Cameron Ishee
November 5, 2012
Pam Baker, English 3
Research Paper #1
November 5, 2012
Pam Baker, English 3
Research Paper #1
To Legislate or Not to Legislate: the Scientific, Philosophical,
and Moral Arguments for Increased Legal Protection for Animals
and Moral Arguments for Increased Legal Protection for Animals
Last night, while most Americans slept, a calf, just hours old, was taken from his mother and locked in a wooden box where he can’t even turn around. Eighteen to twenty-four weeks later, after spending his entire life alone and afraid in that box, he will be killed for veal. This morning, while most Americans ate breakfast, a dog, once a beloved pet before being abandoned at a shelter, is strapped to a table, immobilized so that carcinogens can be pumped into her body. When the experiment has run its course, she too will die, simply because she is no longer “needed”. Every day, every hour, untold thousands of animals suffer and die at the hands of humans. They don’t understand why these things are happening to them, and an increasing number of humans seem also to not understand. Why, in this day and age, when a panoply of technologies and alternatives are available to us, do we still rely so thoroughly on animal exploitation to get what we want, be it meat or new drugs and cosmetic products? It is a moral imperative for the United States of America to pass increased legislation protecting the welfare of animals.
Currently, many alternative techniques exist that could replace the damaging practices at work in many of our country’s labs. On the subject of animals’ role in scientific research, the scientific community itself is divided, with many toxicology specialists agreeing that it is time for a change while many biomedical experts are reluctant, even adamantly against giving up animals as test subjects (Clemmit 9-10, 12). However, most of the reasons for the halting of toxicology testing on animals also applies to biomedical research: “Half of the drugs that test as safe on animals turn out to not work or be safe in people, so you might as well flip a coin,” says Jerry Vlasack, a surgeon and leader of an animal rights group (Clemmit 10). It’s not just activists who take this stance, either. In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences published a report that presented a future—albeit a future several decades of—where few to no animals are used (Clemmit 10). Even Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, says, “Animal testing is time-consuming, expensive, and does not always relate to what is toxic in humans” (Clemmit 12). This is no difference across disciples of medical science: animal bodies are simply different from humans bodies, and the results simply don’t transfer over much of the time, making not only the time, efforts and money used but also the suffering of the animal subjects a waste. Alternatives, such as simulated flesh, skin, organs, and even simple cell cultures have been developed and should be used to replace live, whole animals in laboratories.
However, it must be acknowledged that many doctors and researchers are unwilling to change their practices and adapt to new technologies. Dario Ringach, a neurobiology and psychology professor at UCLA, was forced to end his experiments involving primates after animal rights extremists (a very negative minority of the broader campaign for increased welfare that the author of this piece, along with the vast majority of activists, completely and utterly reject) threatened his young family. “Now I work with humans,” Ringach says, “who are also animals but who can sign a piece of paper and say they agree. The research I’m doing with humans is completely different from what I was doing before…we need to figure out how to implant a device in the brain that could be there for years and years” and conducting such experiments on humans would be considered an intolerable ethical violation (Clemmit 9-10). This argument brings up a number of interesting questions, but, most importantly, brings to light the convoluted and still emerging issue of trans-species ethics. If it is unethical to perform an experiment on humans, why is that experiment ethical to perform on animals? Do not our same moral standards apply?
Furthermore, a long list of modifications and changes to the factory farming system could relatively easily be put in place that would not only greatly improve the quality of life for millions of animals currently in the system, and untold billions of animals yet to come, but would actually improve production. Dr. Temple Grandin, an extraordinary woman who has done much for the field of animal behavioral research, has developed many small modifications to the standard factory farm model based on her research into animals’ instincts and behavior. For example, Dr. Grandin pioneered the development of grooved, “non-slip” flooring for livestock handling areas, after she realized that slick, smooth surfaces scare animals like cattle and make them balk. They feel they cannot get a good grip on the ground and will fall over, and this in turn taps into the ancient survival instinct that if you fall over and cannot run, you are vulnerable to attack. Grooved floors lend a sense of increased security to livestock, and animals who once halted and panicked now walk calmly through such altered passageways (Grandin “Non Slip Flooring”). She has also, as a result of her observations of the herd behavior exhibited by animals such as sheep and cows, created designs for rounded chutes and other passageways. Herd animals, such as the ones we typically eat, are generally more comfortable moving in curves because it makes the animal feel like they are traveling in a circle, heading pack to familiar ground (Grandin “Design of Chutes”). In the past, such issues were resolved by screaming at and beating the animal in question, but the implementation of these and many other changes have streamlined many slaughterhouse processes. Animals can be moved faster, which is a benefit to the companies’ revenue, and more humanely, which is a benefit to everyone involved. Such changes, most of which are small, would greatly reduce the suffering of animals in the meat industry if mandated on a broad scale. If we are to breed them, raise them, and kill them for their meat, the least we can do is make sure that it is all done humanely.
On the other hand, opponents of increased protection for animals argue that the use of animals is essential to our society, and that modification of current animal processes—in labs, farms, and other situations—is good enough, and that further protection, especially legal protection, is a terrible mistake. The opposition has long maintained that increased animal rights legislation would be both a drastic overreach of the designated power of the government, and far too expensive. While the long-term gains of such slaughterhouse changes proposed by Dr. Grandin are very high, the short-term costs are not something many companies are willing to bear. These claims shift the burden of proof, the proof that increased protection is necessary, onto the pro-rights side. However, this question of how necessary increased regulations are, is easily answered when one takes in the abundant empirical proof of animals’ emotional, physical, and psychological capacities, and combine that with a basic sense of justice, ethics, and general morality. It is an undisputable fact that animals possess nervous systems, and can therefore feel physical pain. According to countless sources, including Lynn Sneddon, a student at the University of Liverpool, in affiliation of the Wellcome Trust, an independent organization that collects and supports scientific research about pain, “Animals and humans share similar mechanisms of pain detection, have similar areas of the brain involved in processing pain and show similar pain behaviors” (Sneddon). Furthermore, many studies have found that dozens of species of animals can experience emotional pain too. It was previously thought that only humans and other primate species could feel emotional pain, because of the presence of the neocortex area of the brain (Sneddon). There is also abundant anecdotal evidence: who really thinks that the elephant who stays with the corpse of her dead calf, making distress vocalizations, is just exhibiting such behavior randomly? Or that the abused dog cowering from people is just acting on instinct? At this point, the scientific body of evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that animals feel both physical and emotional pain, that it would be ridiculous to deny it. By extension, the animals abused in the factory farm system and in labs are suffering. In California, a place widely regarded to be a very liberal state, calves destined to become veal, laying hens, and pregnant pigs will only just get the right to living enclosures where they can stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs as of 2013 (Clemmit). Allowing for basic standards of living cannot possibly be “too expensive” for the multimillion-dollar companies that make up America’s meat industry.
Treating animals that are fully capable of physical and emotional pain with basic dignity is an issue of justice and ethics. Additionally, when abuses of the scale perpetrated by the meat industry and research labs are perpetuated, our own humanity is made less by the suffering that is caused. Change is imperative, not only to the future wellbeing and animals in this country, but to the empathetic development of our society. Additionally, it has been made clear by decades, even centuries of stagnant methodology that the industries in question are not going to make these changes by themselves. The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States lists, as two of the chief purposes of government, “promote the general welfare” and “establish justice”. If the government does not promote welfare and establish justice for the living, feeling creatures under its jurisdiction that literally have no voice of their own, in this modern era when so many good alternatives are available to us, then the government is failing in some of its most fundamental duties. It is time for change, it is time for action, it is time for progress, and it is time for animal welfare in the United States of America.
Works Cited:
Clemmit, Marcia. “Animal Rights”. CQ Press. 8 Jan. 2010. 4 Nov. 2012.
Grandin, Dr. Temple. “Non Slip Flooring for Livestock Handling”. Colorado State University. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Grandin, Dr. Temple. “Design of Chutes, Ramps, and Races for Cattle, Pigs and Sheep in Slaughter Plants”. Colorado State University. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Sneddon, Lynne U. “Can Animals Feel Pain?”. The Wellcome Trust. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Currently, many alternative techniques exist that could replace the damaging practices at work in many of our country’s labs. On the subject of animals’ role in scientific research, the scientific community itself is divided, with many toxicology specialists agreeing that it is time for a change while many biomedical experts are reluctant, even adamantly against giving up animals as test subjects (Clemmit 9-10, 12). However, most of the reasons for the halting of toxicology testing on animals also applies to biomedical research: “Half of the drugs that test as safe on animals turn out to not work or be safe in people, so you might as well flip a coin,” says Jerry Vlasack, a surgeon and leader of an animal rights group (Clemmit 10). It’s not just activists who take this stance, either. In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences published a report that presented a future—albeit a future several decades of—where few to no animals are used (Clemmit 10). Even Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, says, “Animal testing is time-consuming, expensive, and does not always relate to what is toxic in humans” (Clemmit 12). This is no difference across disciples of medical science: animal bodies are simply different from humans bodies, and the results simply don’t transfer over much of the time, making not only the time, efforts and money used but also the suffering of the animal subjects a waste. Alternatives, such as simulated flesh, skin, organs, and even simple cell cultures have been developed and should be used to replace live, whole animals in laboratories.
However, it must be acknowledged that many doctors and researchers are unwilling to change their practices and adapt to new technologies. Dario Ringach, a neurobiology and psychology professor at UCLA, was forced to end his experiments involving primates after animal rights extremists (a very negative minority of the broader campaign for increased welfare that the author of this piece, along with the vast majority of activists, completely and utterly reject) threatened his young family. “Now I work with humans,” Ringach says, “who are also animals but who can sign a piece of paper and say they agree. The research I’m doing with humans is completely different from what I was doing before…we need to figure out how to implant a device in the brain that could be there for years and years” and conducting such experiments on humans would be considered an intolerable ethical violation (Clemmit 9-10). This argument brings up a number of interesting questions, but, most importantly, brings to light the convoluted and still emerging issue of trans-species ethics. If it is unethical to perform an experiment on humans, why is that experiment ethical to perform on animals? Do not our same moral standards apply?
Furthermore, a long list of modifications and changes to the factory farming system could relatively easily be put in place that would not only greatly improve the quality of life for millions of animals currently in the system, and untold billions of animals yet to come, but would actually improve production. Dr. Temple Grandin, an extraordinary woman who has done much for the field of animal behavioral research, has developed many small modifications to the standard factory farm model based on her research into animals’ instincts and behavior. For example, Dr. Grandin pioneered the development of grooved, “non-slip” flooring for livestock handling areas, after she realized that slick, smooth surfaces scare animals like cattle and make them balk. They feel they cannot get a good grip on the ground and will fall over, and this in turn taps into the ancient survival instinct that if you fall over and cannot run, you are vulnerable to attack. Grooved floors lend a sense of increased security to livestock, and animals who once halted and panicked now walk calmly through such altered passageways (Grandin “Non Slip Flooring”). She has also, as a result of her observations of the herd behavior exhibited by animals such as sheep and cows, created designs for rounded chutes and other passageways. Herd animals, such as the ones we typically eat, are generally more comfortable moving in curves because it makes the animal feel like they are traveling in a circle, heading pack to familiar ground (Grandin “Design of Chutes”). In the past, such issues were resolved by screaming at and beating the animal in question, but the implementation of these and many other changes have streamlined many slaughterhouse processes. Animals can be moved faster, which is a benefit to the companies’ revenue, and more humanely, which is a benefit to everyone involved. Such changes, most of which are small, would greatly reduce the suffering of animals in the meat industry if mandated on a broad scale. If we are to breed them, raise them, and kill them for their meat, the least we can do is make sure that it is all done humanely.
On the other hand, opponents of increased protection for animals argue that the use of animals is essential to our society, and that modification of current animal processes—in labs, farms, and other situations—is good enough, and that further protection, especially legal protection, is a terrible mistake. The opposition has long maintained that increased animal rights legislation would be both a drastic overreach of the designated power of the government, and far too expensive. While the long-term gains of such slaughterhouse changes proposed by Dr. Grandin are very high, the short-term costs are not something many companies are willing to bear. These claims shift the burden of proof, the proof that increased protection is necessary, onto the pro-rights side. However, this question of how necessary increased regulations are, is easily answered when one takes in the abundant empirical proof of animals’ emotional, physical, and psychological capacities, and combine that with a basic sense of justice, ethics, and general morality. It is an undisputable fact that animals possess nervous systems, and can therefore feel physical pain. According to countless sources, including Lynn Sneddon, a student at the University of Liverpool, in affiliation of the Wellcome Trust, an independent organization that collects and supports scientific research about pain, “Animals and humans share similar mechanisms of pain detection, have similar areas of the brain involved in processing pain and show similar pain behaviors” (Sneddon). Furthermore, many studies have found that dozens of species of animals can experience emotional pain too. It was previously thought that only humans and other primate species could feel emotional pain, because of the presence of the neocortex area of the brain (Sneddon). There is also abundant anecdotal evidence: who really thinks that the elephant who stays with the corpse of her dead calf, making distress vocalizations, is just exhibiting such behavior randomly? Or that the abused dog cowering from people is just acting on instinct? At this point, the scientific body of evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that animals feel both physical and emotional pain, that it would be ridiculous to deny it. By extension, the animals abused in the factory farm system and in labs are suffering. In California, a place widely regarded to be a very liberal state, calves destined to become veal, laying hens, and pregnant pigs will only just get the right to living enclosures where they can stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs as of 2013 (Clemmit). Allowing for basic standards of living cannot possibly be “too expensive” for the multimillion-dollar companies that make up America’s meat industry.
Treating animals that are fully capable of physical and emotional pain with basic dignity is an issue of justice and ethics. Additionally, when abuses of the scale perpetrated by the meat industry and research labs are perpetuated, our own humanity is made less by the suffering that is caused. Change is imperative, not only to the future wellbeing and animals in this country, but to the empathetic development of our society. Additionally, it has been made clear by decades, even centuries of stagnant methodology that the industries in question are not going to make these changes by themselves. The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States lists, as two of the chief purposes of government, “promote the general welfare” and “establish justice”. If the government does not promote welfare and establish justice for the living, feeling creatures under its jurisdiction that literally have no voice of their own, in this modern era when so many good alternatives are available to us, then the government is failing in some of its most fundamental duties. It is time for change, it is time for action, it is time for progress, and it is time for animal welfare in the United States of America.
Works Cited:
Clemmit, Marcia. “Animal Rights”. CQ Press. 8 Jan. 2010. 4 Nov. 2012.
Grandin, Dr. Temple. “Non Slip Flooring for Livestock Handling”. Colorado State University. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Grandin, Dr. Temple. “Design of Chutes, Ramps, and Races for Cattle, Pigs and Sheep in Slaughter Plants”. Colorado State University. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Sneddon, Lynne U. “Can Animals Feel Pain?”. The Wellcome Trust. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.