Yes, it's true, when I was a graduate student in
perceptual psychology at the University of Tennessee, I experimented on
animals. I was even a vegetarian and an advocate of animal rights at the
time. I felt that I had to conduct those experiments to finish my degree.
The rule still is "publish or perish," not only for professors, but also
for their research assistants. I also felt that I treated the animals I
worked with humanely and in accordance with the federal animal welfare
rules. I don't regret any of the animal research I conducted.
The animals I experimented on were human animals, mostly
other psychology students, and my work was very non-invasive. The only
suffering any of those animals might have endured was boredom. All of the
subjects were consenting volunteers and were paid with either money or
extra credit for their university classes. The results of our research
were published in the Journal of Perceptual Psychology and hopefully added
to the body of knowledge that will one day produce new sonar devices to
help blind people navigate in our world.
How different this is from the rest of the animal research
that goes on in universities across the country. While most (90%) of the
animals used in research are mice and rats, there are also large numbers
of dogs, cats, primates and other animals used in research. While most
people can dismiss research on rodents as acceptable, the majority of
society objects to the use of "higher" animals.
The area of animal research is one of the most
controversial issues in the animal rights movement. Some of us wish for
total animal liberation, some of us think that some animal experimentation
is acceptable in order to find cures for disease. People who support
research on animals believe in the utilitarian view that it is a necessary
evil for animals to be sacrificed to benefit human health.
I hold the opinion that most animal research is wrong from
an ethical point of view. From all the studies I have read, non-human
animals are similar to us in that they feel pain and fear, in that they
can suffer, in that they can experience complex emotions such as love,
friendship, in that they mourn the loss of a loved one, in that they
perform similar behaviors to humans and that they exhibit many other
similarities.
A recent study in a national park in the Congo reported on
a gorilla who was observed to wade into a pond, found the water too deep,
and exited the water. She grabbed a branch and used it to test the depth
of the pond. Animals are more like us than we usually like to admit. They
use tools, they have language, we as humans are just slow to figure the
language out.
But when it comes to medicine, most animals don't respond
the same way that humans do. We have been fighting the "War Against
Cancer" for decades, but we are losing. Animal research has not benefited
humanity in any way when it comes to cancer. Cancer affects mice and rats
much differently than it affects humans; billions of dollars and much
research time has been wasted that could have been spent on epidemiology
and on prevention through diet.
In 1929, when Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, he
first tested it on rabbits. He found that it didn't cure the infection
they had, so he put penicillin on the shelf for a decade. The vaccine for
polio was similarly delayed for decades because it didn't work in animal
tests. Many drugs have tested as safe in animals, but then were found to
cause side effects in humans ranging from allergic reactions to birth
defects to death. Animal tests results are at best a fifty-fifty
proposition.
It is in our best interests, as it is in the interests of
the tens of millions of animals who are annually tortured in laboratories
for no other reason than scholarly research papers to add to resumes of
professors and to bolster their careers, federal research grants to enrich
colleges, to move beyond the dark ages of animal research. Lets move on
towards real cures, shall we?
Recent studies on humans, epidemiology, have found that
miso soup prevents breast cancer, that isoflavones in soy prevent
pancreatic cancer, that the spice turmeric kills cancer cells, that eating
more raw fruits and veggies protect against lung cancer, and that dairy
products promote prostate and ovarian cancer, that red meat causes colon
cancer.
The Cancer Institute of America says that 70% of all
cancers are preventable by diet and lifestyle changes. It's probably a lot
more than that, because a lot of the cancers they attribute to
"environmental factors" are pesticides and hormones in our food.
Do we really need to continue to induce cancer in mice,
primates, dogs and cats in an effort to find a cure? That sure seems
stupid to me. Let's spend our tax dollars to promote a diet that Prevents
cancer. Low fat (animal fat concentrates pesticides and hormones), high
fruit and vegetable (so many fruits and vegetables are known to prevent
cancer) diets are what we should be eating.
I object to paying high insurance rates because of what
the majority of Americans eat. I object to their choice of killing animals
for food, and I object to paying for their hospital costs when it catches
up with them. I object to my tax dollars going to take care of people who
made bad food choices during their lives.
OK, I don't object so much to the ignorant people who
never knew, as I do to the people who Have read from many news articles
that meat and dairy causes cancer and just can't seem to give up their
addiction to animal products.
I'm sorry, they are just ignorant (in the sense of
ignoring the evidence,) and fooled by the meat and dairy industry, they
are not flesh eating zombies. ( or wait, perhaps they are)
I would like to minimize my paying for their health care
and invest my money in a vegetarian restaurant, but the federal government
takes and takes and takes, and gives price support to meat and dairy and
gives money to research to kill animals to find a way to save human lives
from the consequences of a meat based diet. Then it pays health care
facilities to care for people who ate an animal based diet all their
lives.
Will the federal government use tax dollars to rebuild the
animal research facilities at Louisiana State University where over 8000
lab animals died in their cages because it was the first priority that
humans escape the flood?
The vivisectionists at LSU have expressed no remorse over
the animals, mice, rats, dogs, cats and primates that died in the flood,
they have only expressed remorse over the data they have lost from their
research. Research objects, or sentient beings? Do you want to rebuild
Medical Centers to experiment on animals. I sure don't.
For more information go to PETA's site stopanimaltests.com
and the National Antivivisection Society at navs.org
"I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces
results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't...the pain which
it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it,
and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking
further." -Mark Twain
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and
the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters
why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because
the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical
contradiction."
-Professor Charles R. Magel
Go on to Stop, Think,
Don't Sign That Petition
Return to 6 November 2005 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
