0013-7227/90/1273-0985$02.00/0 Endocrinology Copyright © 1990 by The Endocrine Society
Vol. 127, No. 3 Printed in U.S.A.
Editorial: Analysis of Animal Rights Literature Reveals the Underlying Motives of the Movement: Ammunition for Counter Offensive by Scientists In recent years, animal rights advocates have designated the fourth week in April as "Lab Animal Liberation Week." On April 24th of this year animal activists organized a large demonstration on our campus, although very few students were involved. The demonstrators consisted of a motley crew, described by journalists as ranging from "purple-haired punks to violent vegetarians." They smashed the glass doors of Tolman Hall, which houses the Department of Psychology, and tore down fences around the construction site of the Northwest Animal Facility. Blocking the construction of that building has been a major objective of the local activists for several years now; happily, they have been unsuccessful. The acts of vandalism were accompanied by well orchestrated chants of "no more vivisection" repeated again and again in chorus. As we watched these frenzied fanatics, we could not help wondering about what really motivates the adherents of this movement. Fortunately, about two months earlier some information that could shed light on this question had been provided by Emeritus Professor Charles R. Magel of the Department of Philosophy at Moorhead State University in Moorhead, MN. He is credited with having developed the first regularly offered course on animal rights in the US. The information provided by Magel was in the form of a list of 25 "important books on animal rights" (1-25), which he distributed at a conference organized by the Berkeley Citizens' Humane Commission. The conference on "Animals, Ethics and Social Policy" was held at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley on February 1617,1990. The first speaker on the program was Dr. Susan Sperling (Division of Social Studies, Chabot College, Received July 2, 1990. Address requests for reprints to: Dr. C. S. Nicoll, Department of Integrative Biology, LSA 281, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720. Charles S. Nicoll, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Integrative Biology and a member of the faculty of the Cancer Research Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley, CA. Sharon M. Russell, PhD, is an Associate Research Physiologist in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, CA. Both authors of this editorial are cofounders of a grass-roots proactive group called the Coalition for Animals and Animal Research.
Hayward, CA), who presented some historical and cultural perspectives on the animal rights movement, a topic covered in her recent book (26). She was followed by Magel, who criticized Sperling and others for suggesting that animal rights advocates express an inordinate amount of concern about the use of animals in biomedical research, while showing much less regard about their use in other spheres. Magel claimed that "animal people" agonize over every form of exploitation of animals. Our impressions of the areas of emphasis of animal rights advocates are consistent with Sperling's opinion, and not with Magel's; although the activists hold annual demonstrations on "Fur-Free Friday" and on "Meatless Monday," they have not designated an entire week each year for the liberation of farm animals, for example. Accordingly, we thought that it might be informative to analyze the contents of the 25 books that Magel recommended. The assumption underlying this analysis was that the number of pages devoted to a particular topic by the authors of these "important books" would reflect their collective perception of the relative importance of that topic in the overall scheme of concern for animals. Two of the books on the list contained a large number of short essays, poems and quotes (12, 21), which made their contents difficult to categorize, and two others (15, 25) were not available in local libraries. One of them (22) contained excerpts from other published works, some of which were included in the other listed books. Hence, these five books were not included in the tabulation. Part of the book by Robbins (18) was also excluded because it dealt with his views on the health benefits of vegetarian diets and the harmful effects of a meat-based diet. One other book (27) that was not on Magel's list was also included as it was recommended to us by some local animal activists. The contents of each book were examined and the number of pages covering each of various topics was recorded. When a chapter or section was devoted primarily to a particular topic (e.g. factory farming), all of the pages in that chapter or section were assigned to one category of animal use (e.g. for food). In some cases, chapters or sections that emphasized one topic also con985
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL
986
tained mention of other subjects; for example, chapters critical of animal research frequently commented on the associated moral/ethical issues. No attempt was made to separate such allusions from the main topic of the chapter or section. This lack of precision is not likely to introduce significant error to this analysis because chapters or sections that dealt with ethical/moral questions (which were in the majority) often mentioned various uses of animals. These sorts of errors would tend to balance out. Analysis of the major topics of the 4562 pages in the 21 books showed that 2598 of them (56.9%) were concerned primarily with the ethical/moral questions regarding the use of animals by humans, and 1680 pages (36.8%) were critical of the various ways in which we exploit animals. Of the remaining 284 pages, 216 (4.7%) considered the history of the animal rights movement and its current status, and 68 (1.5%) dealt with the plight of wild animals (e.g. destruction of their habitat). This division seems appropriate as one of the major objectives of the leading writers in the movement is that of attempting to persuade the public as to the moral/ethical merits of their philosophy. When the 1680 pages pertaining to the various ways that we exploit animals are categorized (Table 1), we find that almost two thirds of the concern of these authors is directed at biomedical research and teaching, and about one third is directed at the food industry. Only 6.0% of their attention is devoted to all other areas of animal use. Clearly, a strong bias against the use of animals in research and teaching, relative to their "exploitation" in other spheres, is evident from these data. Data on the number of animals used annually in various ways in the US are shown in Table 2. Note that this tabulation includes only mammals and birds. The number of fish consumed annually in the US as a result of sport and commercial fishing is probably on the order of hundreds of millions or billions. (However, the suffering that fish undoubtedly endure as a result of these activiTABLE 1. Number and proportion of pages in 21 recommended books on animal rights expressing concern about various ways in which humans use animals.
Type of use or consumption:
Biomedical research and education For food Pets and pound animals Hunting0 For fur garments Entertainment6 0 6
Includes whaling. Circuses, zoos, rodeos.
Pages expressing concern No.
%
1064
63.3 30.6
514 39 38 14 10
2.3 2.3 0.8 0.6
Endo • 1990 Vol 127 • No 3
TABLE 2. Number of animals consumed annually in the US for various purposes Type of consumption For food6 Hunting0 Killed in poundsd For research and teaching" Fur garments/ Total
No. used (millions)0
% of total
6,086
96.5
165 27 11
2.6 0.4 0.3 0.2
6,309
100.0
.20
° Expressed to the nearest million (M). 6 Based on 1989 data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the USDA. The number includes approximately 5,700 M chickens, 252 M turkeys, 22 M ducks, 55 M sheep, 36.3 M cattle, and 89 M hogs. c Data for 1988-1989 from U.S. News and World Report, February 5,1990, pp 30-37. The total does not include animals killed by poachers, on private hunting preserves, or by federal or state government pest and predator control programs. If these animals are included the total killed may be close to 200 M/y. d Data from the 1988 Animal Shelter Report of the American Humane Association, PO Box 2788, Denver, CO 80201, which estimated that 11.2 M-18.8 M dogs and 8.9 M-14.7 M cats are killed in shelters annually. The midpoints of these estimates (i.e. 15 M dogs and 12 M cats) were used for the analysis. e From page 5 of U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, "Alternatives to animal use in research, testing and education" (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, OTA-BA-273, Feb. 1986), which estimated the annual use to be between 17 M and 22 M/yr. 1 4.5 M animals were raised on farms in 1988 (data from the American Fur Industry, 363 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10001) and 6.3 M, representing the 14 major trapped species, were harvested in 19851986 (data from The International Association of Wildlife Agencies, 1412 16th St, NW, Washington, DC).
ties gets scant attention in the animal rights literature. Consumption of amphibians and reptiles also worries animal rights advocates little. They have obvious egalitarian sentiments toward the warm and cuddly animals, but they are seemingly "speciesist" with regard to the cold and clammy.) These data (Table 2) show that of the more than 6 billion animals consumed annually in the US, the vast majority are used for food, and hunting is the second most common form of "exploitation." When the data in Tables 1 and 2 are compared in terms of proportions (Table 3), they become more meaningful in connection with the question about what is motivating the animal liberators. In three categories, the proportion of concern expressed is reasonably well balanced with the percentage of animals used, i.e. those used for fur garments, killed in pounds and consumed by hunters. By contrast, the ratio of concern/use is severely disproportionate in the other two categories. Although only 0.3% of all animals consumed in the US each year are used for research and teaching, these activities receive almost two thirds of the criticism of the animal rights authors. By contrast, the use of animals for food, which constitutes 96.5% of the total consumed, received
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL TABLE 3. Relationships between the proportion of animals consumed annually for various purposes in the US and the relative degree of concern about their use, as expressed in animals rights books % of total pages Type of consumption expressing concern For food Hunting Killed in pounds For fur garments Research and teaching
% of total animals Concern/use ,b
30.6
96.5
2.3 2.3 0.8
2.6 0.4 0.2 0.3
63.3
0.32 0.88 5.80 4.00 211.00
° From Table 1. 6 From Table 2.
less than half as much criticism. The concern-to-use ratios show a discrepancy of 659-fold (i.e. 211/0.32). Advocates of animal rights argue that it is immoral for us to use animals for any purpose; on grounds of numbers used alone one would expect them to express a much greater concern about our use of animals for food. Furthermore, animal rightists also maintain that farm animals, particularly those raised in factory farms and on fur ranches, are kept under inhumane conditions. If there is any validity to these claims, the animal activists' concentration of such a large proportion of their concern to the use of animals in research and teaching is a clear illustration of their unbalanced nature. Parenthetically, even brief reflection reveals the absurdity of the claim that farm animals are generally treated inhumanely; it is axiomatic that when animals are kept under adverse conditions, their growth is impaired, they suspend reproductive functions (e.g. egg laying) and if they are being raised for their pelts, their coat quality deteriorates. Farmers could not afford to raise animals in poor conditions. (Likewise, ill-treated laboratory animals would make poor research subjects.) It seems appropriate at this juncture to question why animal rights activists are so obsessed with the use of animals for research. Do they consider vivisection to be a particularly heinous activity in comparison to the mass killing of animals in slaughter houses? The answer to that question must be in the affirmative, but only for certain types of vivisection, because other information indicates that their objection to this activity is highly selective. Table 4 shows data on two forms of vivisection that are widely practiced in the US; yet they cause no anxiety whatsoever to the antivivisectionists, because we could find virtually no mention of them in the animal rights literature. Docking the tail of puppies is usually done without any anesthesia, and apparently some owners crop the ears of their pups without anesthesia or veterinary supervision. Furthermore, according to the American Kennel Club, only about 20% of the dogs in many breeds are registered (and registered dogs are the source of the data in Table 4). Hence, the number of
987
TABLE 4. Examples of vivisection that are not objected to in the animal rights literature Type of vivisection Docking of tails and/or cropping of ears of puppies" Circumcision of infant boys6
No. of cases (millions) 0.42
1.7-1.9
° Based on the number of dogs or puppies in 14 breeds registered in 1988 with the American Kennel Club, 51 Madison Ave, New York, NY, 10010. These procedures are recommended if the dogs are to conform to the standards of the AKC. 6 Based on a birth rate of about 2 million boys/yr with 85-95% of them circumcized (30).
pups subjected to this cosmetic mutilation may be close to 2 million/yr. Another widely used form of vivisection to which puppies are routinely subjected is removal of the dewclaws, and this procedure is also routinely conducted without anesthesia. The number of pups subjected to this form of survival surgery each year must be in the millions, but we could not find any data on this practice. Circumcision of infant boys is a type of vivisection that could also be considered a form of cosmetic mutilation, and this procedure is also generally done without local anesthesia. Although the health benefits of this practice were emphasized in a recent report (28), other pediatricians have questioned its value (29). In any case, is it unreasonable to question why antivivisectionists express no objection to this form of vivisection that is done without benefit of anesthesia? After all, aren't newborn humans just as innocent, defenseless, and capable of suffering as animals? However, expression of concern about human misery has never been the hallmark of animal rights advocates. Even if we excuse the animal rightists for ignoring vivisection of baby boys without anesthesia, because their obsession with animal suffering overrides any concern they may have about human misery, we are left with the question of why they also ignore the practice of subjecting large numbers of dogs to cosmetic mutilation, while they severely criticize the use of animals in research, most of which does not involve vivisection and when it does, appropriate anesthesia is used in virtually all cases. These facts provide a lucid illustration of the hypocrisy of the adherents of the animal rights movement. They are clearly not opposed to vivisection per se; otherwise they would have a "stop the cosmetic mutilation of puppies" week during which they would demonstrate outside of veterinary clinics. Exploitation of animals by humans per se is also not their major concern; otherwise they would direct more of their objections towards the raising of animals for food. Our analysis, we believe, reveals the real underlying
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
988
EDITORIAL
Endo • 1990 Voll27-No3
motivation of the leaders in the movement, and probably many of their followers as well. "They object mainly to the use of animals in activities that are practiced uniquely by human beings, research and formal education." These practices involve the acquisition of new knowledge and the transfer of knowledge to new generations, and we have derived and continue to realize immense benefits from these activities. Can there be a clearer illustration that the underlying motivation of this movement is antiintellectual, antiscience, and misanthropic? In fact, cogent evidence suggests that the animal rights movement of today would not even exist if it were not for our use of animals to acquire knowledge. In her recent book, Susan Sperling (26) traces the roots of the modern-day animal liberationists back to the antivivisectionists of nineteenth century Europe, particularly in Britain. Those people did not, apparently, voice any concerns about other uses of animals. If Robert Koch, Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, and Claude Bernard had not pioneered the use of animals to study microorganisms, sterile surgical procedures, and animal physiology, perhaps the expression, "animal rights," would never have been uttered.
$50 million, and they are staffed by hundreds of zealous personnel. By contrast, the major proresearch organizations (the National Association for Biomedical Research and the Foundation for Biomedical Research) have an annual operating budget of about $1 million and they have a combined staff of five persons. The contribution of The Endocrine Society to these organizations is $3,000/yr. "That sum represents less than 50 cents/ member/yr." Clearly a substantial increase in the allocation of funds by our society and by others is needed. If we are to make progress against the latter-day Luddites who constitute the animal rights movement, our Society and others that support animal research will have to provide much more substantial funding to defend and promote the use of animals in biomedical research. We must also take more active interest as individuals in educating the public and politicians as to the truth about animal research. If we do not do these things, we may again see the forces of ignorance triumph over the quest for knowledge. Charles S. Nicoll Sharon M. Russell
Overcoming the Inertia of Scientists
We are indebted to Dr. Larry Katz, Department of Animal Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ for drawing our attention to the number of dogs that are subjected to cosmetic surgery each year. The assistance of Mr. Marc Forest in the literature search associated with this project is also gratefully acknowledged.
In a recent editorial in this journal, Sergio Ojeda (31) described the threat posed by the animal rights movement to biomedical research in the US. He also emphasized that scientists will have to overcome their inertia and become actively involved if this threat is to be dissipated. Scientists who choose to become proactive in the defense of animal research must first become thoroughly informed about all aspects of the animal rights/ research issue. They will then be able to counter the numerous, but standardized misrepresentations that the activists use in attempting to discredit biomedical research with animals. The information contained in our present editorial should be useful to proactive scientists, as it reveals the fundamental motivation of the activists. It has been our experience in over two years of proactive involvement (32, 33) that the public welcomes our coming out of the ivory tower to address this issue. The public does not accept the philosophy of the antivivisectionists, which places animals on the same moral plane as human beings, but they are concerned that there may be some truth to the allegations of animal abuse, neglect, research duplication, etc. because they rarely hear any denials from the scientific community. Accordingly, they are pleased to be informed that animal research is highly regulated and they are reassured to learn that it is conducted as humanely and responsibly as possible. It has been estimated that the major animal rights organizations have an annual operating budget of about
Acknowledgments
References 1. Salt HS 1980 Animals' Rights, Considered in Relation to Social Progress. (Reprint of first edition: 1892). Society for Animal Rights, Clarks Summit, PA 2. Harrison R 1964 Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. Vincent Stuart, London 3. Ryder RD 1975 Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research. Davis-Poynter, London 4. Singer P 1975 Animal Liberation. Random House, New York 5. Linzey A 1976 Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment of Man's Treatment of Animals. SCM Press, London 6. Clark SRL 1977 The Moral Status of Animals. Clarendon Press, Oxford 7. Fox MW 1980 Returning to Eden: Animal Rights and Human Responsibility. Viking Press, New York 8. Rollin BE 1981 Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY 9. Midgley M 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. University of Georgia Press, Athens 10. Regan T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, Berkeley 11. Singer P (ed) 1985 In Defense of Animals. Basil Blackwell, Oxford and New York 12. Wynne-Tyson J 1985 The Extended Circle: A Dictionary of Humane Thought. Centaur Press, Fontwell, Sussex 13. Regan T (ed) 1986 Animal Sacrifices: Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science. Temple University Press, Philadelphia 14. Taylor PW 1986 Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press, Princeton 15. Gruen L, Singer P, Hine D 1987 Animal Liberation: A Graphic Guide. Camden Press, London
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL 16. Linzey A 1987 Christianity and the Rights of Animals. Crossroad/ Ungar/Continuum, New York 17. Regan T 1987 The Struggle for Animal Rights. International Society for Animal Rights, Clarks Summit, PA 18. Robbins J 1987 Diet for a New America. Stillpoint Publishing, Walpole NH 19. Sapontzis, SF 1987 Morals, Reason, and Animals. Temple University Press, Philadelphia 20. Linzey A, Regan T (eds) 1988 Animals and Christianity: A Book of Readings. SPCK, London; Crossroad/Continuum, New York 21. Linzey A, Regan T (eds) 1989 The Song of Creation: Poetry in Celebration of Animals. Marshall Pickering, Basingstoke, Hants 22. Regan T, Singer P (eds) 1989 Animal Rights and Human Obligations, ed 2. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 23. Rollin BE 1989 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford 24. Ryder RD 1989 Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
989
25. Magel CR 1989 Keyguide to Information Sources in Animal Rights. Mansell/McFarland, Harrisburg, PA 26. Sperling S 1988 Animal Liberators: Research and Morality. University of California Press, Berkeley 27. Sharp R 1988 The Cruel Deception. Thorsens, Wellingborough, England 28. Schoen EJ, Anderson G, Bohon C, Hinman Jr F, Poland RL, Wakeman EM 1989 Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 84:388 29. Wallerstein E 1985 Circumcision: the uniquely American medical enigma. Urol Clin North AM 12:123 30. Super DM 1987 Hoekelman RA (ed) Phimosis in primary pediatric care. CV Moseby, St. Louis, pp 1435-1470 31. Ojeda SR 1990 Editorial: animal rights and the inertia of the scientific community. Endocrinology 126:677 32. Nicoll CS 1988 Organization committed to direct action supporting animal research formed at Berkeley. Physiologist 31:153 33. Nicoll CS, Russell SM 1989 Special feature: animal research vs. animal rights—report on a symposium. FASEB J 3:1668
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
Vol. 127, No. 3 Printed in U.S.A.
Editorial: Analysis of Animal Rights Literature Reveals the Underlying Motives of the Movement: Ammunition for Counter Offensive by Scientists In recent years, animal rights advocates have designated the fourth week in April as "Lab Animal Liberation Week." On April 24th of this year animal activists organized a large demonstration on our campus, although very few students were involved. The demonstrators consisted of a motley crew, described by journalists as ranging from "purple-haired punks to violent vegetarians." They smashed the glass doors of Tolman Hall, which houses the Department of Psychology, and tore down fences around the construction site of the Northwest Animal Facility. Blocking the construction of that building has been a major objective of the local activists for several years now; happily, they have been unsuccessful. The acts of vandalism were accompanied by well orchestrated chants of "no more vivisection" repeated again and again in chorus. As we watched these frenzied fanatics, we could not help wondering about what really motivates the adherents of this movement. Fortunately, about two months earlier some information that could shed light on this question had been provided by Emeritus Professor Charles R. Magel of the Department of Philosophy at Moorhead State University in Moorhead, MN. He is credited with having developed the first regularly offered course on animal rights in the US. The information provided by Magel was in the form of a list of 25 "important books on animal rights" (1-25), which he distributed at a conference organized by the Berkeley Citizens' Humane Commission. The conference on "Animals, Ethics and Social Policy" was held at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley on February 1617,1990. The first speaker on the program was Dr. Susan Sperling (Division of Social Studies, Chabot College, Received July 2, 1990. Address requests for reprints to: Dr. C. S. Nicoll, Department of Integrative Biology, LSA 281, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720. Charles S. Nicoll, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Integrative Biology and a member of the faculty of the Cancer Research Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley, CA. Sharon M. Russell, PhD, is an Associate Research Physiologist in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, CA. Both authors of this editorial are cofounders of a grass-roots proactive group called the Coalition for Animals and Animal Research.
Hayward, CA), who presented some historical and cultural perspectives on the animal rights movement, a topic covered in her recent book (26). She was followed by Magel, who criticized Sperling and others for suggesting that animal rights advocates express an inordinate amount of concern about the use of animals in biomedical research, while showing much less regard about their use in other spheres. Magel claimed that "animal people" agonize over every form of exploitation of animals. Our impressions of the areas of emphasis of animal rights advocates are consistent with Sperling's opinion, and not with Magel's; although the activists hold annual demonstrations on "Fur-Free Friday" and on "Meatless Monday," they have not designated an entire week each year for the liberation of farm animals, for example. Accordingly, we thought that it might be informative to analyze the contents of the 25 books that Magel recommended. The assumption underlying this analysis was that the number of pages devoted to a particular topic by the authors of these "important books" would reflect their collective perception of the relative importance of that topic in the overall scheme of concern for animals. Two of the books on the list contained a large number of short essays, poems and quotes (12, 21), which made their contents difficult to categorize, and two others (15, 25) were not available in local libraries. One of them (22) contained excerpts from other published works, some of which were included in the other listed books. Hence, these five books were not included in the tabulation. Part of the book by Robbins (18) was also excluded because it dealt with his views on the health benefits of vegetarian diets and the harmful effects of a meat-based diet. One other book (27) that was not on Magel's list was also included as it was recommended to us by some local animal activists. The contents of each book were examined and the number of pages covering each of various topics was recorded. When a chapter or section was devoted primarily to a particular topic (e.g. factory farming), all of the pages in that chapter or section were assigned to one category of animal use (e.g. for food). In some cases, chapters or sections that emphasized one topic also con985
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL
986
tained mention of other subjects; for example, chapters critical of animal research frequently commented on the associated moral/ethical issues. No attempt was made to separate such allusions from the main topic of the chapter or section. This lack of precision is not likely to introduce significant error to this analysis because chapters or sections that dealt with ethical/moral questions (which were in the majority) often mentioned various uses of animals. These sorts of errors would tend to balance out. Analysis of the major topics of the 4562 pages in the 21 books showed that 2598 of them (56.9%) were concerned primarily with the ethical/moral questions regarding the use of animals by humans, and 1680 pages (36.8%) were critical of the various ways in which we exploit animals. Of the remaining 284 pages, 216 (4.7%) considered the history of the animal rights movement and its current status, and 68 (1.5%) dealt with the plight of wild animals (e.g. destruction of their habitat). This division seems appropriate as one of the major objectives of the leading writers in the movement is that of attempting to persuade the public as to the moral/ethical merits of their philosophy. When the 1680 pages pertaining to the various ways that we exploit animals are categorized (Table 1), we find that almost two thirds of the concern of these authors is directed at biomedical research and teaching, and about one third is directed at the food industry. Only 6.0% of their attention is devoted to all other areas of animal use. Clearly, a strong bias against the use of animals in research and teaching, relative to their "exploitation" in other spheres, is evident from these data. Data on the number of animals used annually in various ways in the US are shown in Table 2. Note that this tabulation includes only mammals and birds. The number of fish consumed annually in the US as a result of sport and commercial fishing is probably on the order of hundreds of millions or billions. (However, the suffering that fish undoubtedly endure as a result of these activiTABLE 1. Number and proportion of pages in 21 recommended books on animal rights expressing concern about various ways in which humans use animals.
Type of use or consumption:
Biomedical research and education For food Pets and pound animals Hunting0 For fur garments Entertainment6 0 6
Includes whaling. Circuses, zoos, rodeos.
Pages expressing concern No.
%
1064
63.3 30.6
514 39 38 14 10
2.3 2.3 0.8 0.6
Endo • 1990 Vol 127 • No 3
TABLE 2. Number of animals consumed annually in the US for various purposes Type of consumption For food6 Hunting0 Killed in poundsd For research and teaching" Fur garments/ Total
No. used (millions)0
% of total
6,086
96.5
165 27 11
2.6 0.4 0.3 0.2
6,309
100.0
.20
° Expressed to the nearest million (M). 6 Based on 1989 data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the USDA. The number includes approximately 5,700 M chickens, 252 M turkeys, 22 M ducks, 55 M sheep, 36.3 M cattle, and 89 M hogs. c Data for 1988-1989 from U.S. News and World Report, February 5,1990, pp 30-37. The total does not include animals killed by poachers, on private hunting preserves, or by federal or state government pest and predator control programs. If these animals are included the total killed may be close to 200 M/y. d Data from the 1988 Animal Shelter Report of the American Humane Association, PO Box 2788, Denver, CO 80201, which estimated that 11.2 M-18.8 M dogs and 8.9 M-14.7 M cats are killed in shelters annually. The midpoints of these estimates (i.e. 15 M dogs and 12 M cats) were used for the analysis. e From page 5 of U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, "Alternatives to animal use in research, testing and education" (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, OTA-BA-273, Feb. 1986), which estimated the annual use to be between 17 M and 22 M/yr. 1 4.5 M animals were raised on farms in 1988 (data from the American Fur Industry, 363 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10001) and 6.3 M, representing the 14 major trapped species, were harvested in 19851986 (data from The International Association of Wildlife Agencies, 1412 16th St, NW, Washington, DC).
ties gets scant attention in the animal rights literature. Consumption of amphibians and reptiles also worries animal rights advocates little. They have obvious egalitarian sentiments toward the warm and cuddly animals, but they are seemingly "speciesist" with regard to the cold and clammy.) These data (Table 2) show that of the more than 6 billion animals consumed annually in the US, the vast majority are used for food, and hunting is the second most common form of "exploitation." When the data in Tables 1 and 2 are compared in terms of proportions (Table 3), they become more meaningful in connection with the question about what is motivating the animal liberators. In three categories, the proportion of concern expressed is reasonably well balanced with the percentage of animals used, i.e. those used for fur garments, killed in pounds and consumed by hunters. By contrast, the ratio of concern/use is severely disproportionate in the other two categories. Although only 0.3% of all animals consumed in the US each year are used for research and teaching, these activities receive almost two thirds of the criticism of the animal rights authors. By contrast, the use of animals for food, which constitutes 96.5% of the total consumed, received
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL TABLE 3. Relationships between the proportion of animals consumed annually for various purposes in the US and the relative degree of concern about their use, as expressed in animals rights books % of total pages Type of consumption expressing concern For food Hunting Killed in pounds For fur garments Research and teaching
% of total animals Concern/use ,b
30.6
96.5
2.3 2.3 0.8
2.6 0.4 0.2 0.3
63.3
0.32 0.88 5.80 4.00 211.00
° From Table 1. 6 From Table 2.
less than half as much criticism. The concern-to-use ratios show a discrepancy of 659-fold (i.e. 211/0.32). Advocates of animal rights argue that it is immoral for us to use animals for any purpose; on grounds of numbers used alone one would expect them to express a much greater concern about our use of animals for food. Furthermore, animal rightists also maintain that farm animals, particularly those raised in factory farms and on fur ranches, are kept under inhumane conditions. If there is any validity to these claims, the animal activists' concentration of such a large proportion of their concern to the use of animals in research and teaching is a clear illustration of their unbalanced nature. Parenthetically, even brief reflection reveals the absurdity of the claim that farm animals are generally treated inhumanely; it is axiomatic that when animals are kept under adverse conditions, their growth is impaired, they suspend reproductive functions (e.g. egg laying) and if they are being raised for their pelts, their coat quality deteriorates. Farmers could not afford to raise animals in poor conditions. (Likewise, ill-treated laboratory animals would make poor research subjects.) It seems appropriate at this juncture to question why animal rights activists are so obsessed with the use of animals for research. Do they consider vivisection to be a particularly heinous activity in comparison to the mass killing of animals in slaughter houses? The answer to that question must be in the affirmative, but only for certain types of vivisection, because other information indicates that their objection to this activity is highly selective. Table 4 shows data on two forms of vivisection that are widely practiced in the US; yet they cause no anxiety whatsoever to the antivivisectionists, because we could find virtually no mention of them in the animal rights literature. Docking the tail of puppies is usually done without any anesthesia, and apparently some owners crop the ears of their pups without anesthesia or veterinary supervision. Furthermore, according to the American Kennel Club, only about 20% of the dogs in many breeds are registered (and registered dogs are the source of the data in Table 4). Hence, the number of
987
TABLE 4. Examples of vivisection that are not objected to in the animal rights literature Type of vivisection Docking of tails and/or cropping of ears of puppies" Circumcision of infant boys6
No. of cases (millions) 0.42
1.7-1.9
° Based on the number of dogs or puppies in 14 breeds registered in 1988 with the American Kennel Club, 51 Madison Ave, New York, NY, 10010. These procedures are recommended if the dogs are to conform to the standards of the AKC. 6 Based on a birth rate of about 2 million boys/yr with 85-95% of them circumcized (30).
pups subjected to this cosmetic mutilation may be close to 2 million/yr. Another widely used form of vivisection to which puppies are routinely subjected is removal of the dewclaws, and this procedure is also routinely conducted without anesthesia. The number of pups subjected to this form of survival surgery each year must be in the millions, but we could not find any data on this practice. Circumcision of infant boys is a type of vivisection that could also be considered a form of cosmetic mutilation, and this procedure is also generally done without local anesthesia. Although the health benefits of this practice were emphasized in a recent report (28), other pediatricians have questioned its value (29). In any case, is it unreasonable to question why antivivisectionists express no objection to this form of vivisection that is done without benefit of anesthesia? After all, aren't newborn humans just as innocent, defenseless, and capable of suffering as animals? However, expression of concern about human misery has never been the hallmark of animal rights advocates. Even if we excuse the animal rightists for ignoring vivisection of baby boys without anesthesia, because their obsession with animal suffering overrides any concern they may have about human misery, we are left with the question of why they also ignore the practice of subjecting large numbers of dogs to cosmetic mutilation, while they severely criticize the use of animals in research, most of which does not involve vivisection and when it does, appropriate anesthesia is used in virtually all cases. These facts provide a lucid illustration of the hypocrisy of the adherents of the animal rights movement. They are clearly not opposed to vivisection per se; otherwise they would have a "stop the cosmetic mutilation of puppies" week during which they would demonstrate outside of veterinary clinics. Exploitation of animals by humans per se is also not their major concern; otherwise they would direct more of their objections towards the raising of animals for food. Our analysis, we believe, reveals the real underlying
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
988
EDITORIAL
Endo • 1990 Voll27-No3
motivation of the leaders in the movement, and probably many of their followers as well. "They object mainly to the use of animals in activities that are practiced uniquely by human beings, research and formal education." These practices involve the acquisition of new knowledge and the transfer of knowledge to new generations, and we have derived and continue to realize immense benefits from these activities. Can there be a clearer illustration that the underlying motivation of this movement is antiintellectual, antiscience, and misanthropic? In fact, cogent evidence suggests that the animal rights movement of today would not even exist if it were not for our use of animals to acquire knowledge. In her recent book, Susan Sperling (26) traces the roots of the modern-day animal liberationists back to the antivivisectionists of nineteenth century Europe, particularly in Britain. Those people did not, apparently, voice any concerns about other uses of animals. If Robert Koch, Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, and Claude Bernard had not pioneered the use of animals to study microorganisms, sterile surgical procedures, and animal physiology, perhaps the expression, "animal rights," would never have been uttered.
$50 million, and they are staffed by hundreds of zealous personnel. By contrast, the major proresearch organizations (the National Association for Biomedical Research and the Foundation for Biomedical Research) have an annual operating budget of about $1 million and they have a combined staff of five persons. The contribution of The Endocrine Society to these organizations is $3,000/yr. "That sum represents less than 50 cents/ member/yr." Clearly a substantial increase in the allocation of funds by our society and by others is needed. If we are to make progress against the latter-day Luddites who constitute the animal rights movement, our Society and others that support animal research will have to provide much more substantial funding to defend and promote the use of animals in biomedical research. We must also take more active interest as individuals in educating the public and politicians as to the truth about animal research. If we do not do these things, we may again see the forces of ignorance triumph over the quest for knowledge. Charles S. Nicoll Sharon M. Russell
Overcoming the Inertia of Scientists
We are indebted to Dr. Larry Katz, Department of Animal Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ for drawing our attention to the number of dogs that are subjected to cosmetic surgery each year. The assistance of Mr. Marc Forest in the literature search associated with this project is also gratefully acknowledged.
In a recent editorial in this journal, Sergio Ojeda (31) described the threat posed by the animal rights movement to biomedical research in the US. He also emphasized that scientists will have to overcome their inertia and become actively involved if this threat is to be dissipated. Scientists who choose to become proactive in the defense of animal research must first become thoroughly informed about all aspects of the animal rights/ research issue. They will then be able to counter the numerous, but standardized misrepresentations that the activists use in attempting to discredit biomedical research with animals. The information contained in our present editorial should be useful to proactive scientists, as it reveals the fundamental motivation of the activists. It has been our experience in over two years of proactive involvement (32, 33) that the public welcomes our coming out of the ivory tower to address this issue. The public does not accept the philosophy of the antivivisectionists, which places animals on the same moral plane as human beings, but they are concerned that there may be some truth to the allegations of animal abuse, neglect, research duplication, etc. because they rarely hear any denials from the scientific community. Accordingly, they are pleased to be informed that animal research is highly regulated and they are reassured to learn that it is conducted as humanely and responsibly as possible. It has been estimated that the major animal rights organizations have an annual operating budget of about
Acknowledgments
References 1. Salt HS 1980 Animals' Rights, Considered in Relation to Social Progress. (Reprint of first edition: 1892). Society for Animal Rights, Clarks Summit, PA 2. Harrison R 1964 Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. Vincent Stuart, London 3. Ryder RD 1975 Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research. Davis-Poynter, London 4. Singer P 1975 Animal Liberation. Random House, New York 5. Linzey A 1976 Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment of Man's Treatment of Animals. SCM Press, London 6. Clark SRL 1977 The Moral Status of Animals. Clarendon Press, Oxford 7. Fox MW 1980 Returning to Eden: Animal Rights and Human Responsibility. Viking Press, New York 8. Rollin BE 1981 Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY 9. Midgley M 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. University of Georgia Press, Athens 10. Regan T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, Berkeley 11. Singer P (ed) 1985 In Defense of Animals. Basil Blackwell, Oxford and New York 12. Wynne-Tyson J 1985 The Extended Circle: A Dictionary of Humane Thought. Centaur Press, Fontwell, Sussex 13. Regan T (ed) 1986 Animal Sacrifices: Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science. Temple University Press, Philadelphia 14. Taylor PW 1986 Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press, Princeton 15. Gruen L, Singer P, Hine D 1987 Animal Liberation: A Graphic Guide. Camden Press, London
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL 16. Linzey A 1987 Christianity and the Rights of Animals. Crossroad/ Ungar/Continuum, New York 17. Regan T 1987 The Struggle for Animal Rights. International Society for Animal Rights, Clarks Summit, PA 18. Robbins J 1987 Diet for a New America. Stillpoint Publishing, Walpole NH 19. Sapontzis, SF 1987 Morals, Reason, and Animals. Temple University Press, Philadelphia 20. Linzey A, Regan T (eds) 1988 Animals and Christianity: A Book of Readings. SPCK, London; Crossroad/Continuum, New York 21. Linzey A, Regan T (eds) 1989 The Song of Creation: Poetry in Celebration of Animals. Marshall Pickering, Basingstoke, Hants 22. Regan T, Singer P (eds) 1989 Animal Rights and Human Obligations, ed 2. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 23. Rollin BE 1989 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford 24. Ryder RD 1989 Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
989
25. Magel CR 1989 Keyguide to Information Sources in Animal Rights. Mansell/McFarland, Harrisburg, PA 26. Sperling S 1988 Animal Liberators: Research and Morality. University of California Press, Berkeley 27. Sharp R 1988 The Cruel Deception. Thorsens, Wellingborough, England 28. Schoen EJ, Anderson G, Bohon C, Hinman Jr F, Poland RL, Wakeman EM 1989 Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 84:388 29. Wallerstein E 1985 Circumcision: the uniquely American medical enigma. Urol Clin North AM 12:123 30. Super DM 1987 Hoekelman RA (ed) Phimosis in primary pediatric care. CV Moseby, St. Louis, pp 1435-1470 31. Ojeda SR 1990 Editorial: animal rights and the inertia of the scientific community. Endocrinology 126:677 32. Nicoll CS 1988 Organization committed to direct action supporting animal research formed at Berkeley. Physiologist 31:153 33. Nicoll CS, Russell SM 1989 Special feature: animal research vs. animal rights—report on a symposium. FASEB J 3:1668
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 22 January 2017. at 07:00 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
