Animal rights
Tagged: animal, animals, bird, cat, dog, fish, mammal, pets( image )
The emphasis on intrinsic value and the interconnectedness of nature was fundamental to the development of the animal-rights movement, whose activism was influenced by works such as Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1977) and Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (1983). Animal rights approaches go beyond a concern with ill-treatment and cruelty to animals, demanding an end to all forms of animal exploitation, including the use of animals in scientific and medical experiments and as sources of entertainment (e.g., in circuses, rodeos, and races) and food. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in England in 1824 to promote humane treatment of work animals, such as cattle and horses, and of household pets. Within a few decades similar organizations existed throughout Europe. An American society was founded in New York in 1866. Before long these organizations were protesting the use of animals in laboratory experiments and the use of vivisection for teaching. Until the mid-1970s the focus on humane treatment of animals continued these traditional emphases. After that period, animal rights activists enlarged their agendas considerably.
Animal Experimentation
To increase medical, biological, or psychological knowledge, some scientists perform experiments using animals other than humans as their subjects. The effects of pollution, radiation, and many other stresses are determined by exposing animals to these conditions. It is estimated that 70 million animals are used in research every year in the United States alone. Pharmaceutical and other industrial laboratories routinely use animals to screen drugs, cosmetics, and other substances before selling them for human use. Any new product or ingredient is usually tested on rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, or rabbits. The questionable substance may be applied to a small area of the animal’s skin to determine primary irritation and sensitization (development of allergic responses after repeated applications). In the Draize test, developed in the 1940s, a substance is dropped into rabbits’ eyes to determine eye damage and rate of recovery. Rabbits are used because their eyes produce no tears; thus blinking will not wash away an irritant. This test has been used by cosmetics firms to test the eye irritability of shampoos and other products. A chemical may be fed to animals to determine toxicity, both acute (after one dose) and chronic (after repeated small doses over a period of time). One standard measurement for drugs and other chemicals is the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50), the dose lethal to 50 percent of the test animals. University, hospital, and public-health laboratories use animals to study both normal and disease processes. Cancer research, for example, requires a continuous supply of large numbers of animals, particularly mice. Vitamin requirements are usually determined by experiments using rats, chicks, dogs, and guinea pigs in which the increase in the animals’ body weight is related to the amounts of vitamins in their diets. Some schools require students to dissect cats, dogs, frogs, fetal pigs, and other animals. Such exercises are much more helpful than textbook illustrations in learning about body systems, but there are now computer programs that provide excellent simulation of these dissections for general classroom use.
The effects of various external influences on health are determined by studying animals that have been completely isolated to avoid contamination from bacteria. Such studies may be continued over several generations of animals. The so-called germ-free animals are then compared with conventional animals. The short life span of many animals as compared to humans is an advantage to experimenters since it allows them to observe several generations. Other requirements for a laboratory animal are that it be small, tame, hardy, and prolific. Rats are particularly well suited to laboratory study because they can breed at three to four months of age and produce up to seven litters in a year. The greatest number of laboratory animals are specifically bred for laboratory use. In 1988 a strain of genetically engineered mice that was unusually susceptible to cancer was patented in the United States. Some animals are collected from the wild, particularly those that breed with difficulty in captivity, such as monkeys. In many countries, including the United States, stray dogs and cats are impounded and, if unclaimed, offered to laboratories. Many animals resemble humans in elements of structure, physiology, and behavior, but because they also differ in some respects some scientists consider the results of animal studies of limited value and not necessarily applicable to humans. In the 1980s, however, researchers began to alter the systems of some animals in order to match them more closely to human systems. For example, in order to study AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), researchers have transplanted parts of human immune systems into mice.
Opposition to Experimentation
Publicity about commercial laboratory testing and pressure brought to bear by the noted animal rights activist Henry Spira led to the founding of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing in 1981 at Johns Hopkins University. The campaign against commercial testing was partially successful. In June 1989 two of the largest cosmetics firms in the United States, Avon and Revlon, announced that they would stop using animals in their laboratory testing. Avon had already dispensed with the Draize test. Whether this singular success in commercial testing would lead to similar results in experimentation for medical purposes was far from certain. The great advances made in scientific and medical knowledge through experimentation made it unlikely that the scientific community would abandon the use of animals in the near future. Nevertheless, a significant body of legislation has been passed throughout the world to regulate, but not abolish, the use of laboratory animals. In 1989, for example, legislators of the European Communities recommended that the LD50test be dropped in favor of a more humane alternative known as the fixed-dose procedure. The first organization founded to protest animal experimentation was the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection, started in England in 1875. (In 1897 its name was changed to the National Anti vivisection Society.) By 1876 England’s Parliament had passed the first national anti vivisection law, the Cruelty to Animals Act. The law covered only vertebrate animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians), with more restrictive provisions on the use of donkeys, horses, mules, dogs, and cats. The law required all experimenters to have permits, and it established guidelines for the kinds of experiments and the way they were performed.
The American Anti vivisection Society, founded in 1883, was the first such organization in the United States. The results it obtained, however, were far less impressive than those in England. The scientific community has strongly resisted most attempts to regulate the use of animals. Although bills were frequently introduced in Congress beginning in the 1890s, none passed. A few states abolished experimentation in public schools. Sending stray dogs and cats to laboratories was prohibited in some cities. Not until 1966 was a national Animal Welfare Act passed by Congress. Most of its provisions dealt with animals in interstate transportation, because states are allowed to regulate such matters within their own borders. One of the act’s purposes was “to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment.†This act and its subsequent amendments did not attempt to halt or curtail experimentation. A 1985 amendment, however, did call for seeking alternative methods of testing and asked that needless duplication of experiments cease. By the second half of the 20th century most nations had animal welfare societies and anticruelty laws. In addition to national organizations there were several international societies: the World Federation for the Protection of Animals, the International Society for the Protection of Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Animal Rights After 1975
Since 1975 advocates of humane treatment of animals have broadened their goals to oppose the use of animals for fur, leather, wool, and food. They have mounted protests against all forms of hunting and the trapping of animals in the wild. And they have joined environmentalists in urging protection of natural habitats from commercial or residential development. The occasion for these added emphases was the publication in 1975 of ‘Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals’ by Peter Singer, formerly a professor of philosophy at Oxford University in England. This book gave a new impetus to the animal rights movement. The post-1975 animal rights activists are far more vocal than their predecessors, and the organizations to which they belong are generally more radical. Among the newer organizations are: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the International Society for Animal Rights, Trans-Species Unlimited, the Fund for Animals, the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting, the Scientists’ Center for Animal Welfare, the Simian Society of America, United Action for Animals, Animal Rights International, and the Animal Liberation Front. The tactics of the activists are designed to catch the attention of the public. Since the mid-1980s there have been frequent news reports about animal rights organizations picketing stores that sell furs, harassing hunters in the wild, or breaking into laboratories to free animals. Some of the more extreme organizations advocate the use of assault, armed terrorism, and death threats to make their point.
Aside from making isolated attacks on people who wear fur coats or trying to prevent hunters from killing animals, most of the organizations have directed their tactics at institutions. The results of the protests and other tactics have been mixed. Companies are reducing reliance on animal testing. Medical research has been somewhat curtailed by legal restrictions and the reluctance of younger workers to use animals in research. New tests have been developed to replace the use of animals. Some well-known designers have stopped using fur. While the general public tends to agree that animals should be treated humanely, most people are unlikely to give up eating meat or wearing goods made from leather and wool. Giving up genuine fur has become less of a problem, since fibers used to make fake fur such as the Japanese invention Kanecaron can look almost identical to real fur. Some of the strongest opposition to the animal rights movement has come from hunters and their organizations, such as the National Rifle Association. There were in 1991 about 16 million hunters in the United States, where about 165 million animals are killed annually. But animal rights activists have succeeded in marshaling public opinion to press for state restrictions on hunting in several parts of the nation.
Comments
Got something to say?