March
2001
Arguing
Against Vivisection: Science or Ethics?
By
Patrick Kwan
|
|
|
Of all the ways animals are abused and exploited, vivisection
has always struck the strongest chord in me. I view animal experimentation
as morally reprehensible—something inherently evil. I mean, how
ethical can it be to deprive life and comfort from one being for the
sake of another? Not to mention the fact that the victims are chosen
because they are powerless and trivialized by many. For as long as I’ve
been an animal rights advocate I’ve wanted to work to put an end
to vivisection, and in the beginning I chose to focus on using science
as my argument.
Having known that toxicology is one of the most gruesome fields of vivisection,
I concentrated my studies on the growing field of environmental toxicology.
I thought, perhaps I can become a toxicologist who uses only non-animal
tests and one who speaks out against the use of animals in science.
I collected and read all the literature I could find that used scientific
arguments against vivisection. My studies certainly paid off: I was
able to argue forcefully on the scientific flaws of animal tests in
my classes and managed to convince most of my classmates that data from
animal tests are inapplicable to humans. I felt I was accomplishing
what I wanted; to help put an end to vivisection by demonstrating its
flaws to potential vivisectors. But a single study woke me up.
A classmate in my environmental science class cited a study involving
mice in efforts to demonstrate the possible social effects of overpopulation.
Hundreds of mice were separated into several containers, with one container
having ample room for the mice and others with diminishing space. Months
later, mice from each container were examined and compared, then killed
and their brain cells examined. The study found, not surprisingly, the
less room the mice had, the more aggressive they were toward each other.
It also found that the less room the mice had, the higher the rate of
self-mutilation and appearance of homo/bisexuality in the mice.
I was horrified after hearing about the study and quickly questioned
its scientific merit. I gave very simple reasons why it could not possibly
be applicable to humans: the mice were suddenly subjected to crowding
while in reality overpopulation is a gradual process; the rate of human
overpopulation cannot possibly lead to the levels of crowding described
in the study; and there are important behavioral differences between
mice and humans. My classmates were silent, not because they were struck
by my scientific reasoning, but because I was visibly upset.
Later that night, I thought to myself, how could anyone possibly even
start with the idea that living, feeling beings can be so expendable?
Thinking about how much the hundreds of mice must have suffered while
in the containers and how they were killed extremely bothered me. Surely
I convinced my classmates that animal studies are misleading, based
on shaky logic, and impede scientific progress by wasting precious
resources.
But had I been truly speaking up for the animals? I couldn’t answer
that question, and I still can’t today.
I do know that I agree with George Bernard Shaw who wrote, “If
we attempt to controvert a vivisectionist by showing that the experiment
that he has performed has not led to any useful result, you imply that
if it led to a useful result, you would consider his experiment justified.
Now I’m not prepared to concede that position.” I find vivisection
morally unjustifiable because I don’t believe that any living,
feeling being, under any circumstances, can be deprived of the right
to live out his/her life without being tortured, mutilated, slaughtered,
or otherwise exploited. Not because of any other reason.
Moreover, I agree with Anne Frank who wrote in her famous diary, “After
all, I still believe people are good at heart.” Though vivisectionists
such as Adrian Morrison and Fred Coulston make this hard to believe,
there are many more people that renew my faith, particularly Michael
Allen Fox, a philosopher who wrote The Case for Animal Experimentation
and renounced it shortly after it was published (his latest book is
Deep Vegetarianism, published last year).
Surely, the “science” behind vivisection is highly questionable
and very few (if any) informed persons would believe vivisection is
everything that vivisectionists make it out to be. Perhaps vivisection
would indeed end (or at least be drastically curtailed) if only more
people knew that everything from broccoli to tomatoes have been shown
to be carcinogens in mice, that data between mice and rats correlate
only around 70 percent of the time (the two certainly have more in common
than either would with humans), and that we probably would have a better
chance of determining if something is toxic to humans by flipping a
coin than by conducting animal tests (not to mention it would save much
time and money). Even so, it would not create a consistent “hands-off”
policy for using animals. There will always be an instance where using
animals as surrogates would simply seem convenient and possibly lead
to some scientific knowledge. We can illustrate the theory of gravity
to a group of students by throwing a chimp off the roof or we can throw
a rock—both methods aptly communicate the science of gravity.
For a real-life, less extreme example, medical students can learn about
the basics of surgical techniques by cutting up a dog, or they can
use
much more humane methods, such as observing the actual surgery of a
person. Animals will be exploited for as long as they are viewed as
expendable or worthless tools; and they will continue to be exploited
until we change our collective attitude towards other animals.
But it is not to say that scientific arguments are never
proper (nor am I saying that animal advocates who are pursuing studies
in fields dominated by vivisectionists ought to quit); the vivisection
industry is so huge and powerful that we surely ought to use whatever
we can to save animals from its strangle-hold. The many scientists who
have spoken out against the flaws of vivisection certainly did—and
still do—much for the animals. What is of significant concern is
when animal advocates leave animals out of the vivisection debate and
scream about the “scientific fraud” of vivisection, instead
of focusing on its extreme cruelty. I think the animals make a case
for themselves and that their suffering, exploitation, and deaths deserve
much more than a backseat in the vivisection debate.
I’ve come to realize that I chose scientific arguments against
vivisection because I somehow believed that others cannot or would not
accept moral arguments. Perhaps I simply believed that animal advocates
are especially moral individuals, but how can I presume that another
person cannot make the very same moral decisions that I did? Why shouldn’t
I at least present them with the moral arguments that struck me so much?
Certainly, few people are born animal advocates. As an animal advocate,
as someone who supports animal rights, if I don’t speak up for
the animals, who will?
Patrick Kwan is an activist based in New York City. He currently
works as a Regional Field Organizer for an international human rights
organization and is pursuing his studies in Political Science and Media
Studies.
