PCRM is an especially unsavory bunch of individuals that use every media opportunity to denigrate and distort animal-based research. The letter I got today claims that very few medical professionals still believe that animal research is necessary for continued progress in understanding the effects of disease and injuries in humans, and that the use of animal models to advance our ability to treat disease is nothing but cruel. They delight in relating the gory details surrounding some of the methods used in animal research: "The tiny, fluffy, affectionate purring kitten is strapped into an immobilizing device so that the cold-hearted evil scientist can, by dropping a cantilevered weight onto its trusting little head, bash out its brains etc. etc...."
Deliberately left out of these disturbing descriptions is the fact that such procedures are very, very carefully monitored by both internal and external agencies to insure that the "horrors" they describe inflict minimal pain and distress on the animals involved. Deliberately left out of these disturbing descriptions is the fact that these research protocols have undergone intense scrutiny by peer reviewers, the local Animal Care and Use committee, and the agency that funds the research. Deliberately left out of these disturbing descriptions is the fact that animal models are the best way we have to prevent the transmission of disease and develop new treatments for debilitating and life-threatening illnesses like HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
PCRM's statements implying that all "good" scientists know that these kinds of research techniques are outdated and cruel are simply lies. The name of the organization (Physicians Committee) is a lie: less than 5% of the members of PCRM are physicians. The founder of the organization, Neal D. Barnard, is not a nutritionist or a clinical researcher as all PCRM's documents would have you believe, but trained as a psychiatrist.
Dr. Barnard and his ilk argue from the position that the life of a non-human, no matter how small, is just as valuable as the life of a human. From this position, one must also endorse the position that abortion is evil (they do not take any position on abortion), that mosquitoes and flies are to be tolerated and not swatted, and, one must assume, that antibiotics cannot be used to cure infection. Some questions I have about this ridiculous stance include: Are cats to be prevented from catching mice, and lions antelope? Are invasive species to be allowed to drive native species to extinction? The dogma of the extreme animal rights groups is internally inconsistent. In a strange perversion of logic, one of their spokesman has openly advocated assassination of animal researchers to discourage the use of animal models in research.
I am not an animal researcher, but I depend on data from animal research to advance my own research agenda. Despite the fact that animals are killed as an indirect result of my curiosity, I (and all the animal researchers I know) love and respect animals. We are grateful and respectful of the sacrifices they make on our behalf. Following an honest and frank description of what happens to animals in his laboratory, Steven Rose writes a deeply touching and sensitive essay on the relationship between society, animal researchers and research animals in the second chapter of his book The Making of Memory. I could quote the whole chapter to make my point, but I will quote one paragraph:
At home we have a much loved and exceedingly beautiful cat... But if I had to choose between saving the cat's life and that of any other human child, I would unhesitatingly choose the child. And my cat at the expense of a chick [Rose's research animal].I will go further, and say that if I had to kill all the sweet, furry kittens in the world to save the life of one human child, I would. Some lives are more valuable than others.
8 comments:
Those people are nuts (as are most fundamentalist types).
Our species would not have survived if we did not kill/domesticate/imprison animals.
All those lovely people at the PCRM never would have been born if not for millenia of being mean and killing hapless animals.
Plus, we would have no bacon otherwise. And I do love bacon.
PCRM is merely a front for PETA.
Yes. Don't get me started on PETA. Angry Baker, when he worked for a prominent government agency, had some really nasty run-ins with PETA activists. You can do some serious damage to the human eardrum with a bullhorn at close range.
These people don't just believe that animal life is equal to human life, but that it is worth more than human life.
I work in a medical school, and the behavior of animal activists has tightened security here to the point that we're often compared to Fort Knox. PETA (almost!) makes me lose my great affection for the first amendment.
But aren't we in a situation where animal rights-movement and their oppontents are both trying to do what they believe is most useful? Both ideas (whether one life is more valuable than another - pro and con) are personal beliefs and that's alright. And neither is completely consistent, which is alright as well. Usage of rhetorics is what annoys me in nearly any kind of discussion conserning animal rights-topic - why use rhetorics, when mere descriptions should be convincing enough, for instance?
Interesting reading. I like animals. I like pigs barbequed and cows medium rare.
While I strongly favor science and recognize that a lot of medicine would still be in the dark ages without animal research, I also feel that our society unfairly denigrates animals in various ways. Your concluding comment about killing ALL kittens to save ONE human child is case in point.
If you were indeed somehow able to do that (and obviously, it's impossible, but humor me), what kind of effect would the killing of an entire cat generation have on the species? Probably the same effect killing all living human children would have on us -- something approaching extinction. Furthermore, what kind of ripple effect would cat genocide have on the rest of life, including humanity?
Probably not a good one, but nobody knows, and that's the point. We've let our society -- and science with it -- develop a sense of arrogant entitlement that often neglects the fact that we are "top of the food chain" only by evolutionary chance and wouldn't be here at all without the rest of the ecosystem.
We don't have to know everything before we experiment -- if we did there'd be no point in experimenting, and doing so would simply be cruelty. But that lack of knowledge does make it necessary to set some limits on what we're willing to do.
In your example, I have no doubt what I'd do: I'd make sure s/he got all needed pain meds so there was no suffering, but the child would die.
Oh, and PS: You criticize Barnard's qualifications, but he IS a doctor: psychiatrists have to graduate from medical school. (I can't say anything about his actual skills.)
Jay, there are doctors and then there are doctors. I am a doctor, but I am not a physician. I am a psychologist, but I would not claim to know how to treat psychological patients. I do not claim to know anything about child development, personality, or social interaction. Barnard is an M.D., a physician trained in psychiatry. He claims to be an expert in metabolism and nutrition in order to advocate a vegan lifestyle. It's a deliberate misrepresentation of his qualifications. I have many friends who are physicians, psychiatrists aming them. None of them would claim expertise in areas of medicine in which they did not complete a residency. Note that nowhere on Barnard's site does he provide details of his residency, which is how other physicians justify their claims of expertise.
As to the poor kittens, I proudly admit to being a speciesist. Humans are at the top of the food chain, and I refuse to feel guilty about being there. The potential in a human child leaves me awestruck: Could this child be the one to bring world peace? Could that one find a cure for viral infection? Will this other one write beautiful symphonies? Similarly, that one over there may be a mass-murderer, or start a nuclear holocaust. Regardless of an individual child's future path, we have a responsibility, not only to that child, but to humanity to choose the life of that child over the lives of any other species.
I freely admit that there are humans, scientists among them, who treat other species without care or dignity, and this is a bad thing. This is why our society has established mechanisms of oversite, from Humane Societies to our internal Animal Care and Use committees. The system doesn't always work, but most of the time it does. Until something better comes along I will trust it to regulate those people who are unable to regulate themselves.
When I begin killing all those kittens, my respect for them as living beings (and these societal instruments I trust in) will insure that none of them suffer distress or pain. But I would do it, in full knowledge of what I was buying and at what price.
Post a Comment