JSong's Blog
-
Is Animal Testing Right or Wrong?
- Posted on 04.24.09
Let me start by saying that I did not begin my life caring much for animals one way or another. I ate steak, loved bacon, and thought mice were nasty things that had to be killed and thrown away.
One afternoon in my teen years as I was working at a gift shop, I walked into a room and saw a mouse making its way across the floor. At my approach it suddenly stopped and stayed still. I quickly grabbed a large industrial sweeper and made my over to the mouse, delighted that it had made itself such a still, easy target. I stood over it and prepared to bring the broom down on its body to squash it. Then for some reason, I looked into its bright, beady eyes. It was STARING at me, RIGHT at me, into my own eyes. I imagined it was pleading with me, begging me to spare its life. Feeling disgusted with my anthropomorphic fantasy, I tossed the broom away and told it to go. It immediately ran off into whatever dark little lair it had made for itself in the shop.
There are many dimensions in the pro and con arguments involving animal research and testing. I believe a primary point of divergence is the value given to animals relative to human beings. In general, we as a society view an animal life as having less value than a human life. This stems largely from our perspective that animal cognition and sentience are below human levels and less finely developed, thus justifying actions which, perpetrated upon a human being, would be unconscionable. Man has long stood firmly on the platform that a "brute beast" does not merit any "rights" and that we in turn have an inalienable right to treat these "lower beings" as we see fit.
In the past, this attitude reigned without scrutiny or regulation, leading to treatment of animals as little more than objects to be used indiscriminately in any way, shape or form so long as it served the purpose or pleasure of man. Fortunately, human beings eventually awakened to the possibility that animals can feel terror, pain, and even suffer from depression or loneliness. Anyone who has owned a dog or cat will gladly attest that their pets have "thoughts," and "feel" a wide array of emotions like joy, hatred, sorrow and even shame. Recent studies have shown a level of cognitive functioning in canines and even chicks, that are surprisingly well beyond our previous assumptions. As we evolve into a society that has the luxury of looking at its animal co-habitants as something beyond competing predators or food/product utility, we are faced with the dilemma of re-defining animal value, and creating a system of humane stewardship and accountability while continuing to consume, conduct research on and profit from animal life.
There is no simple answer to the question of animal testing. I am absolutely against it for the purposes of vanity such as cosmetics and youth creams. I would be very reluctant to advocate it even for something like the alleviation of my personal discomfort, such as a headache or a cramp. However if you asked me whether I would put that long-ago mouse in a lab so it could be used to test a drug that would keep my toddler nephew from spending his life in a wheelchair...I think the answer here is obvious.
That said, I do believe that scientific research has too long gone unchecked in its animal use practices. Without absolutely stringent oversight and incorporation of new data resulting from increased knowledge of animal suffering, we will not only cause unnecessary harm to animals but also endanger the human beings who will be the end consumers of products tested without such comprehensive measures. Elevated adrenaline levels in a terrified creature, or abnormal serotonin levels in a caged animal, could easily result in skewed research leading to a harmful prescription for human beings. To ignore the absolute necessity of maintaining a scientific environment that respects a creature's natural life and physiology, would be doing grave injustice to people as well as wasting animal life.
I wish we lived in a world where animal research was proven to be fruitless, and abandoned. I am not so naive as to believe that the human race will ever stop abusing its dominion over the lesser animals. I do believe, however, that the efforts of animal rights activists are not only beneficial to the animals but also to people. Our lives, our well-being and our futures are not divergent paths. Mistreating animals inevitably leads to a karmic redistribution of pain to human beings, as evidenced by the maladies resulting from unregulated factory farming, and increased violence in children subjected to demonstrations of animal cruelty.
That said, I would never condone the harm of human beings or property for the purposes of bringing attention to animal welfare issues. This type of violent and misguided action only serves to exacerbate the divide between "pro" and "con" camps, without serving any positive change for the agenda. Richard McLellan, former ER physician and current animal rights activist, stated it best when he declared in an interview with the Abolitionist: "I did more for lab animals during a dinner conversation with a CEO of a biotech firm than in all my years on the protest line."
Ultimately I believe both parties can and must benefit from a constructive tension that challenges each side to validate its claims and beliefs with knowledge, experience and truthful disclosure.
Related causes: Animals, Community, Human Rights
Comments
You must be logged in to do that.
Sign In
