it is cruel and unnecessary. She has infiltrated research labs, and runs protests.
One of the people Maria would think of as cruel is U Penn Researcher Adrian Morrison. He is soft-spoken, a proud grandfather. He has had many run-ins with animal rights activists, who targeted his office in 1990.
Morrison: You are sitting in the room that was broken into, they trashed the office, removed files, letters…
Angered, Morrison set out to write a book exposing the animal rights movement. But his reflections on the issues brought him to a different place. He remembered internal debates he had over the course of his career:
Morrison: I'd walk along and all the sudden I'd say – do I really want to keep doing this to cats, and then then I'd always say 'yes, because this is the way medicine progresses, and medicine has helped children, and there is a difference between a cat and a child.
Morrison still believes in the value of animal research – but says today the work can be done in better, less cruel ways. [Morrison's book is called "An Odyssey with Animals"] His stance would not satisfy Maria, who says her strong opinions have made her somewhat of an outcast, even among old friends:
Pandolfi: Some of them think that I'm totally insane, and then there is people at work, some of them understand to a degree, but some of them think that I'm the craziest thing they ever met.
It's easy to look at somebody protesting outside a lab and think they are nuts, says Villanova ethicist Brett Wilmot:
Wilmot: We become very complacent when we're in an environment that for the most part reflects our sense of order, and justice and reasonableness, and then when other people are in that same environment and find it appalling and react that way, our first reaction is to think "wow – what on earth is wrong with them" when again, they may be simply exhibiting the same kind of reaction we would under different circumstances.
Spending time with Maria Pandolfi, James Serpell and Adrian Morrison – it becomes clear that all three struggle. For Maria – her passionate struggle is about saving the animals. For the other two, the struggle is a quieter one, an ongoing conversation and balancing act.
recently whyy did a radio piece on animal testing that included success rates of 10
% for companies that do this and a little know fact that animal testers puncture ear drums of song birds with no anesthesia. This is torture flat out, no doubt. I am looking for producer of this story and the people interviewed so I can write my congressman with details. This was no more than a week or so ago. Please help, my email is email hidden; JavaScript is required. Thanks
John I apologize for any confusion you have about my last post. As you may know from reading my interview I am dyslexic so writing is not my forte.
Can you scientists please provide us with some fact to back up your statements? I am sure that you are working very diligently to cure cancer etc. For how long has the scientific community been working on these cures? What cancers have you cured so far? How many medications that you have invented worked on animals and then made it through the human research process. How many medications were taken off the market because they were found to be unsafe for humans but worked very well on animals?
About my visit to Temple, it was completely on the up and up. I am a teacher and the workshop was for teachers in the Philadelphia area.
Um…ellen…Marina and Maria are two different people. I have nothing to do with Maria.
Convenient that you're bowing out of the debate before answering any questions about your posts on the excuse that you have more noble things to do like getting paid to experiment on live sentient beings. I"ve found that to be a common exit line when vivisectors are asked to provide sources for the "facts" they claim.
does anyone have a good recipe for rat. I tried making "buffalo" rat wings but they were kind of grainy. Could really use some help here – lot's of rats around going to waste.
As there appears to be no middle ground in this discussion, it seems pointless to give references or support for medical research since there is a fundamental differences in people's views on the place of animals in world. This is remarkably like the pro-choice debate.
The libelous statements against researchers like myself are not supported with facts and silly comments like a 150 degree hot plate [please - that is not even physically possible and an obvious exaggeration] are given as facts. It is also a fact, that medicines to treat rats for respiratory ailments, have been tested in many, many rats and mice and are prescribed by vets in Philadelphia for Marina's rats. So rats can die for a pet rat's sake but she would save a rat over a person? I would always save Marina's life over any animal even my pets, and would continue to do research to do so whether she likes it or not.
I also find the arguments that the 'struggles' of animals is akin to the struggles of slaves or Jews in the Holocaust are particular offensive and misantropic. Especially since Nazi Germany was busy passing laws preventing animal research and a pro-vegetarian agenda as it began its eugenics programs on Jews. Myself, I see no connections between these issues. Or the notion of experimenting on people with low IQs or prisoners. This seems an absurd agrument to me.
An interesting book (although no one on the other side will bother to read it) is called the 'Scalpel and the Butterfly' by Deborah Rudacille. It chronicles the fundamental disagreement and philosophy of both sides, as well as documents some of the tactics used by extremists in the animal right's world (the references Marina requests). It is more updated than the excellent article by Katie McCabe "Beyond Cruelty" an investigative report into the PETA movement of the 1990s. Although Alex Pacheo tried to sue the Washingtonian for libel, the Washingtonian won an easy victory in court.
Unfortunately, I must exit this debate at this time because I have been requested, actually begged, by some of the patients suffering from chemotherapeutic deficits in cognition to help figure out possible cures for their suffering so they can return to normal lives. My work is more important. And if anyone in the discussion, God forbids, gets cancer and needs treatment to live a longer life, please thank a mouse on your way to the hospital.
DANTANA – please provide a source for your libelous statement that the groups you mention were found to have distorted facts by photoshopping documents.
We're all ears.
JJ – sorry my analogy offended you, but it's completely valid. You wrote that you value human life over animal life as a reason to justify treating animals as research tools but didn't provide any scientific basis for doing so. Your post consisted solely of your opinion without any facts to support it. You mention the importance of facts but your post is strangely devoid of even one.
I'll ask again: I value my life more than yours. Does that gives me the right to do with you as I see fit? Why not answer the question instead of trying divert attention from it by mentioning PETA?
For a listing of just one animal terrorist group and its tactics that is local, check out this blog:
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/408
Beating people with axe handles is certainly compassionate. Scaring children too.
Kyle, did you notice what this article's about? Was it titled "Our Complicated Relationship with Other People?"
You're changing things around so that you can throw your 2 cents in (which are not fact-based — I dare you to provide me with where you get your information – AND a gross overgenerlization of animal rights activists as a whole), and your disgraceful tangeant, defacing a compassionate and mainly peaceful group of human beings should be disregarded as the rantings of a person who has no compassion himself.
Maria, I'm not sure I understand what you witnessed at Temple Med School, how you got there or what you saw at a middle school. But — and you may want to sit down for this — as a student I conducted experiments with many hundreds of mice. I have even performed hot plate experiments (not sure which ones you observed or were told about) to evaluate very important properties of pain-killing drugs with very real implications for sick, suffering people. And I think I'm a rather compassionate guy, overall.
Every animal was evaluated by a veterinarian. Every procedure was reviewed by an IACUC board before we could proceed, and every procedure was designed to reduce the numbers of animals needed and the stress to which they'd be exposed. There is no smoking gun. I'm just a regular guy, I don't make my living doing this. I have no incentive other than the duty to tell the truth and a desire to see reason prevail.
Now, I don't agree with you even a little bit regarding the 'right' of animals not to be used in scientific research. But I would never, ever sneak into your house or your place of work to find out how you love your rats or how many shoulder rides you give them each day, or otherwise impose my value system on you. I respect your right to be different from me, even though I think your view is harmful to humanity at large.
Please offer me, and those whose careers are devoted to the effort to understand why our mothers and fathers get cancer, why our children have pain syndromes that render their lives miserable, why our friends develop addictions to medications that ruin lives, and many other pursuits, the same respect. Don't support organizations and individuals who terrorize scientists and bludgeon corporations who fund science with boycotts and falsehoods. And certainly don't imitate their deceit by sneaking into medical schools, if that is what you describe.
There are disastrous conditions that beset the human organism. Cancer is real. Addiction is real. Alzheimer's disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Multiple Sclerosis are real. People are dying of these diseases right now. Who is trying to understand them? Who will make progress and try to eliminate these terrors? You? Those who agree with you?
Think of your human family and friends and tell me which of them you would volunteer to take morphine and place their feet on a hot plate, to take cancer drugs and try to solve a puzzle, or to have a tumor inserted into their brains to see if a new drug works to shrink it without first killing them. Because those are the kinds of things that have to be done to answer the infinite questions that keep us in the dark about so many ailments. I wish no mouse or rat ever had to deal with such a terrible fate. I agree that sucks for that rat. But do you not agree that it sucks more — and in a fundamentally different way — when a person suffers and dies because of our limited knowledge?
You don't have to agree with a scientist, like me, but I do ask that you leave me, and those who are asking these questions alone. While this debate goes on, those people will hopefully employ legions of mice and rats to help spare you, me and the rest of us sorry human beings from the sad sicknesses that may already be festering within.
If you won't contribute to our understanding of ourselves, please just let the rest of us take care of that in peace and safety.
You need to eat that veg.to survive but you do not need to eat that turkey to survive so your eating the turkey is a choice. If I was locked in a cage with a lion who was about to kill me I would definitely kill the lion first if possible. About animal research, their bodies are very different than ours. Please read the stats on animal research done by Physicians Comity for Responsible Med. Out of all the medication tested on animals there is a very high amount that are considered safe yet when they are tested on humans found to be unsafe. Once the safe medications hit the market there are then many that cause human sickness and sometimes death. The scientific community understandably is used to using animals. Medical students are taught to use animals in med. school by prof. who were taught that way. By law they must test on animals but things are changing. Laws are being changed for product testing and many products on the market have been proven safe that are not tested on animals. Getting back to medical research, the whole reason why I went to Temple to witness what was going on was because I wanted to deside based on what I saw rather than videos produced by others. There is propaganda used by the med. industry too.. You can´t tell me that I did not see what I saw. I kept an open mind throughout my visit.The rats in the study I witnessed were not being treated humanely. The Pennsylvania Comity for Biomedical Research was the host for the day. They have been placing rats in middle and high school classrooms for a project called The Great Grow Along Project. These rats come with a cage and bedding that are very bad for rats. There are no arrangements made for the rats medical care if they get sick, the teachers are not taught the proper handling of rats and no arrangements are made for the rats after the experiment is completed. The schools were given wire bottom cages in some instanced which cause a very painful infection called bummble foot. I have received many calls from parents who's children had taken the rats home.'These parents were asking me to take the rats because they did not want them. Some of the rats were sick and the parents were not willing to pay for their medical care. Is this responsible research? I brought this all up to John, the scientist from P.S.F.B.R. and he had no answers. He had no interest in listening to me. He didn´t care. I guess they are just rats. Like the Researcher said, "We can get away with allot more because they are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act¨ By the way, the rats did not cause the plague, it was fleas. There were other animals that carried the fleas too. Because rats have the same taste in food they were the ones that came in contact with humans. There is no risk of the plague i the U.S. today. I still do not recommend trying to make a wild rat or any wild animal into a pet. Please read more about rat facts on our web site, http://www.ratchickratrescue.com.
I demo´d at Temple after my experience. My group was approached by a few researchers that told us we were ignorant to what was going on. One gentleman told me when I explained the lack of pain killer used in the experiment I witnessed that he knows allot more about animal care then vets..We were approached by an older research who studies cancer. She asked me what we were doing and I explained. She said that in her cancer research she used human sells from a person that died 30 years ago. She said that there is no reason to use animals for research now a days due to alternatives. Employees of the hospital who work in the animal lab approached me and said, ¨ÿou did not see it all. You won´t believe the horrible things they do in there. I only work here because I need a job.¨
Uh…did I just fall through a rabbit hole? Am I the only one whose head is spinning from all this nonsensical, juvenile emoting and relativism about 'non-humans?'
Please put down your pet rat and your vegan burger long enough to consider this: every federally funded animal research investigation undertaken in this country is done in service of humanity. And all of that science is conducted responsibly, as the more informed contributors to this post have already explained. Any reports to the contrary are lies, and lies are the sustenance of the ignorant. It is easier to get a uniform and a rifle and head to Afghanistan as a US Soldier than it is to do anything to a rat or mouse in the name of research, such is the regulatory apparatus involved in that endeavor.
I happen to like rats (not the ones who spread plague), and vegan burgers (that's a lie), but that is so not the point. What this artificial distinction between those who 'love' or 'respect' or 'value' our murine, feline and canine comrades dangerously ignores is this: there is a fundamental distinction between human life and that of all other organisms on earth. Why not refuse to wash your hands for fear that you will harm the bacteria that colonize them? Am I to believe the people above do not brush their teeth, for fear of destroying all of those 'living creatures' dwelling within (threatening fatal infection) or do just the fuzzy critters get the exemption?
I agree that humanity would do better to eat less meat, and that there is a certain dignity in all life. I am also an adult. So I am grateful to the turkey, chicken and banana that grows and thrives only so that I can eat it, to continue that cycle of growth and thriving. I'm no better or more deserving than the turkey, but I do have a different place in the ecosystem. Life feeds on life. In the same way I am grateful to the mice and rats who have made such a tremendous contribution to the health and longevity of humankind. I can only hope that my own life can approach their level of contribution and service.
Maria,
I was refering to the GRAS Regulations and IACUC comment not your specific interpretation of the lab visit. PETA and ALF has been exposed as distorting the facts by photoshop in order to further their cause..money. I find it sad that you would rescue a rat over a human but that is your choice. I am glad that I don't live near you. If you don't see that this article is slanted and meandering then you live in a strange world.
Marina, your analogy to human slavery is completely wrong and misses the point – valuing human life. Try again. Perhaps PETA can help you come up with a better response.
Non of my facts were distorted. About saving your child over your dog, They are your children and I nore any of my a.r. friends would disagree with you on that. I am sure that if I had a child I would save him or her over my rats but I would save my rats over humans that were not as close to me as my rats. Please let me know what facts you are talking about? If you want to see stats. on medical research that does not work then please research Physicians for Responsible Medicines web site.
Given a choice between saving my child or my dog from a fire I would take my child. So I guess I do value human life over animal, bugs and plants! Don't forget plants they are living and have no voice either!
If you fundamentally believe animals have the same rights as humans then you will not believe that research can be conducted ethically…plain and simple. I also find it interesting that never in these debates does anyone talk about the cruelty of animals on each other, such as I don't know being hunted and eaten by each other.
JJ raises a great point about organizations, the distortion of facts and the raising of money. I see that all the time whenever I read into the facts of literature from groups like PETA.
It is quite to futile to debate this issue because it is a fundamental belief. As I read the comments I did not see any responses to the facts stated by the scientists. I have found the animal rights folks to be ill informed and distort facts to their favor and their pocketbook!
99% of all avoidable animal suffering and killing is done for the sake of meat. And certainly the comparison of M Vick to the average person who consumes meat is a valid one.
Vick inflicted pain and suffering on dogs for frivolous enjoyment… it was not "necessary". So too, when we purchase our animal products in the way of flesh, dairy and eggs – this is not "necessary" either. To the contrary, as the more we realize – a plant based diet is a healthier choice. But we eat the parts of innocent victims because… they taste good. That reduces the practice to consuming meat just for pleasure… And in this way we are like Vick. Only instead of electrocuting dogs – we stand around the barbeque in our leather shoes roasting pieces of murdered animals. There is no difference.
Also, animals used for the frivolous enjoyments of furs, skins and entertainment fall in this context as well. And the issues regarding animals in labs has been well addressed by those who have posted before me.
It is high time we evolved into a consistent view of animals… If society continues to claim that we only harm animals when needed – surely 99.9% of the time we are fooling ourselves and each other.
Time to call the emperor naked and rise out of this willfull blindness. Animals do have rights – it's but we justify denying them rights for every whim imaginable. ~ http://www.humanemyth.org ~
Go Vegan
I am very happy that Maiken´s piece has caused people to discuss their views on animal rights. I feel that she did a fantastic job! Now let me tell you about something I witnessed first hand at an animal lab. About two years ago I decided that I should not make any decisions on animal research with out going to a lab myself. I visited a lab at Temple Med. School with science teachers from local middle and high schools. The research project was to determin the affects of cocain on rats. The scintest was interested in their behavior when high and whether the rats would take care of their youngwhen under the influence. First of all after the lead scientest told us that they do not pick up rats by their tails because it is inhumane we watched as a rat was picked up by his tails. Secondly, the rat was injected with a substance that would put him to sleep before his head was cut open. This substance was called something like tetrazol, excuse my spelling. When I asked my vet. about it she said it has no where near the amount of pain killer for that surgery. That rat was trembling while his head was being cut open. I witnessed a rat being placed on a hot plate that goes up to 150 degrees so that they can see if he would lift his feet. They placed him on a ramp that was about 3 feet off the ground to see if he would walk on it because they said that rats are normally afraid of heights. I know rats and I know that they love to ride on shoulders. My shoulder is about 4 !/2 feet off the ground. During a break the vet who was there to make sure that the animals were taken care of was asked by a science teacher of chocolate was bad for dogs. He said no, that´s juts something crazy animal rights people say. When we went into the room where the cats and a goat were being housed in cold metal cages we met the facilities vet. tec.. She was asked how she was able to do this job when she went to school to take care of animals. Her response was that she could not develope a relationship with the lab animals or she would not be able to do the job. Towards the end of the visit I could not keep my mouth shut so I told them who I was. Interesting enough, my groups visit was made short. We ran out of time so we were not able to visit the rat room. That´s not all I saw and heard. There was allot more.Oh ya, and the scientest who was in charge of the research was asked during the sugery if the room was steralized and her responce was no it doe not have to be. When we work with rats and mice we can get away with allot more because people do not like them. Because of this they are not covered by all of the same laws that other animal are covered under. Rats, mice and birds are not covered under The Animal Welfare Act. My beliefs were then confirmed. I have notes from that day and I would swear on a Bible or any religious article from any religion that everything I just wrote is true.
The high road on both sides of this argument is well-reasoned and compelling. What I find particularly sad, though, is that our overall devaluation and horrible treatment of non-human life, as a species and as a society, is a much bigger problem. People justify the killing animals for a wide range of reasons–from sport to medicine–because of one simple, fundamental belief: that all life is less important than human life. This is the problem. And it’s self-defeating in the long run.
What’s often missed is that a great deal animal testing (for cosmetics, for example) is part of a much larger continuum–a slippery slope. It is part of a systematic lack of respect for all natural, non-human life. This is leading, in turn, to the destruction of the ecosystem that supports everyone–including all the people that doctors are trying to save through medical testing.
I think that Native Americans and a number of other cultures have this right. They understand that sometimes we need to make a decision to sacrifice an animal for an important reason–in order to feed our children, for example. But that animal’s life is no less honorable or valuable than ours. The killing of that animal is a sad occasion that calls for reflection and humility. Not self-righteousness or hubris. And certainly not laughter.
Personally, I don’t think it’s worth it. I think I’d rather die than to prolong my life as a result as a primate being tortured for me in the horrifying manner described by the writer above. At the same time, though, I don’t presume the right or wisdom to make that decision for any other person in any other wide variety of circumstances. I only hope that if the primate were to be sacrificed, that it be done with the maximum amount of care, dignity, and pain management possible.
To call for an end to killing animals for food or medicine is useless; it’s simply not going to happen. And maybe it shouldn’t happen. But to call for the awakening of a deeper, more genuine respect for animals and all other non-human life in our society–whether in the context of medical testing or raising food–is absolutely critical. If we do not start to develop this respect as a society, there is no hope of our saving our planet or restoring a healthy, green world for all living things.
JJ – I value my life more than I value yours. Does that give me the right to do with you as I see fit? Can I make you my slave? Oh…that's right…whites used to do that to blacks…and never saw anything wrong.
Take your own advice and think for yourself – don't buy into the myth that animals have no interests other than to be the tools of humans, and unnecessary tools at that.
I used to date a man who was dean of a medical school (allied health professions) who was a scientiest for over thirty years. He told me of some of the abuses he witnessed over the years and it would make a compassionate person's hair stand on end. But it was okay because the justification of "it's for science".
To the animals being used, it makes no difference if the excuse is science, entertainment, or gambling. The Michael Vick comparison is perfect.
I love animals (multiple pet guy) but I value human life more than animal life. Sorry if that is offensive to the animal rights folks, but that will never change. Within that construct, Vick engaged in terrible unnecessary killing of animals -which is bad, but not as bad as someone who murders humans. And Vick has nothing to do with animal research. Animal research is an integral part of the advancement of a healthy human population. Statements such as "we just need to eat healthy" or "our health is worse than ever" are incredibly naiive and have all the imprints of radical organizations that have successfully marketed their agendas to willing, gullible ears. It also happens to be wrong. I always wonder, when faced with unbiased facts that contradict these claims, why don't people question the organizations' motives that constantly espouse them? I've seen these types of organizations have very similar success in marketing their radical agendas through the deceptive and disingenious use of half-truths of science in the environmental field. You see the mentality in the end of the poorly written, nonsensical Hurst post – the ends justify the means to these people. For those that are not already completely indoctrinated into those beliefs, I simply encourage you not to accept statements at face value and engage the other side openly. Don't believe that any orgainzation (even when green and claiming to "save" your planet) has pure motives. Do a little of your own research and think for yourselves.
someone needs to view "Earthlings"
Dear Nancy, you were no doubt in the non gruesome wing of research. There are many levels of research, what Valerie was talking about she witnessed. The bottom line is why are we such a pill popping nation in the first place?
Let's EAT Healthy, it's so basic and uncomplicated and it will save lives, ones own actually and millions of animals lives will be spared on useless experiments that continue only because mankind is so stupid as to live in EXCESS mixed in with poor food choices, which then complicates their body's function and then he seeks a quick fix that only proves to be a vicious cycle of pills and more pills, then pills for the side effects and on and on it goes. Let's back track and just eat healthy, exercise and do all the right things in the first place. No need to get to the stage of violence and illness for any human or non human.
First of all, I am deeply offended that Maiken Scott starts the article off with talking about Michael Vick and dog fighting. How can you possibly compare dog fighting to scientific research using animals? That just shows that this report will be biased.
As an undergraduate, I worked in a research lab and witnessed no abuses of animals. What Valerie describes is absolutely ridiculous. The animals must be taken care of properly to ensure valid results.
I thank scientists for the all the hard work they do and the advances they have made in many areas of medical treatment.
Out of the three interviewees, Adrian Morrison leaves me the most encouraged about the future of animals. Professor Stepalli simply states the obvious and Maria Pandolfi was born compassionate, but Morrison is someone many would consider animals' worst enemy: someone who uses them as a research tool, disregarding that they are living, sentient beings with interests in their own lives. Even HE asked himself "Do I really want to keep doing this to cats?" (and Ms. Walker – as Morrison clearly knows but you are in denial about, "doing this" was NOT something cats would enjoy – whether it rises to your definition of "abuse" doesn't matter; what matters is what the cat experienced and it clearly wasn't good).
Unfortunately Morrison didn't answer the nagging question in a compassionate, progressive way, but the fact that he asked himself the question at all gives me hope that the interests of non-human animals will get the respect they deserve.
Perhaps, treatments have been developed but not without serious ( sometimes even fatal ) side affects. Perscriptive drugs are highly overused and often addictive. I personally know, as I assume you do as well, a countless number of people who are taking their "meds" though continue to get sicker everyday. One day they are taking 2 different kinds of medicine and before you know it, they are on 6, 7 or more differenent medications within a couple of years or within even less time than that. Ellen, understand this is not a personal attack on you. The message I am trying to make clear, first and foremost, is this: the unspeakable and horrific torture and pain being inflicted on animals in research labs in the hopes of benefiting mankind can never be justified. Secondly, the pharma industry is a downright farse for the reasons I mentioned above. And as Mr Hurst points out, what gives us the right to decide that our lives are more important than a non-human's anymore than we have the right to decide which human group we would chose to experiment on?
I do wish your world, Ellen Walker, of a medical research industry that never abuses animals unnecessarily, were reality. But it does not. I have personally witnessed the results of years of "testing" on primates and no-one can tell me that it was other than horrific, or necessary. And there's no reason to believe it's an isolated case. Saying it's regulated by law doesn't say much: you can say that about nearly every human activity under the sun, yet unseemly behavior persists.
You completely miss the point in saying that "I" can skip the flu shot. That's the same as throwing your trash onto the sidewalk, and saying "you can carry it to the recycle bins if you choose". And far more people would be saved from death and disease simply by stopping the eating of animals, than have been saved by research on animals.
But I believe the bottom line really is this: who are you (we, as a species) to say your health is more important than someone else's?
You just arbitrarily give your own species infinite priority, and every other species zero. You might justify it in your own mind by claiming your test-subject animals are not as smart as you are, or don't feel as much, or don't have "legal rights". But then what if society responded by taking all humans with a certain IQ as test subjects? Or perhaps the aged, or all those with handicaps? That would undoubtedly yield better test-data, since the subjects would be our same species.
In fact, earlier in the last century orphan children were subjected to painful experiments – simply because they had no parents to make a noise about them (Mathew Sculley, Dominion).
So Ellen, that's what those who care about animals are doing — they're 'making a noise' about it because the animals can't speak for themselves.
As for that Kyle Palmer post – it's mostly self-contradictory. I'd like to point out though that the reason the AR activists are even involved, is because we've seen horrific things being done to innocent beings. Anything that is directed toward the resesarchers, that I've been aware of, pales in comparison to what those researchers do to the animals. This should be an obviously point – a no-brainer, yet I hear it repeated ad-nauseum.
Fewer people die of cancer, AIDs, SIDS than even just five years ago. Just check any statistics. And people are scientists not mircle workers. Experiments take a long time but eventually treatments are developed.
If you contract cancer, you may choose to not have chemotherapy or radiation. Don't have physical therapy if you are injured. You may choose not to have a flu shot, or take your allergy medication, motrin, vitamin, or antidepressant because all of these treatments have been studied or developed in animal models. That is your choice. However, my life and my child's life has already been saved by drugs that were developed within my lifetime so I thank the animals and the scientists that developed them.
I have witnessed with my own eyes people in hospitals suffering and animals abused by pet owners [which I reported to authorites BTW] but have not seen animals suffering in research labs. I am sorry you don't believe me but that is the God's honest truth. Have you actually ever visited a research laboratory or are you relying on heresay and material you receive from animal right's organizations looking for donations?
Well with all the supposedly advanced and necessary medical research then where is the cure for cancer, AIDS, SIDS, etc after all these years? And I find it impossible to believe that in 25 years you have never witnessed animals suffering in research lab.
As a matter-of-fact, Maiken Scott recently ran a story on potential chemotherapy induced cognitive deficits in cancer survivors. I was one of the scientists (not in quotes) in that story. At the present time, we do not know whether it is actually the chemotherapy that damages the brain or alters memory (maybe the stress, anxiety, or depression associated with a diagnosis of cancer). However this question cannot be tested in people. Who would you suggest NOT get the chemotherapy for the control group? Instead I study mice and whether the drugs alone or in combination disrupt a simple learning response. In collaboration with other scientists and clinicians we hope to improve the lives of cancer survivors.
I have actually worked in various research facilities for 25 years and I have NEVER ever witnessed anything close to what Valerie describes. I am familiar with a number of cases in which members of PETA and ALF admitted on the stand in court to faking videos or photoshopping pictures to garner support for their agenda stating the ends justify the means (i.e., Silver Springs monkey case). I am also familiar with colleagues studying animals models of drug abuse, SIDs, Alzheimer's Disease and spinal cord injury that have been threatened and their labs destroyed. In this day of anti-terrorism, in our own backyards, animal rights groups are harassing people's children at school or even throwing flaming bombs into the houses of scientists with their children. These are actually friends of mine. Fortunately for us, the scientists keep doing their work because there is a much larger but quieter group of people that have drug abuse problems, parents with children that died of SIDs, a father with Alzheimer's Disease or a brother paralyzed in a car accident.
Medical and behavioral research with animals is one of the most highly regulated endeavors. Every public and private institution has a number of caring vets and technicians that help us take care of our animals. All species are provided with enrichment toys just like people's pets. No one can even purchase a single mouse without a committee of at least 18 people (half not scientists) reviewing every single procedure or drug that a mouse will receive. People serve on these committees voluntarily and receive no money for their services. I recommend that anyone interested should google IACUC to see how every single scientist in this country using animals in their research is regulated by law.
We owe a great deal of credit to the animals that have helped increase our longevity and our quality of life. We are not sicker than ever. You can't wear a band-aide, drive in a car, shampoo your hair, or drink water without thanking a rat or mouse. Even if you see the label, "Not tested on animals" that just means not tested in the past five years (see GRAS regulations). Yes, even water has been tested on rodents years and years ago so thank a mouse.
People may choose to eat meat or not, or to have pets or not. I always have pets in my home. But no one regulates the care of my dog with the same scrutiny that the law regulates the care of my mice. But I care for my dog just the same although I know sometimes people do neglect their pets and rarely are they charged.
Scientists are maligned frequently until we are faced with a crisis like swine flu or a new disease or a dying family member. I love animals but I also have a moral obligation to use my education and scientific knowledge to help prevent your mother from suffering the after effects of her chemotherapy treatment like my mother did years ago.
I apologize for the typos: scene instead of seen and I left some words out. In any event, hopefully the point I was trying to make was understood.
Way too much trust is put in animal medical research. All we hear is about how much good animal research does for man-kind. Much of this is a farse. Results are skewed, data is inaccurate and why are humans sicker than we've ever if medical research is so wonderful? It's uncanny how animal rights activisits are labeled as terrorists but not these so-called "scientists". I've watched some of the most greusome undercover vidoes involving viva-section where I've witnessed these so-called "scientists" cripple, burn, poison, punch, throw, etc terrified innocent non-human creatures who are trapped under their grip. I've even scene a monkey have his chest cavity cut wide open while fully conscious screaming in utter agony as the "researchers" laughed in the background. I challenge anyone else to do the same that continue to praise the "scientists" that are supposedly saving the human race. Kudos to anyone who speaks up for the rights of animals. They have feelings, when harmed they bleed, and grieve and suffer just as we do.
Kyle, are you assuming that because some animal activists have committed violent acts that all do? Most protest the exploitation of these animals without breaking the law.
I heard Professor Morrison speak once. He couldn't offer an intelligent answer when questioned on his pro animal testing position, and the experiments he described as earth shattering seemed like things that one could resolve with common sense.
Not all animal rights activists are created equally, so goes the same
for most individuals that care to speak up for injustices. Where a Peta
would shock some folks, other animal rights agencies would educate.
Kudos to Maria Pandolfi for showing us that all animals, even the least
desirable to some, like rats are intelligent, sensitive and make great
pets. I attended the Rat Fest a couple of months ago and learned much.
I was truly impressed with all those folks that showed up with their pet
rats. Interesting to know that the rat rescue has the support of some
Hollywood heavy weights as well. Thank you for this story and I hope
more of its kind will ensue. More and more people are opening up to the
rights of animals and this venue gives them a chance to learn and speak
out. In closing, I'd like to mention that I am vegan AND an animal
rights activist and no, I haven't burned down any houses to make my
point, my lifestyle "is" my point.
Katherine Lopez
Lansdowne
I am appalled by Maiken Scott's imbalanced presentation of the subject of animal rights. In her attempt to understand the passion of animal rights activists, she interviewed an extremist (who is presented as compassionate, philosophical, adorably eccentric), a professor of animal welfare, and a neuroscientist who, after a long and productive career in animal research, now claims some misgivings about what he has done. Completely missing in Maiken Scott's ethics edification is the unethical, immoral, and illegal manner is which compassionate animal rights activists treat their fellow human beings. Animal rights activists equate the value of rats with that of human adults and children. That is the paradigm through which they look as they destroy taxpayer-funded research laboratories whose entire reason for existence is the conquest of debilitating and degenerative diseases that devastate the lives of real people. Animal rights activists target individual researchers and set out to ruin their lives-researchers who are dedicated to eradicating disease and improving life on earth for both humans and animals. The tactics of animal rights activists begin with ruthless harassment (including death threats) of scientists and their family members, friends and business associates. Failing satisfaction from these efforts, animal rights activists resort to more extreme measures including arson, assault and battery, and murder. Even the civil actions of moderate animal rights groups have directly and repeatedly hampered scientific attempts to alleviate human suffering, a fact of which they are quite proud. How is it that the views of animal rights activists are not regarded as morality warped and twisted around? Why is the issue broached as "most people's hypocrisy"? Why is the subject of animal research lumped together with the crimes of Michael Vick? An important item missing from Maiken Scott's lesson in ethics are the views of scientists who have no compunction whatsoever about the use of animals in research because of their own compassion toward humanity.