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?