Some are more equal than others

I’m not really one for clubs and cliques, but when I was 14, I was so upset I joined the Anti-Vivisection Society.

I was already distressed by the casual way people ate animals. But did we have to maim, torture and kill them in the name of scientific research?

The aims of the Anti-Vivisection Society are clear enough: to show how flawed the ‘science’ of animal testing is, in order to prevent the pointless suffering of animals - in that order. Back when it was formed in 1978, the thought that animals might have rights even approaching the rights of humans seemed ridiculous to most people, so there was no point going on about animal suffering. (Fast-forward four decades though, and the ‘rights of personhood’, in groundbreaking legislation, are granted to the great apes).

Neurological testing. Photo credit: Texas Tech Laboratory

Back in the 70s more leverage was to be gained by focusing on what vivisection didn’t do rather than what it did. And what it doesn’t do, despite what it says on the tin, is give any assurance that results from tests on animals mean anything for humans.

There is no guarantee that a result observed from a test on a rat, a rabbit, or a beagle has relevance for us.

LD50 tests, responses to medication and reactions to diseases. All these tests are performed on animals in captivity, here in New Zealand as elsewhere. But why? Most modern day animal testing is  performed for the legal protection of industry, not for purposes of scientific research. 

                                             

Skin irritancy testing. Photo credit: Unleashed

                         If a company such as Revlon, Pantene, Dove or Pfizer wishes to have an easy ‘insurance policy’ of saying they could not have been aware of any surprise nasty health effect that their product has on a consumer, they simply need to show that they’ve tested it on animals and seen no ill effects. Job done – you can’t sue me. Not exactly the adventure that Belka and Strelka went on.

The theory of Utilitarianism says that the best solution is one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number. But is this only the greatest number of people?

The preservation of our modern lifestyles – if not our species - will depend on what we do now to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of creatures, of plant species, of ecosystems.

A question for you, put to me many times over the years by irritated relatives, teachers and workmates: don’t you think that the suffering of people is more important than the suffering of animals?  If your child was suffering from, say, cystic fibrosis, wouldn’t you want scientists to do everything they could to find a cure? Would you think it was okay, then, for experiments to be done on animals?

If you said yes, consider this. What animal is closely related enough to your child to be a valid test subject, really? The perfect match is another child. Would you think it was okay for researchers to experiment on someone else’s kids to find a cure for yours?

Facts and factoids

I’ve been amazed these last few weeks at how unbalanced the debate around 1080 use actually is. The closest thing to a scientific opinion that I’ve been able to find suggesting its risks to native wildlife are a legitimate concern has been Dr Whiting O’Keefe, in Poisoning Paradise. But his work on the issue has been thoroughly debunked as a misuse and distortion of the primary research.  I’m at a loss to understand why someone with Whiting O’Keefe’s apparent credentials would skew the facts to this extent.

Public statements by opponents of 1080 often describe the ill effects of the poison on non-target species, offering graphic images of animals dead or dying. However evidence that 1080 is to blame is lacking, with the emphasis on shock value rather than toxicology tests.

Poisoned by 1080. Probably. Photo credit: Great Gatsby's

When I contrast this with the scientific literature, evidence based and peer reviewed, it reminds me of the story (citation needed!) of the man who told extremely tall tales and then presented a coin from his pocket as evidence. “This was right here in my pocket when it happened, so THAT PROVES IT.”

The scientific method can change your opinion. If you have a theory, test it. Does the evidence back your theory up? Test it again. Get someone else to repeat the tests. If these experiments, or your research, don’t back up your theory, well. You change your mind, you throw your theory out, you start again.  But, not if you’re a 1080 opponent.  Never let the facts get in the way of your preconceived opinion.

Not to mention, never let the facts get in the way of a scandalous newspaper story. In 2004 Phillip Anderton was interviewed by the Wairoa Star, describing the destruction wrought on local wildlife by the 1080 operation four days before. He posed for a photo holding a dead kiwi. But did he supply proof that the kiwi was killed by 1080? No he did not, and rather than surrender the bird for testing afterwards, he said he couldn’t, as he’d buried it in the bush. 

Authorities searched his property however, and he was convicted for illegal possession of protected wildlife, because the kiwi was found in his freezer (and had injuries consistent with being killed in a trap). What drives people to back up their opinions with false evidence which is so easily discredited? Subsequent publications have even claimed that the reason 1080 opponents never get toxicology reports done on birds they find poisoned by 1080 is that it’s illegal to collect them and hand them over to DoC for testing, as if this had been Mr Anderton’s crime.

Opponents seem surprised when their assertions are subject to fact-checking – is this why they have no faith in scientific opinion? Do they think scientists don’t check their facts either?

 Possum damage to Northland forest. Photo credit: Forest & Bird

It’s disheartening to think that in our current situation, with the threat to Northland's forests and the controversy over the lack of DoC funding to address the problem, there are so many New Zealanders who would rather we stood by and did nothing.

Contradictions

December, and we’re on the home stretch to Christmas. As the weather starts to warm and settle, hints of red begin to show on Wellington’s pohutukawa -  as traditional as turkey, pav and jandals in this part of the world.

Photo credit: Chris Rudge

But in wilderness areas the festive red blooms of pohutukawa, rata and native mistletoes are disappearing. Possum browsing has driven some species to extinction, and as recent drone footage shows, our mighty native forests are dying and collapsing.

Most New Zealanders agree that possum numbers need to be reduced, but the debate around how to achieve this is fraught with emotion and misunderstandings.

Our Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, re-evaluated the use of 1080 in 2011. She concluded that 1080 is safe and effective, and furthermore that without it we risk losing iconic bird species - including the kiwi - within a generation (Wright, 2011, p.20).

The risk to dogs is a controversial aspect of the debate. The PCE report includes the statistics for dog fatalities: eight dogs died from 1080 exposure over the four years prior to publication. Wright points out that more common forms of poisoning for dogs in New Zealand are slug bait and rat poison (brodifacoum) - in the suburbs. She goes on to compare the eight fatalities to the hundreds of people killed in road crashes each year, yet ‘no one is proposing a moratorium on traffic’ (p. 6). The report’s conclusions are that the use of 1080 should not only continue, but that currently we are not using enough (p.7).

In contrast Clyde and Steve Graf, vocal 1080 opponents, find the risks of aerial 1080 drops unacceptable. In their self-produced DVD Poisoning Paradise they show footage of a variety of dead and dying animals; native birds, game, and stock, describing in voiceover the inhumane effects of 1080 on these non-target species (Graf & Graf, 2009). 

Photo credit: Animal Health Board

Hunters, landowners and farmers are interviewed, unanimously criticising the science behind Department of Conservation policies around 1080 use. A number of landowners state that 1080 pellets have been dropped on their private property, and that waterways supplying their farms have been tainted, causing stock deaths. The DVD questions claims of 1080’s safety in the environment, asserting that residues remain long after sites have been declared safe (Graf & Graf 2009).

There is an inherent contradiction in the position of both the pro- and anti-1080 camps: killing animals is both acceptable and unacceptable. Is it acceptable to kill possums, in order to save endangered birds and their habitat? Is it acceptable to kill deer and pigs for sport, or stock animals for meat, but unacceptable to kill them in the course of preserving our natural heritage?

Soon advocates and opponents alike will take a well-earned break from all this debate and contradiction, to relax with their families over Christmas. It’s hard to see how the different viewpoints on 1080’s use can ever be satisfactorily resolved, but one thing is certain. There will be no kissing under this native mistletoe on Christmas Day. The possums have eaten it to extinction.

Wright, J. (2011). Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Graf, C. & Graf, S. (2009). Poisoning paradise: Ecocide New Zealand. (DVD). New Zealand: The Graf Boys.

Sodium fluoroacetate

Some people meditate to find their inner calm, some medicate. But my golden rule for maintaining equilibrium is “do not read the comments”.

This week I’ve had to break that rule, to conduct my research into the position of anti-1080 activists. Scholarly research into 1080 opposition is proving a challenge.  Scouring Google Scholar and Web of Science I find a wealth of peer-reviewed literature available that examines, in clinical detail, the effects of possums on forest canopies and bird populations, the effects of 1080 on waterways and native species, the tested results of 1080 exposure on possums, game, humans, birds and invertebrates, and the environmental consequences of doing nothing to reduce possum numbers.

But where is the evidence from the anti-1080 brigade? Talkback Radio, social media, newspaper articles. I’m finding it difficult to maintain (any illusion of) objectivity in my assignment, as I read about hoaxes, death threats and hostage taking, murdered pets and the threat to contaminate infant formula. On social media sites, articles about successful bird breeding seasons post-1080 drops provoke hysterical, aggressive comments from opponents, that descend quickly into personal attack. In contrast the responses from conservationists – scientists both amateur and academic – tend toward the measured and reasonable, and they consistently direct the opponents of 1080 to one thing: the peer-reviewed science that is so readily available. The opponents’ apparent resistance to accepting or even reading this literature is astonishing.

In between searching the literature, I’ve enjoyed reading the course material about writing position papers. I’ve found that working on the initial framework of narrowing down the issue to a number of key points and outlining the opposition argument fairly has helped me to keep my emotional reactions and my need to ‘be right’ in check. A bit. (I particularly enjoyed the tip about framing the opposing view in a straightforward way, and then pulling out the poetry for persuading people to the opposite.)  Finally this week, the research tips: reading selectively and skimming for the relevant points. I was very heartened to read this; the whole time I’ve been studying I’ve felt I was ‘cheating’ somehow by doing this. I’ve been thinking I’m rushing research and ought to be reading more comprehensively. But in the light of this advice I realise there’s a difference between skimming to cherry-pick facts, looking for evidence of your own preconceived opinion, versus skimming strictly for relevance. So now that I know I’ve been doing it right, I’ll have to find something else to feel guilty about. Murdering possums maybe.