Animal Rights Arguments

This information sheet was written for students preparing for speeches, debates, or papers. The information explains animal rights and how to form arguments in their favor.

The media have sensationalized the issue of "animal rights" by presenting it as a two-sided issue: Either one is for or against animal experiments that potentially benefit humans. There are many abuses, however, that a knowledgeable public would want ended. Since wide public support is vital to end animal abuse, it is most important that the public be made aware of them. To this end we have prepared this brief outline which should create a positive public image for the term "animal rights".

If you are preparing to debate or write a paper on the subject of "Animal Rights" and would like more detailed information on any of the specific issues presented in this outline, call or write us. If the exhibits referred to in this paper are not attached, they are available on request.

Animal Rights

Throughout history, animal rights has been a subject of concern and debate. The concern in Biblical times is expressed in Proverbs 12:10: "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), was a forerunner in the use of the expression "animal rights": "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."

A foremost spokesperson in modern times, Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) held that "the thinking man must oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition or surrounded by a halo...We need a boundless ethic which will include the animals also."

The rights that both human and non-human animals have are determined by the society in which they live. In a democratic society, it is the public that ultimately decides which rights will be given to non-human animals. To date, our society has given them very few rights. As a result, animals are subjected to an incredible array of abuses. Concerned citizens and legislators trying to change the situation propose these legal rights be extended to animals that are used or killed for human benefit:

The right of animals in laboratories not to suffer and die in the safety testing of non-medical, personal care, and household products.

Solution: A law to curtail the use of animal tests to establish the safety of household cleaning products and cosmetics. Many non-animal methods now exist to replace old animal tests. Opposition: Medical Research Lobby. [See Exhibit A]

The right to living conditions which allow animals to sit, stand erect, fully extend their limbs, stretch, and assume normal postures.

This is a right often denied to animals in zoos, in research laboratories, and in factory farms. One million veal calves a year are kept chained by the neck in tiny crates unable to walk, stretch, groom, or turn around. They are kept anemic on a chemically laced diet and in total darkness, (to produce the pale tender meat some diners demand).

Solution: A law to provide calves the right to live their short lives with some degree of comfort, meeting natural instincts and needs. Opposition: The powerful dairy farm and meat industries. [See Exhibit B]

The miserable unnatural conditions in which research animals live was publicized by Dr.Jane Goodall, the noted primatologist researcher. She reacted in horror after visiting a highly-regarded, government-funded biomedical research laboratory, SEMA. She reported: "Chimpanzees sat huddled, far gone in depression and despair. No primate could remain normal for long in those conditions...(it was) the worst experience of my life." [See Exhibit C]

The right to decent living conditions is supposed to be protected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which has responsibility for inspecting laboratories and enforcing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Federal law which is supposed to provide minimal protections to animals in laboratories. The USDA's failure to enforce the AWA was documented by the General Accounting Office in a May, 1985 report. Their report stated: "During 1983 , the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the USDA did not perform any on-site inspections in 52 percent of the facilities using animals in California and 46 percent of the facilities in New York.

Animals in laboratories have yet to be granted basic minimal rights. To date, the research industry has claimed the sole right to determine how and when animals shall be used in research. To be funded, an animal experiment must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Animal Committee (IAC) and a Peer Review Board. IAC's also have some responsibility to ensure the proper treatment of animals. To protect the animals, each IAC is required to have at least one member who is not employed by the institution and who is supposed to represent the humane concerns of the community. However, all IAC members are appointed by the research institution without outside consultation... Consequently, humane groups have had no voice in determining who shall represent their concerns for protecting animals in laboratories from pointless, needless suffering.

Should those who have a vested interest in animal research be the only ones who determine how research money and animals are used? In other areas this is called "conflict of interest". To ensure that animals are not used cruelly, unnecessarily, or inappropriately, IAC and Peer Review Boards should include representatives who reflect the concerns of humane organizations. For example, if the research institution appoints four members to the committee, the committee should be balanced with at least three additional members who have the approval of local humane groups. Until now, the research industry has fiercely opposed the humane community's attempts to have a voice in determining how and when animals and money are used in research and testing. Until these locked doors are opened to public scrutiny, no one will ever know whether any of the few rights that animals in laboratories supposedly have are actually observed.

The right of dogs used in research laboratories to daily exercise outside their small cages.

Senator Robert Dole helped obtain this right when he authored the 1985 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. Unfortunately, the powerful research lobby has succeeded in persuading the administration in Washington to write the regulations in such a way as to make this right unenforceable. Each research institution, under the weakened regulations, may decide for itself how it will treat the animals, whether it will enforce its own rules, and how it will police itself. Thus, the public has no way of knowing if dogs are receiving the exercise they were supposedly granted in the 1985 law. The "Animal Welfare Act in Danger" describes how the research lobby and the administration together conspired to negate the reforms promised in the 1985 law.

Solution: Require record keeping and reports that are available to the public to ensure that the provisions of the law are being met. Opposition: The research lobby. [See Exhibit D}

The right of animals, who are killed, to a quick and painless death.

The cruelest device still permitted in our country, is the steel-jaw leghold trap. These traps kill most of the 14-million animals who die each year so that a human can wear fur. The trapped animal, sometimes even a family pet, endures an agonizing and prolonged death.

Solution: A law to prohibit interstate commerce in these traps and the furs caught by their use. Opposition: The trapping and the fur industry. [See Exhibit E]

Horses destined for slaughterhouses are beaten and electroshocked into double-decker trucks designed for cattle. These hellish contraptions full of sharp metal edges are too low and too slippery for horses. Old, blind, sickly horses go down and are trampled to death by the others.

Solution: A law to ban the use of double-decker trucks and to require a veterinary health certificate for each horse. Opposition: The horse transportation industry. [See Exhibit F]

The right not to suffer or die for "entertainment" purposes.

Live animals like rabbits and kittens are being used as lures in the training of greyhound racing dogs.

Solution: A law to prohibit the use of live lures in the training of greyhounds. Opposition: The dog-racing industry. [See Exhibit G]

The right of animals not to suffer and die for pointless, unnecessarily repetitive, laboratory experiments.

Each year, many millions of animals ranging from mice to monkeys suffer and die in research laboratories. Many animals are killed and much money is wasted in pointless, duplicative experiments that produce no meaningful benefits to either humans or animals. For example:

Since 1955, millions of monkeys and other species have been and continue to be used in duplicative mother-child separation studies. Dr. F.E. Challis of Chicago criticizes these experiments: [Scientists]"have indeed managed to prove that a severely deprived infant will quite often grow up to be an emotionally-impaired adult. It is unlikely this is or was new knowledge to anyone inside or outside the laboratory." (Friends of Animals Flyer)

In his book, Animal Liberation , Peter Singer noted that similar studies were conducted in 1960, '63, '64, '65, '66, and '70 and that all showed the "same isolate symptoms" that were reported in experiments conducted at UC Davis and that continue to this day.

As for their value, the originator of these isolation studies, Dr. H.F. Harlow, wrote: "...the social isolation syndrome in monkeys can serve as an adequate model for only one human disorder - the human total isolation syndrome." Harlow goes on to ask of his own work!: "Of what use are the data obtained from depressed monkeys?..We have a ...difficult time establishing a strong case....since so much monkey-work to date has been based upon existing human data and theories." ("Psychological Research on Animals", Fund for Animals newsletter, 1984). The public must ask why we have spent millions of tax dollars on animal experiments that duplicate what we already know about humans.

Dr.Stephen Suomi, Harlow's long time assistant, admitted after Harlow's death, that the 20-year-long experiments driving infant monkeys insane in isolation chambers, called "pits of despair", were a scientific failure and participating in the experiments had given him nightmares. (Milwaukee Journal, 8/6/81)

Dr. John Beary, MD., Georgetown University Medical School, Washington, DC: "[These monkey isolation] studies are trivial, ... the results obvious...the only motivation being to publish enough to get promoted and gain tenure."(National Institutes of Health Bulletin, 12/81).

Dr. Neal Barnard, Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM): "Studies of mother-child separation have been done countless times in humans when separations occurred naturally. As a psychiatrist, I consider the repetition of these experiments in animals cruel and wasteful, particularly since federal funds to take care of mental patients are so inadequate." (PCRM bulletin).

Clinical psychologist Dr. Robert T. Bayard, Cupertino, CA., examined 2137 references cited in recent journals in pediatrics, psychiatry, and psychology. Not a single one of these references cited an animal infant-mother study. He concluded,"...the animal infant-mother separation research has no value at all to anyone other than those engaged in the research itself. Thus it is clearly not worth the cost in money borne by taxpayers." (Communication to HEN).

Solution: A Federal law to require a computerized literature search before any grant proposal using animals is funded, in order to determine if the information sought already exists. Opposition; The Research Lobby. (See Exhibit H)

Unfortunately, powerful industry groups affected by laws to give animals some basic rights have, to date, managed to block legislative attempts to give animals these minimal protection.

Solution: When YOU educate the public about the absence and need of these basic rights, the abuses will be ended and laboratory doors CAN AND WILL BE OPENED.