animal rights - is the treatment of animals improving?

Animal RightsIs the treatment of animals improving?

The passage of dozens of tough state animal-protection

laws last year reflects growing public interest in

animal welfare. Today, many Americans view pets as

family members, and some even leave bequests to

pets in their wills. Vegetarianism has gone mainstream as people

have become concerned about the conditions on factory farms,

and many scientists say farm animals have feelings. Fifteen years

ago, only 10 of the country’s law schools offered animal-law

courses; today about 130 do. At the same time, however, billions

of animals are slaughtered for food each year in our meat-eating

society, and live-animal research is a major tool of biomedicine.

The food industry, researchers and others who depend on using

and killing animals are fighting back against what they call

overblown concerns about animal rights. Last November, for example,

Ohio voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution

barring the legislature from approving any animal-protection laws

that would apply to farms.

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ........................3

CHRONOLOGY....................11

BACKGROUND ....................12

CURRENT SITUATION ............16

AT ISSUE ..........................17

OUTLOOK ........................19

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................22

THE NEXT STEP ..................23

THISREPORT

Rhesus monkeys hug at a research facility in GreatBritain, where labs must protect the physical andmental well-being of social animals like monkeys by housing them in groups and giving them toys. Similar laws apply to primates and some other

research animals in the U.S.

CQResearcherPublished by CQ Press, a Division of SAGE

www.cqresearcher.com

CQ Researcher • Jan. 8, 2010 • www.cqresearcher.comVolume 20, Number 1 • Pages 1-24

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR

EXCELLENCE � AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD

2 CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

3 • Do animals have rights?• Are we doing enoughto protect the welfare offarm animals?• Is animal research nec-essary to achieve medicalprogress?

BACKGROUND

12 Early Farm LawsIn 1822, Britain outlawedcruelty to some domesti-cated animals.

15 National AdvocatesIn the 1950s, national animal-welfare groupswere established.

16 Animals in the CourtsNew laws and legal actionare bolstering animals’legal status.

CURRENT SITUATION

16 Farm State FightsStates have increasinglybecome key battlegroundsin the fight over animalwelfare.

18 Congress and BeyondAnimal protection is not ahigh priority for U.S. law-makers, but support isgrowing worldwide.

OUTLOOK

19 Test Tube Meat?Creating meat in a labora-tory may be possiblesomeday.

SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS

4 Toughest State Laws MakeCruelty a FelonyFive states have the “best”animal-protection laws.

5 Many New ProtectionLaws Enacted in 2009Several states passed morethan 100 laws.

7 More Philosophers Arguefor Animal ProtectionRecent efforts are changingthe face of the movement.

8 Nobel Laureates Rely onAnimal TestingMany scientists see animalresearch as vital.

11 ChronologyKey events since 1954.

12 Violent Animal Activists inthe MinorityAnimal Enterprise TerrorismAct set tough penalties.

17 At IssueIs enough being done toprotect animals slaughteredfor food?

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

21 For More InformationOrganizations to contact.

22 BibliographySelected sources used.

23 The Next StepAdditional articles.

23 Citing CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Cover: Understanding Animal Research/Wellcome Images

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. [email protected]

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFF WRITERS: Thomas J. Billitteri, Marcia Clemmitt, Peter Katel

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Rachel Cox, Sarah Glazer, Alan Greenblatt, Reed Karaim

Barbara Mantel, Patrick Marshall, Tom Price, Jennifer Weeks

DESIGN/PRODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Darrell Dela Rosa

FACT-CHECKING: Eugene J. Gabler, Michelle Harris

A Division of SAGE

PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHER:John A. Jenkins

Copyright © 2010 CQ Press, a Division of SAGE.

SAGE reserves all copyright and other rights herein,

unless pre vi ous ly spec i fied in writing. No part of this

publication may be reproduced electronically or

otherwise, without prior written permission. Un -

au tho rized re pro duc tion or trans mis sion of SAGE copy -

right ed material is a violation of federal law car ry ing

civil fines of up to $100,000.

CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional

Quarterly Inc.

CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid-

free paper. Pub lished weekly, except; (Jan. wk. 1)

(May wk. 4) (July wks. 1, 2) (Aug. wks. 2, 3) (Nov.

wk. 4) and (Dec. wks. 4, 5), by CQ Press, a division

of SAGE Publications. Annual full-service subscriptions

start at $803. For pricing, call 1-800-834-9020, ext. 1906.

To purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or elec-

tronic format (PDF), visit www. cqpress.com or call

866-427-7737. Single reports start at $15. Bulk pur-

chase discounts and electronic-rights licensing are also

available. Pe ri od i cals post age paid at Wash ing ton, D.C.,

and ad di tion al mailing of fic es. POST MAS TER: Send

ad dress chang es to CQ Re search er, 2300 N St., N.W.,

Suite 800, Wash ing ton, DC 20037.

Jan. 8, 2010Volume 20, Number 1

CQRe search er

Jan. 8, 2010 3www.cqresearcher.com

Animal Rights

THE ISSUEST he intensifying clash be-

tween animal-welfareadvocates and animal-

using industries heated uplast year when PresidentObama tapped Harvard lawprofessor Cass R. Sunstein tooversee federal regulationsfor American citizens andbusinesses.Republican Sen. John

Cornyn of Texas, who placeda “hold” on the nomination toprevent a vote, particularlyobjected to Sunstein wanting“to establish legal ‘rights’ forlivestock, wildstock and pets,”as a Cornyn spokesperson toldFox News. 1

In 2004, Sunstein hadcoauthored a book suggest-ing that animals have legalrights, and many businessesthat sell animal products, fac-tory farms, universities thatpursue animal research, aswell as hunters, feared theadministration was about toembrace an animal-protection agenda.Sunstein ultimately won confirma-

tion after assuring senators that he“would not take any steps to promotelitigation on behalf of animals,” de-spite having stated in the past thatpeople should be allowed to bringlawsuits on behalf of animals that theybelieve have been treated cruelly. 2

Loretta Baughan, editor of SpanielJournal, is among those who fear con-cern about animal protection mighttrigger new laws and regulations. “Somefanatic animal-rights believers advo-cate for ‘non-human’ animals to begranted ‘personhood’ and legal rightsenabling individuals and groups to takeowners to court on behalf of their an-imal,” she said. “The whole premisebehind animal rights is a belief that

animal ownership is the same as own-ing slaves and that their struggle toachieve rights for animals is the moralequivalent of the civil rights or women’ssuffrage movements. In reality, it ishuman life they wish to devalue, low-ering us to a status equal with — orless than — animals.” 3

Last year in Ohio, voters over-whelmingly approved a farm industry-backed amendment to the state con-stitution barring Ohio lawmakers andthe voting public from enacting anylaws against animal cruelty applyingto the agriculture industry.The measure, Issue 2, “wouldn’t have

been necessary a few decades ago.Everyone had grandpas or cousins wholet us climb on their tractors and lookaround in their barns,” said John C.

Fisher, executive vice presidentof the Ohio Farm Bureau Fed-eration. “Because we experi-enced a little bit of farm life,we weren’t inclined to ques-tion farming practices orquestion farmers’ character.Today, it’s a different story. 4

“A highly organized andwell-financed operation” con-ducted by animal-welfaregroups like the Humane So-ciety of the United States(HSUS) “is under way toconvince you that farmers arecruel to their animals. It’strickery, but effective,” Fishersaid. If HSUS’s “Washingtonlobbyists and Hollywoodcelebrities can convince youthat farmers mistreat their live-stock, then maybe you’ll de-mand changes on the farm,changes that you’ve beenled to believe are about an-imal welfare but in realityare calculated steps to limityour access to locally grown,safe, affordable food.” 5

But others say the pictureFisher paints of local family

farms run on the principle that what’sgood for animals is good for peopleis outdated, since huge “factory” farmsnow dominate the industry, with theresult that concern for profits trumpsanimal welfare. 6

At one time, “I viewed factory farm-ing as one of the lesser problems fac-ing humanity — a small wrong on thegrand scale of good and evil,” but “thisview changed as I . . . saw a few typ-ical farms up close,” said MatthewScully, a former special assistant toPresident George W. Bush, whose2002 book Dominion: The Power ofMan, the Suffering of Animals, and theCall to Mercy, argues for strong regu-lation of the meat industry. 7

“When corporate farmers needbarbed wire around their Family Farms

BY MARCIA CLEMMITT

Understanding Animal Research/Wellcome Images

Hens are crammed into cages to facilitate egg layingand gathering. The treatment of chickens and other farm

animals reflects the conflict over animal rights. InCalifornia, for example, beginning in 2015 farms will be

required to house veal calves, egg-laying hens andpregnant pigs in conditions that allow them to lie down,stand up and turn around freely. In Ohio, however,voters in 2009 overwhelmingly barred the passage of

any laws against cruelty to farm animals.

4 CQ Researcher

and Happy Valleys and laws [in atleast two states] to prohibit outsidersfrom taking photographs,” as well as“laws to exempt farm animals [from]federal and state cruelty statutes,something is amiss,” said Scully. Asfactory farms grew larger over the pastcentury, farmers forgot the traditional

agricultural “duty” of attending to an-imals’ welfare, he said. “With no lawsto stop it, moral concern surrenderedentirely to economic calculation, leav-ing no limit to the punishments thatfactory farmers could inflict to keepcosts down and profits up.” 8

On hog farms, sows kept for breed-

ing purposes “lie covered in their ownurine and excrement, with broken legsfrom trying to escape or just to turn,covered with festering sores, tumors,ulcers, lesions, or what my guideshrugged off as the routine ‘pus pock-ets,’ ” said Scully.“The usual comforting rejoinder we

hear — that it’s in the interest of farm-ers to take good care of their animals— is false,” he said. “Each day, in everyconfinement farm in America, you willfind cull pens littered with dead ordying creatures discarded like trash.”As animal-based food production be-

comes a larger and larger industry, ani-mal welfare is increasingly at odds withfarming’s business interests, said GeneBaur, president of the farm-animal-protection organization Farm Sanctuary,based in Watkins Glen, N.Y. For ex-ample, “to produce egg-laying breedsof hens, hatcheries discard millions ofunwanted male chicks every year. . . .I was at a hatchery once and watchedliving chicks . . . sent into a manurespreader to be spread on a field asmanure.” 9

Modern animal science continuallyprovides more reasons to pay greaterheed to animal welfare, even to thepoint of eliminating human use of an-imals altogether, some animal-rights ad-vocates say. Chickens, for example, whichdon’t even qualify for protection underthe U.S. Humane Slaughter Act forbid-ding the cruel killing of conscious an-imals, are now known to have com-plex brains, perceptions and emotions,according to People for the EthicalTreatment of Animals (PETA), a largeanimal-rights group in Norfolk, Va.“While most people are less fa-

miliar with pigs, chickens, fish andcows than they are with dogs andcats, animals used for food are everybit as intelligent and able to sufferas the animals who share our homes,”says the group on its GoVeg.comblog. “Pigs can learn to play videogames,” while chickens have “cul-tural knowledge that they pass down

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Toughest State Laws Make Cruelty a Felony

Two states in the West, two in the Midwest and one on the East Coast have the “best” animal-protection laws, according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The laws include felony penalties for cruelty and neglect and strong animal-fighting provisions. The five states with the “worst” ranking do not make extreme neglect a felony, among other shortcomings.

N.Y.

Ohio

Texas

Va.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Calif.*

Nev.

Ore.*

Colo.

Wash.

Idaho**

Mont.

Utah

Ariz. N.M.

Wyo.

N.D.**

S.D.

Alaska

Okla. Ark.

La.

Ill.*

Miss.

**

Tenn.

Ga.

Conn.

Mass.R.I.

Maine*

Vt.

W.Va. N.J.

Del.Md.

Ala.

Fla.

Wis.

Mich.*

Ind.

N.C.

S.C.

N.H.

Kan.Ky.**

Hawaii**

D.C.

* denotes “top” five states

** denotes “worst” five states

Source: Stephan K. Otto, “2009 State Animal Protection Laws Rankings,” Animal Legal Defense Fund, December 2009

Neb.Pa.

States With the “Best” Animal Protection Laws

Top tier

Middle tier

Bottom tier

Selected Characteristics of “Worst” Five

• No felony penalties for cruelty and neglect

• Inadequate animal-fighting provisions

• Inadequate definitions and standards for basic care

• No restrictions on animal owner-ship following a conviction

• No mental health evaluations for offenders

Selected Characteristics of “Best” Five

• Felony penalties for cruelty and neglect

• Increased penalties for repeat abusers

• Full range of statutory protections• Strong animal-fighting provisions• Humane agents have some

law-enforcement authority


from generation to generation,” care-fully protect their young from dan-ger and communicate with each otherusing more than 30 separate calls —all evidence that the animals have aright to live free of suffering andbrutality imposed by humans whoraise and slaughter them for food,PETA argues. 10

While the hottest battleground inanimal rights today is farm animals,there have also been high-profile clash-es in recent months between animal-rights activists and another of their tra-ditional foes, biomedical scientists whoconduct research on animals.Last summer, animal-rights protesters

in Europe vandalized the grave of themother of Daniel Vasella, CEO of Basel,Switzerland-based Novartis pharma-ceuticals, and may have burned Vasel-la’s Austrian vacation home to protestNovartis’ contracts with HuntingdonLife Sciences (HLS), a company thatconducts drug-safety tests using ani-mals. United Kingdom-based HLS hasa U.S. facility in Princeton, N.J., andthe company’s workers have beenprosecuted in the past for animalcruelty; in an incident caught on tapeby an animal activist who’d infiltratedan HLS facility, a worker laughed ashe repeatedly punched a puppy inthe snout. 11

In November, University of Min-nesota police increased securityaround the Minneapolis home of DickBianco, an associate professor ofsurgery, who is helping to launch anational campaign to increase pub-lic support for medical researchusing animals. The police acted afteranimal advocate Camille Marino,founder of the Negotiation Is OverWeb site, posted Bianco’s photo andcontact information, along with the state-ment that “abusers need to understandthat their unethical behaviors entailtangible consequences.” 12

Many animal-welfare advocates arguethat much of today’s animal researchsubjects animals to pain, distress and

death in the pursuit of knowledge thatmay or may not be very useful.For example, the Physicians Com-

mittee for Responsible Medicine, whichpromotes ethical research and gener-ally opposes animal testing, is circu-lating a petition to stop new radiationstudies planned by the National Aero-nautics and Space Administration.In the studies, squirrel monkeys

would be dosed with radiation tostudy potential effects of long-distancespace travel. But “interplanetary humantravel is, at best, a highly speculativeaim for the foreseeable future,” and“to put animals through radiation

tests now in anticipation of such anenterprise is in no way justified,” thegroup says. 13

But advocates of animal researchargue that many benefits have flowedand continue to flow from biomedicalresearch using animals.“If you’re healthy, then you say, ‘Let’s

not use any animals,’ ” says FrankieTrull, founder and president of theWashington-based Foundation for Bio-medical Research, which disseminatesinformation in support of animal re-search. But out of the last 40 Nobelprizes in medicine, 32 were awardedfor work that included animal research.

Many New Protection Laws Enacted in 2009

Several states enacted a total of 121 new animal-protection laws in 2009, about one-third more than enacted in 2008. Nevada became the 50th state in the country to explicitly ban the possession of dogs for fighting. Oregon and Pennsylvania enacted laws limiting the use of puppy mills. California became the first state to ban the tail docking of cows.

Source: “2009: A Record-Breaking Year of State Victories,” Humane Society of the United States, December 2009

Select Animal-Rights Legislation by State, 2009

California — First state to ban the tail docking of dairy cows.

Kansas — Became the 39th state to make cockfighting a felony.

Maine — Became the sixth state to prohibit confinement of farm animals in gestation and veal crates.

Nevada — Became the final state in the nation to ban the possession and training of dogs for fighting.

New Jersey — Required all garments containing real fur to be labeled with the species of animal and its country of origin.

Oregon — Joined Louisiana, Washington and Virginia in limiting the size of puppy mills.

Pennsylvania — Passed legislation to prohibit some of the more painful and unsafe surgical procedures commonly performed on dogs in puppy mills.

6 CQ Researcher

“The Nobel Committee certainly be-lieves that animal research is produc-ing useful knowledge,” she says.As lawmakers, scientists, farmers and

animal-welfare advocates battle overwhat limits to place on human use ofanimals, here are some of the ques-tions being asked:

Do animals have rights?Humans have used animals through-

out history for food, sport, tasks like haul-ing and plowing and scientific experi-mentation, and most people have beencomfortable with using animals, evenwhen they suffer and die in the process.Nevertheless, a persistent minority haslong questioned whether animals mayhave a right to be treated with concernfor their comfort and welfare.“To my mind, we shouldn’t be think-

ing of monkeys as commodities, dis-posable resources” that can be the ob-ject of distressing experimentation, forexample, says Mark Bernstein, a pro-fessor of philosophy and ethics at Pur-due University in West Lafayette, Ind.“Just by virtue of their sentience, theircapacity to suffer, they should have theminimal right to not suffer,” he says.“We don’t treat compromised humanbeings” — such as people with severecognitive disabilities —“that way.”Chickens, for example, “clearly have

interests, preferences and desires andare able to act to satisfy their interestsand preferences,” a fact that shouldgive them at least some “right” to moralconsideration by humans, with whomthey share those traits, said Gary L.Francione, a professor of law at theRutgers University School of Law inNewark, N.J. “When we kill these non-humans, we frustrate their ability toenjoy the satisfaction of their interests,preferences and desires — just as wedo when we kill humans.” 14

“Although it is noble” for a human“to undergo a painful bone marrowtransplant to save the life of a stranger,we think it would be wrong to requirethem to undergo that procedure,” but

we require animals to suffer intenselyfor human benefit all the time, wroteHugh LaFollette, an ethics professorat the University of South Florida, inSt. Petersburg, and Niall Shanks, a pro-fessor of history and the philosophy ofscience at Wichita State University, inKansas. “Each year in the United Statesnearly 70 million mammals . . . are ex-pected to make the ultimate sacrifice”in laboratories “to benefit . . . humans.. . . “This clashes with the moral pre-sumption against inflicting suffering onone creature . . . to benefit some othercreature.” 15

“If it would be absurd to give ani-mals the right to vote, it would be noless absurd to give that right to infantsor to severely retarded human beings.Yet we still give equal consideration totheir interests,” said Princeton Univer-sity philosophy professor Peter Singer,author of the 1975 book, Animal Lib-eration, which inspired much of themodern animal-advocacy movement.“We don’t raise them for food in over-crowded sheds or test household clean-ers on them. . . . But we do thesethings to non-human animals who showgreater abilities in reasoning than thesehumans . . . because we have a prej-udice in favor of the view that all hu-mans are somehow infinitely more valu-able than any animal.” 16

Critics of animal-protection activistsoverinterpret the word “rights,” as it’sused by most animal-welfare advo-cates, some analysts argue.The idea of a rights-based philoso-

phy of animal protection is that “in virtueof some of the properties animals have”— notably “sentience,” the ability to beaware of feelings, such as pain —“animals deserve some minimal rights,”says Bernstein. To some critics the phrase“animal rights” calls up visions of “giv-ing pigs driver’s licenses,” but “that’s notthe idea. It’s that animals, by virtue oftheir ability to feel, are not things to betortured.”“You’re not talking about rights in

the philosophical sense” of a civil right

related to citizenship, for example,says Kenneth Shapiro, executive di-rector of the Animals and Society In-stitute, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based thinktank on animal issues. What “animalrights” means to most animal-protectionadvocates is that “animals have interests,and we don’t want to screw them.Most of the people in the establishedmovement don’t consider themselves‘rightists’ in that sense. They’re tryingto make things better.”But some analysts from the bio-

medical-research community and theagriculture industry say that not justsome but most animal-protection ad-vocates actually do favor granting an-imals rights so broad that, if granted,those rights would effectively end allhuman use of animals.The Humane Society of the United

States has an “extremist” agenda withregard to animal rights, although thepublic who support the group withdonations generally don’t realize this,says Trull at the Foundation for Bio-medical Research. “On their Web sitethey say they ultimately want to elim-inate all use of animals in research,”an extreme animal-rights position,Trull says.“The possession of rights presup-

poses a moral status not attained bythe vast majority of living things,” saidUniversity of Michigan professor of phi-losophy Carl Cohen. “We must notinfer . . . that a live being has, sim-ply in being alive, a ‘right’ to its life.The assertion that all animals, only be-cause they are alive and have inter-ests, also possess the ‘right to life’ isan abuse of that phrase, and whollywithout warrant.” 17

Most people intuitively understandthat animals cannot have “rights” inanything like the way humans do,said Jan Narveson, a professor ofphilosophy at Canada’s University ofWaterloo. For example, “most peo-ple think that if we could find acure for cancer by performing on

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Continued on p. 8


Academic philosophers have played a “major role” in thedevelopment and growth of the animal-welfare move-ment, says Bernard Unti, a historian who is senior poli-

cy adviser to the chief executive officer of the Humane Societyof the United States.Philosophers and theologians dating back at least to the an-

cient Greeks have sought a logical basis for the widespreadfeeling that humans owe special consideration to the welfareof animals, says Mark Bernstein, a professor of philosophy andethics at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.“Virtue ethics,” a philosophical idea from the days of Aris-

totle, basically argues that humans should refrain from animalcruelty not really for the animals’ sakebut to preserve one’s own good char-acter, Bernstein says.Similarly, the 18th-century German

philosopher Immanuel Kant arguedthat the treatment of animals mattersmainly because it influences the waywe treat people. According to Kant,“the reason we should show kind-ness to an old and faithful dog is thatdoing otherwise could cause us toharden our hearts toward people,”Bernstein says.Especially since the 1970s, how-

ever, a growing number of philoso-phers and theologians have advancedarguments for why animal welfaredeserves human attention, and thegrowth in the number of academictheorists on the matter has alsohelped to change the face of themovement, says Unti.The influx of philosophers arguing that concerns over ani-

mal welfare have a rational basis “appealed to people whoweren’t comfortable with the ‘sentimental’ nature of many ear-lier appeals for animal protection,” Unti says.“So these philosophers were a necessary precursor to the

modern movement, helping to bring a professional cadre” oflawyers, veterinarians and other educated professionals — aswell as a growing number of men — into the ranks of ani-mal activists, he says. “When somebody presents a rationalchannel” for a belief, “it helps some people to make sense oftheir emotions” and to embrace animal-rights activism, for ex-ample, because they become convinced that “these beliefs arenot irrational.”Unlike many earlier philosophers who speculated about an-

imal welfare, more thinkers in recent decades have argued that

animals deserve kind and ethical treatment because they haveinherent value in their own right and qualities — such as atleast rudimentary consciousness — that entitle them to kindtreatment because of the effect of cruelty on them, not becausepracticing cruelty has a negative effect on the human soul.The philosophical shift reflects an ever-larger body of sci-

entific knowledge demonstrating that humans are not as dif-ferent from animals as once was thought, says Kenneth Shapiro,executive director of the Animals and Society Institute, a thinktank on animal issues in Ann Arbor, Mich.In the past, before the study of evolution and genetics re-

vealed the links and similarities among species, “there was acategorical distinction made between hu-mans and animals” by most people, in-cluding philosophers, Shapiro says. “Thatmistaken categorical divide has been anunderlying core problem that allows an-imals to become mere property” ratherthan independent beings with feelingsand interests of their own, he says. Givennew scientific knowledge today, howev-er, philosophers and the rest of us “haveto reexamine animals in the same waywe examined the assumptions” from acentury ago that women, children andslaves, for example, could rightly be con-sidered men’s property to do with asthey would, he says.The philosophical literature on con-

temporary animal ethics “makes muchmore use of scientific literature todaythan even 10 years ago,” Bernstein says.While a significant number of ethicistsstill argue that animals themselves don’t

have the inherent moral worth that requires humans to takespecial care of their welfare, “philosophical thinking generallyhas been moving in a much more animal-friendly direction” inthe past 10 to 15 years, partly driven by a changing scientificunderstanding, he says.For example, as evolution becomes more established as a

mainstream belief, “more people are recognizing that animalsare continuous with human beings” in a chain of biological con-nection from simpler to more complex beings, and that animalsare similar to people “in the most basic way — that they enjoyand suffer through experiences,” Bernstein says. “This means weshould treat them as ends rather than as means,” as most ethicalphilosophies enjoin us to treat humans, he says.

— Marcia Clemmitt

More Philosophers Argue for Animal ProtectionRecent efforts are changing the face of the movement.

University of Arizona scientist IrenePepperberg spent 15 years studying the

intelligence of Alex, an African gray parrot.

Time Life Pictures/Getty Images/Michael Goldman

8 CQ Researcher

thousands of monkeys in ways thatare extremely painful and later fatalto the monkeys, we should still goright ahead,” Narveson said. “Mostpeople think animal experimentationpermissible, so long as it could lead

to something important for us,” and“when philosophers . . . deny this. . . they go against normal intu-itions. . . . We rightly outlaw slav-ery.” However, “since we don’t thinkanimals are people, we don’t thinkof our use of them as ‘enslavement,’

a category only applicable to beingslike ourselves.” 18

Are we doing enough to protectfarm animals?Animal-protection activists in the

United States have sought, and helpedenact, legislation to improve the wel-fare of farm animals since the 19thcentury. Many activists argue, howev-er, that more regulation is needed be-cause, as a largely meat-eating soci-ety, we find it all too easy to ignorethe harsh conditions that exist on farms,especially as large factory farms be-come the norm.At a hog farm that former Bush

aide Scully visited, “to maximize theuse of space and minimize the needfor care, the . . . 400-to-500-poundmammals are trapped without reliefinside iron crates seven feet long and22 inches wide,” where they “chewmaniacally on bars and chains, as for-aging animals will do when deniedstraw . . . or else just lie there likebroken beings,” wrote Scully. “Thespirit of the place would be familiar”to police who raid outlawed “puppymills,” but, in the case of farm ani-mals, in most states “the law prohibitsnone of it.” 19

The meat-eating public “is isolatedfrom the negative consequences” ofour treatment of farm animals “throughour language and the packaging ofanimal products, both of which de-emphasize the fact that we are involvedin the abuse of living, sentient crea-tures,” wrote Emory University profes-sor of sociology Robert Agnew. “Wedo not eat ‘cows’ or ‘pigs,’ but rather‘hamburgers’ and ‘pork chops.” Adver-tising and other media often give theimpression that “most farm animals livecontented lives in idyllic settings.” 20

“Most people know very little abouthow animals are treated in agriculture,and they end up supporting practices,like the worst kind of factory farming,that they would (if fully informed) viewas morally unacceptable,” according to

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Many Nobel Laureates Use Animal Testing

Many recent Nobel Prize winners in the sciences have relied on animal testing in some capacity. Many have turned to mice, while others have studied live sheep, pigs, frogs and dogs. Scientists widely contend that animal research remains essential to scientific and medical progress.

Source: Foundation for Biomedical Research

Select Nobel LaureatesWhose Work Involved Animals

Year Laureates Animal Nature of discovery involved used

2007 Capecchi, Mouse Discovery of principles for introducing Evans, specific gene modifications in mice by Smithies the use of embryonic stem cells

2005 Marshall, Gerbil Discovery of bacterium that leads to Warren gastritis and peptic ulcer disease

2000 Carlsson, Mouse, Signal transduction in the nervous Greengard, Guinea pig, system Kandel sea slug

1998 Furchgott, Rabbit Nitric oxide as signaling molecule in Ignarro, cardiovascular system Murad

1991 Neher, Frog Chemical communication between Sakmann cells

1990 Murray, Dog Organ transplantation techniques Thomas

1989 Varmus, Chicken Viral origin of some cancer-causing Bishop genes

1981 Sperry, Cat, Processing of visual information by the Hubel, monkey brain Wiesel

1979 Cormack, Pig Development of computer-assisted Hounsfield tomography

1977 Guilemin, Sheep, pig Hypothalamic hormones, chemicals Schally, that help regulate some vital body Yalow processes

Continued from p. 6


the Project on Ani-mal Treatment at theUniversity of Chica-go Law School. 21

Congres s hasdone little to devel-op regulations forprotecting farm ani-mals, and the De-partment of Agricul-ture (USDA) also has“grown very close tothe industry,” creat-ing “an unregulatedsituation where thereare basically no pro-tections for farm an-imals at the federallevel in productionagriculture,” accord-ing to Wayne Pacelle,CEO of the HumaneSociety.Animal-welfare groups are not call-

ing for unreasonable or illogical rules,says Pacelle.For example, one issue concerns the

“gestation crates” in which breedingsows are housed for much of their lives.“They may endure seven, eight, nine,10 successive pregnancies in a two-footby seven-foot cage in which they can-not turn around,” he says. “These arecurious animals that like to root aroundin the mud,” and several states havebanned the crates, and at least one largehog company, Smithfield, has voluntarilyagreed to phase them out, says Pacelle.The phase-out should and could beindustrywide, however, he says.But other analysts argue that calls

for stricter controls on factory-farmpractices are really veiled calls for anend to meat eating altogether.“When you peel away the rhetoric

and posturing of all animal-rightsgroups, the bottom line is the same:‘You have no right to be in business.Animals should not be used for food.We’ll continue to fight to make it un-popular or uneconomical to be inthe livestock and poultry business,’ ”

said Steve Kopperud, senior vicepresident of the Washington lobby-ing and communications firm PolicyDirections, which specializes in farmand food issues. 22

Farm-industry groups “are com-mitted to working with USDA to helptheir members comply” with animal-welfare rules, said Jeremy Russell, di-rector of communications and gov-ernment relations for the NationalMeat Association. “No discussion ofanimal welfare can be completewithout a mention of the tremendousimprovements that have been madeover the years. . . . The industry’ssledgehammer days are long gone,”and “federal inspectors, who are inpacking plants continuously, enforce”the requirements of the HumaneSlaughter Act of 1957. 23

Furthermore, the association “en-courages plants to do everythingpossible to create calm, low-stress at-mospheres that work with — ratherthan against — animals’ natural in-stincts,” said Russell. The U.S. meatindustry “has embraced voluntaryhumane handling” programs. 24

“The livestock indus-try has a long historyof supporting animalwelfare,” but that’s notthe same as the “animal-rights” agenda thatanimal-advocacy groupspush, so animal activistscontinue to complain,says former Rep. Char-lie Stenholm, D-Texas,now a senior policy ad-viser for agricultural is-sues at a Washington-based law and lobbyingfirm. “These activistgroups use the platformof animal rights to ad-vocate for regulations sostrict they will put ani-mal agriculture out ofbusiness, which is theirreal goal.”

“The greatest risk right now is thepossibility that Congress will takeseriously the advice of people whohave sworn never to eat meat incrafting policy that will damagefarming,” David Martosoko, directorof research for the food-industry-backed advocacy group Center forConsumer Freedom, told a Housepanel in 2007. 25

Is animal research necessary toachieve medical progress?Research using live animals has

long been a staple both of basic-science laboratories — where bio-medical scientists seek knowledgeabout how living beings function —and toxicology labs, where scientistsuse live animals to test whether cos-metics, radiation, industrial chemicalsand other environmental exposuresare safe for humans.Today, toxicology laboratories are

beginning a large-scale phase-out ofanimal testing over the next fewdecades. In the biomedical sciencearena, however, debate rages overwhether live-animal research contributes

Gestation crates severely restrict the movement of female pigs duringpregnancy. State laws are beginning to regulate treatment of farm

animals, but federal laws apply only to the transport and slaughter offarm animals. The nation’s largest pork producer, Smithfield Farms,announced it will begin phasing out gestation crates on its farms.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

10 CQ Researcher

enough to human welfare to justifyanimals’ suffering and death.Biomedical scientists’ zeal to contin-

ue live-animal research “is all about get-ting grant money, not about helping peo-ple,” says Jerry Vlasak, a Los Angelessurgeon and leader of the North Amer-ican Animal Liberation Press Office.For example, a vision researcher at

UCLA has pursued research involvingsensors placed on the eyeballs of rhesusmonkeys “for 19 years,” repeatedly beingawarded grant renewals to continue theproject, “just because he says he’s onthe verge of a great discovery,” whichso far hasn’t come, despite nearly twodecades of suffering on the part of themonkeys, says Vlasak.From time to time, animal experi-

menters “have stumbled on somethinguseful,” but current experiments “aren’tcoming up with anything of actual value”for health, since basic science, by defin-ition, aims at generating data and infor-mation, without reference to whether thatinformation will be useful or not, saysVlasak. Nevertheless, the governmentfunds basic-science experimentation onlive animals to the tune of hundreds ofmillions of dollars annually, he says. Themoney would be better used expandinginsurance coverage to more Americans— 46,000 of whom die prematurelyevery year because of lack of care —and retooling medical practice to use al-ready proven treatments that aren’t beingused, he says.“Half the drugs that test as safe on

animals turn out to not work or besafe in people, so you might as wellflip a coin” as test drugs initially onanimals, Vlasak says.Many opponents of live-animal re-

search argue that studies demonstratingthat treatments are safe or effective inanimals often don’t pan out when thesame treatments are tried in human be-ings, making the research far less ef-fective in advancing actual medicalknowledge than scientists claim.Animal studies do not reliably pre-

dict how medical treatments will pan

out in humans, wrote Wichita State’sShanks and Ray and Jean Greek, au-thors of Sacred Cows and Golden Geese:The Human Cost of Experiments on An-imals. In the case of the drug thalido-mide — a sedative prescribed to preg-nant women in the 1950s and ’60s thatled to the birth of children without limbs— animal tests conducted after the humanbirth defects were discovered showedthat the drug’s health effects variedwidely among animal species. 26

Some species showed none of thenegative effects that thalidomide causedin humans, while others were affect-ed but to a far lesser degree than hu-mans. “All the animals whose offspringexhibited” the limbless condition thatafflicted human babies “did so onlyafter being given doses 25-150 timesthe human dose,” wrote Shanks andthe Greeks. Thus, biomedical scientists’hypothesis that animal research is “pre-dictive for humans is wrong.” 27

But animal-rights advocates are mere-ly pitting “the simple lie” that animals arebeing harmed in labs without purposeagainst “the complex truth” that experi-mentation on live animals has yielded agreat deal of valuable scientific knowl-edge, says Jacquie Calnan, presidentof the biomedical-research advocacygroup Americans for Medical Progress.Animal studies have been crucial in

developing treatments for many con-ditions, says Trull of the Foundationfor Biomedical Research. They are“critical to hepatitis work,” for exam-ple, while both cataract surgeries andjoint replacement were both pioneeredin animals, Trull says.Dario Ringach, a professor of neuro-

biology and psychology at the Uni-versity of California, Los Angeles(UCLA), stopped his primate researchafter animal activists threatened hishome, terrorizing his young children,several years ago. Ringach describeshis monkey studies as an examinationof “the basic way that the brain process-es information from the eyes” that mighthave served as preliminary work for

developing a neural prosthesis thatcould allow a blind person to seeagain by means of a head-mountedcamera whose images would stimu-late the brain directly, bypassing dam-aged eyes, says Ringach.“It takes years and years to devel-

op those studies” on monkeys, “andmy work is at least partly gone,” Ringachsays. “Now I work with humans, whoare also animals but who can sign apiece of paper and say they agree.The research I’m doing with humansis completely different from what Iwas doing before” and won’t provideanswers to some key questions thatmust be answered before an actual vi-sual prosthesis could be developed.“We need to figure out how to plant

a device in the brain that could be inthere for years and years,” and how elec-tricity in such a device would interactwith the brain’s own electrical signalsand with brain tissue, he says. “There’sno way you can actually develop thesethings” using only human subjects.“We’re trying to test how nature works,”and in some cases there is literally noway to gain that knowledge without ob-serving whole animals, Ringach says.Particularly in an aging society, “one

of the most explosive areas of scienceis neuroscience,” with the public greatlyinterested in finding answers to neuro-logical diseases of aging such as Parkin-son’s and Alzheimer’s, says Trull. Study-ing live non-human primates is “the onlyway” to learn about this, she says.When it comes to the toxicology lab,

which has traditionally used millions ofmostly small animals to determine thetoxicity of chemical substances like drugsand cosmetics, scientists now generallyagree with animal-welfare advocates thatanimal testing should be phased out.“The main crystallizing event” for that

trend was a report issued by the Na-tional Academy of Sciences in 2007 that“articulated a vision that 20 years downthe line we will get to the point wherewe use no or virtually no animals” to

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Continued on p. 12


Chronology1950s-1970sFederal laws are enacted toprotect some farm animals,pets and laboratory animals.

1954Humane Society of the United Statesis founded to apply advocacy tech-niques developed by local animal-welfare groups to national issues.

1958Federal Humane Slaughter Act re-quires mammals killed for food tobe completely stunned beforebeing dismembered.

1966Allegations that pet dogs are beingkidnapped for research spark en-actment of federal Animal WelfareAct (AWA), requiring humane treat-ment by dealers who sell dogsand cats to laboratories.

1976AWA is expanded to cover animalfighting.

1979San Francisco attorney Joyce Tis-chler founds Animal Legal DefenseFund (ALDF).

•

1980s-1990sAnimal-protection advocatesspar with biomedical researchersover study of live animals.

1980PETA — People for the EthicalTreatment of Animals — is foundedin Norfolk, Va.

1981Settling a case brought by ALDF,the Navy halts the planned slaugh-ter of thousands of wild burros at

the Naval Weapons Center inChina Lake, Calif., and pays torelocate the animals. . . . PETAco-founder Alex Pacheco secretlyphotographs filthy conditions formonkeys at Institute of BehavioralResearch in Silver Spring, Md.

1985Congress amends AWA to requireanimal-research labs to provideexercise for dogs and companion-ship for nonhuman primates, aswell as mental stimulation liketoys and opportunities to foragefor food.

•

2000s State laws andballot initiatives target animalcruelty on farms.

2000After a PETA hidden-camera inves-tigation, workers at a North Caroli-na hog farm receive the first-everfelony convictions handed out forfarm abuses, including skinninganimals alive and sawing off thelegs of a conscious animal.

2005World Organization for AnimalHealth adopts guidelines for thehumane transport and slaughter offood animals.

2006Federal Animal Enterprise Terror-ism Act sets tough penalties foractivists who commit or threatenviolence against animal-using orga-nizations, such as factory and furfarms and university research labs.

2007Congress makes violation of AWAanimal-fighting provisions a felonypunishable by up to three yearsin prison.

2008Federal agents shut down a Cali-fornia slaughterhouse after under-cover video shows workers abusingsick cattle, but a government auditfinds no evidence that slaughter-house inspection in the nation isinadequate. . . . California ballotinitiative bans confinement of vealcalves, hens and brood sows incages that don’t allow them to turnfreely, lie down, stand up and ex-tend their limbs.

2009China contemplates its first ani-mal-welfare law, requiring regis-tration and vaccination of petsand banning pet maltreatment. . . .Ohio voters back an agricultureindustry-sponsored constitutionalamendment barring legislatorsand voters from enacting animal-welfare rules that apply to farms.. . . National retailer J.C. Penneystops selling fur products, afteryears of protests by activists. . . .U.S. biomedical scientists joinwith Pro-Test, a United Kingdom-based group, to seek public sup-port for animal research. . . .Ban on animal testing for cos-metics takes effect in EuropeanUnion. . . . NFL quarterbackMichael Vick is signed byPhiladelphia Eagles after serving18 months in prison on a 2007conviction for operating a dog-fighting ring; he vows to workwith the Humane Society to edu-cate the public about the crueltyof animal fighting. . . Severalstates pass tough new animal-protection laws: amputation ofdairy cows’ tails banned (Califor-nia); felonies enacted for animalcruelty (Arkansas) and cockfighting(Kansas); larger cages required forbreed sows and veal calves(Maine); 24-hour-a-day tetheringof dogs and short chains andchoke collars banned (Nevada).

12 CQ Researcher

test the toxicity of chemicals and otherproducts, says Paul Locke, an associateprofessor of environmental health sci-ences at the Johns Hopkins UniversityBloomberg School of Public Health.Under a new government program

launched in the report’s wake, severalfederal agencies will cooperate to re-search and develop toxicity-testing

methods for drugs and chemicals thatuse human cells grown in the lab ratherthan live animals.“Animal testing is time-consuming,

expensive and doesn’t always relate towhat is toxic in humans,” and “thisreally has the potential to revolutionizethe way toxic chemicals are identified,”said Francis Collins, director of the Na-tional Institutes of Health (NIH). 28

BACKGROUNDEarly Farm Laws

P hilosophers as far back as Aris-totle have mused on whether

humans have an ethical responsibility

ANIMAL RIGHTS

T he 2000s saw an uptick in activist violence directed atbiomedical researchers who use live animals in experi-ments, with the highest-profile incidents occurring at the

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).Some of the activists adopted a tactic regularly used by anti-

abortion activists — posting the names, photos and contact in-formation of scientists on the Internet, enabling sympathizersto anonymously plan protests and harass specific scientists.In the early 2000s, a group of UCLA students published con-

tact information for several university personnel, including DarioRingach, a UCLA professor of neurobiology and psychology whoformerly conducted vision research on live monkeys. Althoughuniversity administrators fairly quickly dissuaded the student groupfrom continuing the postings, by that time activists outside theuniversity had the information, Ringach says.“People showed up at our home at night, wearing ski masks,

20 to 40 of them, banging on the windows” and vandalizingproperty. “My kids” — ages 3 and 6 when the protests began— “were crying every night,” says Ringach, who abandonedhis research in 2006. “Their goal was to terrorize my family,and they succeeded.”Between 2006 and 2008 violence and threats escalated

against other UCLA employees who worked with animals. Threeincendiary devices were left near faculty homes, and a re-searcher received a package rigged with razor blades. 1

In 2009, the university won a court injunction prohibitingthree animal-rights groups and five individuals from comingwithin 50 feet of the residences of UCLA scientists who do an-imal research or posting personal information about UCLA per-sonnel on the Web. 2

Despite activists’ complaint that all animal research is cruel andunjustified, the vast majority of American biomedical researcherswho experiment on live animals today take animals’ welfare intoaccount, even as they pursue experiments vital for developingknowledge of how living bodies function, Ringach argues.“The notion that people walk into a lab and say, ‘Hey, today

I’m going to blowtorch a monkey’ is just nonsense.” For onething, federal rules require scientists to use as simple a species

as possible — fruit flies, for example, rather than mice —“while still making the research relevant” to humans, and also“to minimize the number of animals used,” he says.Today, research on large animals, especially, is only under-

taken in order to study the most important biological systems,Ringach says. “Competition for grant funds is extremely diffi-cult,” with only about 10 percent of grants funded, so scien-tists who get funding are almost by definition working on high-priority science, whose ultimate value for human health makesit vital. “If you’re proposing to look at Botox, those studiesaren’t going to get funded,” he says.When Ringach’s monkey lab was in operation, his experi-

mental animals were treated humanely, he says. “What peoplewould have seen in the lab is what you would see in a humansurgery suite, an animal anesthetized, with his skin opened,and electrodes in the brain. I can show you the same kind ofthing in an epileptic [human] patient,” he says. The monkeywould receive “very similar drugs and monitoring on the table”to what a human would receive. “But if you don’t understandwhat’s happening” in those surgeries — animal or human —“the sights will shock you,” he says.Outside the surgical suite, monkeys were housed in pairs

and in groups, in accordance with their being “very social an-imals,” Ringach says. They had toys to play with and TV towatch because, like all primates, they need mental stimulation,a need that the 1985 Animal Welfare Act (AWA) amendmentscodified into a legal requirement for labs, Ringach says.But some animal activists say that the AWA rules are a smoke-

screen behind which the inherent intolerable cruelty of animalresearch lurks. “Anyone knowledgeable considers the AnimalWelfare Act completely useless,” says Jerry Vlasak, a Los Angeles-based surgeon and a leader of the activist group North Ameri-can Animal Liberation Press Office. “It doesn’t cover farm ani-mals or rodents, and even for those animals that it does coverthere are exceptions” for occasions when it’s considered ac-ceptable to impose pain and suffering in the lab, he says.In 2004, Vlasak made international headlines when he declared,

“I don’t think you’d have to kill too many [researchers]” to end

Violent Animal Activists in the MinorityAnimal Enterprise Terrorism Act set tough penalties.

Continued from p. 10


to treat animals well. It wasn’t untilthe 19th century, however, that themodern animal-welfare movementcoalesced into a large-scale publicmovement. 29

Some of the earliest clashes be-tween animal-welfare advocates andusers of animals involved scien-tists. In 19th-century Europe, ex-periments on live animals — com-

mon in physiology labs at leastsince the 17th century — were help-ing to expand knowledge of biol-ogy. In 1879, for example, Frenchchemist Louis Pasteur discoveredthat vaccinating animals with weak-ened disease-causing microbes gavethem immunity to future infection,after a flock of chickens he’d in-jected with the bacteria that caus-

es cholera did not sicken and diebut thrived instead. 30

“The physiologist is not an ordinaryman: he is a scientist possessed andabsorbed by the scientific idea he pur-sues,” wrote French physiologist ClaudeBernard. “He does not hear the criesof animals, he does not see their flow-ing blood, he sees nothing but hisidea, and is aware of nothing but an

animal research. “I think forfive lives, 10 lives, 15 humanlives, we could save a million,2 million, 10 million non-human lives.” 3

He continues to stand bythat principle.In recent years, “many

have come to view the strug-gle for animal liberation asbeing on a par with otherliberation struggles,” such asthe fights to end apartheidin South Africa and slaveryin the United States, saysVlasak. In history “no oppressors have ever given in without astruggle,” with the result that a wide variety of tactics, including“civil disobedience and acts of violence,” have been part of allliberation battles when the occasion demands it, he says.While peaceful protests, legal strategies and legislative ad-

vocacy have a place, no liberation struggle totally committedto nonviolence could succeed, Vlasak says. “Martin Luther Kingand the peaceful changes that he made would have gottennowhere unless the oppressors knew that the alternative todealing with him was to deal with” activists who were willingto commit violence, such as the Black Panther Party.Scientists who are targeted by extremists don’t get much

support, says Ringach. When he contacted the National Insti-tutes of Health — the federal agency that funds most basicbiomedical research — he was told, “ ‘We’re not really an advo-cacy group.’ When you actually try to talk to the top leadershipof NIH, the bottom line is that somebody on the appropriationscommittee” in Congress may take exception to the agency’schampioning animal research, which has many foes among thepublic, and the agency is very reluctant to be vocal in supportof its grantees, he says.In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the An-

imal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), setting substantial new

penalties for threats and vio-lent acts against academic orcommercial organizations thatuse or sell animals or animalproducts. The law “has increasedcommunication among lawenforcement agencies” aboutanimal-rights protesters andhelped head off more actionslike the ones against UCLA,says Frankie Trull, founder andpresident of the Washington-based Foundation for Bio-medical Research.But Vlasak says AETA was

a sign that animal-using groups are beginning to understandthat there is growing public pressure for them to change theirways, not just from activists who threaten violence but fromthe public at large, who increasingly express interest in ani-mal welfare in polls. “Any time you see an oppressor passlaws, your action is having an effect,” he says.Most animal-protection supporters, however, take pains to

distance themselves from any activism that involves harassmentor violence. “It’s a distortion” to point to the actions of a few ex-tremists, such as the UCLA protesters, as a sign that the animal-advocacy movement as a whole is extreme, says Kenneth Shapiro,executive director of the Animals and Society Institute, an AnnArbor, Mich.-based think tank. “The movement is very peace-ful compared to most liberation movements” and fully acceptsthe need for change to be gradual, he says.

— Marcia Clemmitt

1 Phil Hampton, “Judge Expands Order to Block Harassment of Researchers,”press release, University of California, Los Angeles, April 22, 2008,http://newsroom.ucla.edu.2 Ibid.3 Quoted in Jamie Doward, “Kill Scientists, Says Animal Rights Chief,” TheGuardian, July 25, 2004, www.guardian.co.uk.

Activists from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals(PETA), their bodies painted as monkeys, protest againstanimal research in New Delhi, India, on Nov. 25, 2009.

AFP/Getty Images/I

nd

ia T

oda

yGroup/Subir Halder

14 CQ Researcher

organism that conceals from him theproblem he is seeking to resolve.” 30

But while some animal experi-mentation undeniably advancedhuman knowledge in important ways,many in the public worried aboutthe suffering and death that someresearchers, like Bernard, were will-ing to impose on animals to satisfyscientific curiosity.In Bernard’s laboratory “we sacri-

ficed daily from one to three dogs,besides rabbits and other animals,and after four months’ experienceI am of the opinion that not oneof those experiments . . . was jus-tified or necessary,” a retired BritishNavy officer wrote to a Londonnewspaper of his experience work-ing with Bernard. 32

Growing public discomfort with an-imal suffering, in laboratories and else-where, led to the first attempts tosquelch abuse by law. In 1810 and1811, England’s lord high chancellorattempted but failed to pass bills gen-erally banning “wanton and maliciouscruelty to animals.” 33 In 1822, theBritish Parliament passed Martin’s Act,outlawing the infliction of unnecessarycruelty or suffering on a few domesti-cated animals — cattle, oxen, horsesand sheep. 34

In the United States, the earliestanimal-protection law was the so-called 28-hour law, limiting confine-ment of farm animals in a train carwhile being transported across coun-try, says historian Bernard Unti, se-nior policy adviser and special as-sistant to the Humane Society’sPacelle.As farming shifted from a local to

a national industry, “people saw withtheir own eyes the animals goingthrough their towns on the train,” andthe beasts’ plight inspired sympathy,says Unti. Enacted in 1873, the lawrequired that for every 28 hours oftransport, animals must be offloadedto eat, drink and have at least fivehours of rest.

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Cruelty Perpetrators in the Spotlight

Then-Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick pleaded guilty to a federaldogfighting charge in 2007 and served 18 months in prison (top). Henow speaks out against cruelty to animals and has returned toprofessional football . Spectators cheer on the opening night of the cockfightingseason at the Coliseo Central De Barranquitas in Barranquitas, PuertoRico (bottom). Heavy betting occurs before and during the fights. Cockfightingis legal in Puerto Rico but a felony in some states.

AFP/Getty Images/Al Bello

AFP/Getty Images/Steve Helber-Pool


National Advocates

T he first half of the 20th centurysaw exponential growth in the

use of animals, both for food andexperiments, as well as increasingpublic concern about animal suffer-ing, says Unti. Nevertheless, no trueanimal-protection legislation was en-acted in the United States betweenthe 28-hour law in the 1870s andthe mid-20th century, he says.Meanwhile, animal

use grew dramaticallyin the 20th century,including in toxicolo-gy testing.“In the 1920s, if

you discovered some-thing in the lab youcould just put it outonto the market” withno tes t ing , saysJohns Hopk in s ’Locke. But in 1933,after a woman diedand more than adozen were blindedfrom using a perma-nent mascara calledLash-Lure, 35 the gov-ernment began “tolook for tests to pro-tect the public.”The tests devised

involved observingproducts’ effects on live animals, suchas rabbits, and “led to a great im-provement” in consumer-product safe-ty, says Locke. In an increasingly in-dustrialized economy, however,toxicology testing also led to expo-nential growth in the number of an-imals used in laboratories.Beginning about a decade later,

“the post-World War II period alsosaw an enormous increase” in basicbiomedical research, which created “atremendous demand for animals,” saysUnti. Dealers who supplied labs withanimals for research often went to

local shelters to get homeless dogsand cats, sparking intense concern bylocal animal-welfare groups that ranthe shelters, since they “believed thattheir purpose was either to find theanimals good homes or provide themwith a humane death,” not potential-ly expose them to sickness, vivisec-tion or lingering painful deaths in lab-oratories, Unti says. In the 1950s,around 2 million dogs were researchsubjects in biomedical laboratories,he says. “It was a huge problem.”

Today that number is down to around50,000, Unti says.As scientific use of animals increased

and huge factory farms developed, thepost-World War II period “saw a re-naissance of interest in animal pro-tection,” Unti says.In previous years, the U.S. animal-

protection establishment had consistedof local societies that worked on arange of regional problems, such aslooking out for the welfare of pets andfarm animals, he says. But beginningin the 1950s, the animal-welfare move-ment went national, with the forma-

tion of groups such as the HumaneSociety of the United States and theAnimal Welfare League.Animal-protection issues eligible for

federal legislation and regulation includenational and international trafficking inexotic animals, interstate animal-fightingrings, federally funded biomedical re-search on animals and factory farming,which involves interstate commerce. Smallgroups such as traditional local animal-protection societies generally can’t affectsuch large-scale enterprises, Unti says.

The new groups“went right to work”on the top issue thathad concerned animal-welfare advocates formany years — requir-ing humane slaughterof animals raised formeat, Unti says. “In lessthan a decade after for-mation of the nationalgroups, you had a law”— the Humane Slaugh-ter Act, enacted in 1958,which requires thatmammals slaughteredfor meat be stunnedinto unconsciousness,by a method like elec-trocution, a stun gunor gassing with CO2,before they are bledand cut up.By 1966, national

animal-welfare advocates had spurredenactment of the Animal Welfare Act,providing protection for some non-farm animals. The act initially focusedon dealers who procure and sell an-imals for scientific research; lateramendments expanded the act to in-clude conditions in laboratories, thewelfare of exhibited animals and theelimination of animal fighting, amongother issues. 36

By the 1980s, animal-welfare advo-cates persuaded Congress that emerg-ing knowledge about animals’ mindsand level of consciousness required

Millions of rats, above, and mice are used in research — far more thanany other higher animals — and they may be used even more in the

future because they can be genetically altered for highly targetedresearch. Animal-rights activists want them covered by the

Animal Welfare Act’s lab-protection rules, but researchers worry that would hamper their work.

Understanding Animal Research/Wellcome Images

16 CQ Researcher

ANIMAL RIGHTS

that dogs, cats and primates be housedin more comfortable, humane condi-tions. In 1985, Congress passedamendments to the Animal Welfare Actrequiring that labs doing animal re-search improve housing of cats, pro-vide regular exercise for dogs and con-sider the psychological well-being ofprimates like monkeys, by allowinggroup-living animals to be housed to-gether and providing mental stimula-tion like toys and chances to foragefor their food.The law sparked angry protests

from biomedical-science researchersand facilities, such as universities,and as a result regulations fleshingout the law were not finalized until1991, after years of angry wrangling.Ultimately, labs had until 1994 to com-ply with the rules, which some sci-entists warned would damage the re-search enterprise because of theirexorbitant costs.“Animal research was already be-

coming substantially more expensive.You’ve got to ask whether theseadded costs won’t harm researchmore than they help animals,” saidJorge E. Velasco, then associate di-rector of animal labs for the State Uni-versity of New York at Buffalo, whenthe 1991 rules were published. 37

Animals in the Courts

I n the past 15 years, academic in-terest in animal welfare and, espe-cially, animal law, has flourished.“I teach a course every year on

ethics of animal rights,” says Purdue’sBernstein. “Twenty years ago that wouldhave been unheard of.”A field called “animal-human stud-

ies is growing unbelievably fast,” withjournals, fellowships and internationalconferences, says Shapiro of the Ani-mals and Society Institute. Increasing-ly, academic papers and college cours-es consider animals as part ofgeography and cultural studies, and

“in English courses animals now arelooked at as characters rather thansymbols. It’s comparable to women’sstudies and black studies, providingan institutionalized” theoretical basisfor activism, he says.The developing field of “animal

law” also has skyrocketed, saysKathy Hessler, clinical director of theCenter for Animal Law Studies atLewis & Clark Law School in Port-land, Ore. A handful of law schoolsoffered animal-law courses 15 yearsago, while about 130 schools dotoday, she says.“Animals are so thoroughly inte-

grated into what we do as a society”that efforts to develop a body of lawand legal precedent that takes intoaccount animal welfare involve allareas of law, from torts and propertylaw to the law of domestic relations,Hessler says.So far, little legal framework ex-

ists for treating animals as anythingother than human property, or some-times, in the case of wildlife, as partsof an ecosystem, Hessler explains.This means that if a “companion an-imal” — the term animal-welfare ad-vocates prefer to “pet” — is abusedor killed through someone’s negli-gence, for example, any loss in thecase is assumed to affect the owner,not the animal, and compensation isusually confined to paying an ownerthe price of replacing the dead an-imal, she says.Animal-law specialists are working

to change animals’ legal status, partlythrough legislative changes and partlycase by case, hoping that courts willbegin to recognize additional animalwelfare-related issues. On the agendaare such potential changes as recog-nizing pet owners’ right to be com-pensated for emotional distress if acompanion animal is killed or injured;a right of individuals to sue an ani-mals’ owner, such as a farmer, forabuse of the animal; and a right ofwildlife to have court-appointed

guardians to argue on their behalfwhen their welfare is threatened,Hessler says.The efforts are beginning to pay

off, says Hessler. For example, in sev-eral states owners have won the rightto sue for non-economic damagesover the loss of a companion animal,and animals have been granted theirown specific protective orders in somedomestic-violence cases.Changing the legal structure to

give more weight to animals’ ownconcerns is happening very gradu-ally, but the change is very muchin line with the way people todayview animals, at least their own com-panion animals, whom “most peo-ple now regard as family members,”she says.As a result, some judges are be-

ginning to view a family dog in a di-vorce case, for example, as a beingfor whom some form of “custody” isappropriate, as it is for children, ratherthan as a mere piece of property, saysHessler. Some judges even are call-ing for state legislatures to write newlaws with this new view of animalsin mind. “But there are also plenty ofjudges who think this is a bit silly,”she says.

CURRENTSITUATIONFarm State Fights

S tates have increasingly becomekey battlegrounds in the fight over

animal welfare.One of the biggest battles is cur-

rently in Ohio. Despite apparent ris-ing public concern about animalwelfare, 64 percent of Ohio votersin November approved Issue 2, an

Continued on p. 18

no


At Issue:Is enough being done to protect the welfare of animalsslaughtered for food?yes

yesJ. PATRICK BOYLEPRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FEB. 28, 2008.

t he American Meat Institute (AMI) has provided service formore than 100 years to America’s meat and poultry indus-try — an industry that employs more than 500,000 indi-

viduals and provides more than $100 billion in sales to the na-tion’s economy. These companies operate, compete, sometimesstruggle and mostly thrive in one of the toughest, most compet-itive and certainly the most scrutinized sectors of our economy— meat and poultry packing and processing.Proper and humane handling of livestock is not just a pri-

ority for the American Meat Institute — it is part of our cul-ture. I believe that our institute’s Animal Welfare Committeehas been an unquestionable force for change. Their businesscards may carry the brands of many meat products you enjoy,and their titles may say plant manager or vice president ofoperations, but they are as much animal activists as any ofthe groups with ‘humane’ in their name that try to discreditthese businesses.Beginning in 1991, our Animal Welfare Committee had the

foresight to recognize the unique abilities of a rising star inthe field of animal welfare: Dr. Temple Grandin of ColoradoState University. Dr. Grandin’s autism provides her the uniqueability to understand the world from an animal’s perspective,and we have learned much from her insights. Dr. Grandin hascrawled through our chutes and alleys, designed and sat inour cattle holding pens, ridden our trucks and seen the worldand our plants as animals do. There is no recommendationfrom her that we don’t take seriously.We sought not only to meet regulatory requirements but to

exceed them. Grandin authored the first-ever, industry-specific“Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines” in 1991. They aredistributed throughout our industry in both Spanish and English.The meat industry’s commitment to animal welfare was under-

scored when AMI’s members voted to make animal welfare anon-competitive issue in 2002. As a result, AMI member plansshare good ideas and assist each other in developing and re-fining animal-handling programs and solving challenges. I haveseen staunch competitors exchange plant visits to share bestpractices, and I am proud that we help each other in this way.As one who has overseen the evolution — perhaps better

described as a revolution — in our approach to animal wel-fare since 1990, I want to offer my personal assurance thatthe members of this industry are committed to optimal animalwelfare because it is both ethically appropriate and economi-cally beneficial.no

WAYNE PACELLEPRESIDENT AND CEO, THE HUMANESOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATE APPROPRIATIONSSUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FEB. 28, 2008

a n undercover investigator for the Humane Societyworked at the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. inSouthern California for approximately six weeks at the

end of 2007. The investigator witnessed and documented egre-gious mistreatment. He filmed workers ramming cows with theblades of a forklift, jabbing them in the eyes, applying painfulelectrical shocks often in sensitive areas, dragging them withchains pulled by heavy machinery and torturing them with ahigh-pressure water hose to simulate drowning, all in attemptsto force crippled animals to walk to slaughter. In one case, hevideotaped a cow who collapsed on her way into the stunningbox. After she was electrically shocked and still could not stand,she was shot in the head with a bolt gun to stun her and thendragged on her knees into slaughter.The investigation has done more than expose one company’s

abusive practices.It is critical to point out that we did not do a broad risk

assessment of a large number of plants and then conduct amore thorough examination of a high-risk facility. The plantwas selected at random, and during the course of the investi-gation we learned that Westland was the No. 2 beef supplierto the National School Lunch Program and to other U.S. De-partment of Agriculture (USDA) commodity-distribution pro-grams. We learned after the field portion of the investigationthat Hallmark/Westland had previously been cited for mis-handling animals.A USDA inspector was only present in the live-animal area

twice daily — at 6:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. — predictabletimes at which he merely noted those animals who could notstand and then approved the remainder for slaughter. Let meemphasize the lack of rigor in the approval-for-slaughterprocess. The veterinarian did not make an animal-by-animalinspection but simply took a look at large groups of animals,30 or 35 at a time, as they passed by him, and if the animalscould stand or walk he would approve them. The inspectortypically approved 350 animals for slaughter in the morningand then about 150 animals in the afternoon inspection.Inspectors must understand that their oversight responsibilities

begin at the moment animals arrive at slaughter premises.Egregious conduct such as forcefully striking an animal withan object should be explicitly prohibited. Inspections shouldbe unannounced and not on a predictable schedule. Finally, itwould be helpful to rotate inspectors to ensure that they donot become too close with plant personnel.

18 CQ Researcher

amendment to the state constitutionthat bans the state legislature or thevoting public from enacting anystandards for the care and treat-ment of livestock and poultry inOhio. Instead, an appointed boardwill have sole discre-tion to set animal-treatment standards. 38

Supporters arguethat the measure isneeded to keep zeal-ous animal activistsfrom overregulatingOhio’s farms and dri-ving families into bank-ruptcy. But opponentscharge that in the mea-sure’s wake “it will beimpossible to use bal-lot initiatives to passanti-cruelty measuresin Ohio for farm ani-mals,” so that “factory-farm cruelty is likelyto continue unabatedin Ohio.” 39

Animal-protectiongroups are gearing upto fight back againstthe measure. “That willbe the next big bat-tle,” probably begin-ning in 2010, says theHumane Society’s Unti.In decades past,

only a few state anti-cruelty laws appliedto farm animals, butthat’s been changingrecently, according toa new report fromCongress’ nonpartisanresearch arm, the Con-gressional Research Service (CRS), 40

and the upsurge in animal-protectionmeasures in other states likely prompt-ed Ohio’s agriculture industry topush for Issue 2.In 2008, California voters approved

a wide-ranging measure, Proposition 2,

requiring that, beginning in 2015,farms house veal calves, egg-layinghens and pregnant pigs in condi-tions that allow them to lie down,stand up, fully extend their limbsand turn around freely, or face finesor jail time. 41

Similar measures that apply tofewer animals have been approvedin Arizona, Colorado, Florida,Maine, Michigan and Oregon andare pending in Massachusetts andNew York. 42

Congress and Beyond

A nimal-protection issues are notat the top of Congress’ cur-

rently crowded agenda, and feder-al lawmakers have long shown a

preference for as lightregulation as possible ofthe agriculture and foodindustry. Members of Con-gress “generally have ex-pressed a preference forvoluntary rather than reg-ulatory approaches tohumane care,” accordingto the CRS. 43

Individual animal-welfareissues continue to draw at-tention from some federallawmakers, however.In July, 15 House mem-

bers led by Rep. Hank John-son, D-Ga., complained toSecretary of the Army PeteGeren about the military’splans to continue a long-time practice of inflictingtraumatic injuries on ani-mals including primates,marine mammals, dogs, cats,pigs and goats to give med-ical staff practice in treat-ing trauma. “Non-animaltraining methods — in-cluding medical simulatorsand embedding personnelin civilian trauma centers— exist that can replacethe use of animals,” thelawmakers said. 44

Johnson is a member ofthe Congressional Black Cau-cus, which has been highlysupportive of the animal-

protection movement over the years,says the Humane Society’s Unti. Thecaucus, as well as many prominent fem-inists, have spoken out in favor of an-imal welfare in large part becauseblacks and women have been engagedin their own rights struggles, he says.

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Continued from p. 16

When hotel magnate Leona Helmsley died in 2007, shebequeathed $12 million to her dog “Trouble,” making the Malteseone of the first “companion” animals to be given a substantialfinancial trust, under evolving laws that give animals more legalstanding. A judge ultimately cut Trouble’s bequest to $2 million,on grounds the dog would live for only three to five more years.

AP Photo/Jennifer Graylock


“It’ not a coincidence,” Unti says.“The caucus has basic concernswith creating a more civil, caringsociety. We have similar visions ofa fairer world.”Animal-welfare advocates have a

wish list for Congress and federal reg-ulators, with much of the focus onincluding more animal species underthe protection of law.“We want poultry to come under”

humane-slaughter rules, “but theUSDA has deferred,” says Unti. Sec-retaries of Agriculture generally aredrawn from the ranks of farm-stategovernors — current secretary TomVilsack was governor of Iowa —“andwe realize that they’re going to bevery hesitant to act against factoryfarming,” Unti says.Animal-using groups are leery of

additional regulation.Trull’s Foundation for Biomedical

Research is concerned about repeatedattempts that animal-welfare advocateshave made over the years to includerats, mice and birds in the AnimalWelfare Act’s lab animal-protectionrules. Such rules would impose a heavyburden because “about 95 percent[of lab animals today] are rodentsespecially bred” with genetic modifi-cations for the studies they’re involvedin, she says.Abroad, the animal-welfare picture

is mixed.“The United Kingdom and Western

Europe are way ahead” of the UnitedStates on many animal-protection is-sues, says activist Vlasak. The UK bansconfinement in very small cages of vealcalves and hens, for example, he says.In China, however, “they are build-

ing huge, huge hog farms, and moreand more people are eating more andmore flesh,” a long-term trend in de-veloping nations that “will have hugeimpacts” on animal welfare, as well ason human health and the environ-ment, Vlasak says. 45

Nevertheless, support for animal-protection legislation appears to be

strengthening worldwide. In China,legal experts are developing propos-als for what they hope will be thecountry’s first animal-protection law.Public outcry followed a mass slaugh-ter of dogs by the government, in arabies-prevention effort, and law pro-fessors and others are developing legis-lation to end such mass killings by re-

quiring people to register and vaccinatetheir dogs as well as to criminalize mal-treatment of pets. 46

“China has begun to be aware ofthe importance of animal welfare be-cause it touches on the economy,trade, religion and ethics,” saidChang Jiwen, a law professor at theChinese Academy of Social Sciencesand lead developer of the proposal.He expects a tough fight but even-tual enactment of the law. “The fu-ture is bright, but the path ahead willbe tortuous.” 47

OUTLOOKTest Tube Meat?

A s science advances, exactly howand how much humans will con-

tinue to use animals to satisfy theirwants is unclear. However, many an-imal advocates believe that ethical

concerns over animal suffering arebound to increase.When it comes to toxicology test-

ing of products, “the use of animaltests is not going to end in the nearfuture, but it can be largely dimin-ished,” says Locke of Johns Hopkins.But to phase out the tests, “you’ll haveto get people comfortable with the

new, different information” producedby non-whole-animal testing anddemonstrate that new tests are valid,which will be doable, though difficult,he says. “A lot of people are com-fortable with the animal tests,” and“inertia will also get in the way” ofthe shift, he says.New rules in the European Union

will help drive change, says Locke.By 2013 cosmetics companies that dobusiness in Europe “must be com-pletely out of the business of animaltesting for safety,” in a phase-out thatbegan in 2009.To push change in other indus-

tries, “we need a very robust gov-ernment program” to develop andvalidate in vitro tests of cell cultures,Locke says. Such tests would revealexactly how a chemical affects themolecular cell mechanisms, and be-sides eliminating much animal suf-fering they would ultimately providefar more superior information thancurrent tests, which simply observethe health effects of a substance onnon-human species, he says. Federal

“Support for animal-protection legislation appears to

be strengthening worldwide. In China, legal experts

are developing proposals for what they hope will be

the country’s first animal-protection law.”

20 CQ Researcher

ANIMAL RIGHTS

agencies are working on such initia-tives, “but we don’t have the politi-cal will yet” to fund as large a pro-gram as is needed. But there is ahuge data gap that molecular testswill help eliminate, says Locke.When it comes to basic biomedical

research, however, the future may seemore use of animals in labs, not fewer,says Trull of the Foundation for Bio-medical Research. “Pharmaceuticalsare chemically derived, but biotechand the personalized medicine” thatscientists envision for the future “willbe biologic,” she says.In any case, better oversight of an-

imal research is needed, says UCLAneurologist Ringach. “I consideredworking with animals a privilege,” asdo many other scientists. Nevertheless,“as with any human enterprise thereare a small number of scientists whodon’t play by the rules, and I wishthe penalties for those that violate the[animal-welfare] rules were muchhigher.” Activists rightly point out that“if a university is caught violating theAnimal Welfare Act, they pay $10,000,”a drop-in-the-bucket fine that’s un-likely to change the behavior of largeinstitutions, he says.“It would be good to move the

compliance issues outside of the U.S.Department of Agriculture,” whichdoesn’t “have the knowledge” tooversee scientific research, Ringachsays. “I think there should be someseparate federal agency concernedwith this.”

The future of farming and eatingmeat may be even less clear.Vegetarianism is growing in favor

in the industrialized world, “but atthe same time the number of peopleeating meat worldwide is increasing,”notes Shapiro of the Animals andSociety Institute.But even if vegetarianism is not the

wave of the future, raising whole an-imals for food may not be either, hesays. “It’s very likely that we’ll be ableto create meat” in the laboratory.Factory farming itself may eventu-

ally be replaced as environmental con-cerns and energy shortages spur a re-turn to smaller, local farms, whereanimals’ living conditions would beless crowded and animal shipment overshorter distances less distressing,Shapiro says. “We really don’t knowwhere this is going.”

Notes1 Quoted in “Obama’s Regulatory Czar’sConfirmation Held Up by Hunting RightsProponent,” Fox News, July 22, 2009,www.foxnews.com.2 Ibid.3 Loretta Baughan, “Animal Rights Is Wrong,”Spaniel Journal, 2009, www.spanieljournal.com/42lbaughan.html.4 John C. Fisher, “Yes on Issue 2,” Our OhioMagazine online, September/October 2009,http://ourohio.org/index.php?page=yes-on-issue-2.5 Ibid.6 See Jennifer Weeks, “Factory Farms,” CQResearcher, Jan. 12, 2007, pp. 25-48.

7 Matthew Scully, “Fear Factories: The Case forCompassionate Conservatism — for Animals,”The American Conservative, May 23, 2005,www.matthewscully.com.8 Ibid.9 Testimony before House Agriculture Sub-committee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry,May 8, 2007, www.agriculture.house.gov.10 “Animal Rights Activists Suspected: No-vartis CEO’s Home Burned; Mother’s GraveDesecrated,” Petville Web site, Aug. 4, 2009,www.petville.com.11 Jim Spencer, “Group Targets U Animal Sci-entist,” [Minneapolis] Star Tribune online,Nov. 9, 2009, www.startribune.com.12 “Doctors File Federal Petition to Stop NASA’sMonkey Radiation Experiments,” press release,Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine,Nov. 5, 2009, www.pcrm.org.13 “Top 10 Reasons to Go Vegan in 2010,”GoVeg.com blog, People for the Ethical Treat-ment of Animals, www.goveg.com/f-top10rea-sons2010.asp.14 Gary L. Francione, “Peter Singer and theWelfarist Position on the Lesser Value of Non-human Life,” Animal Rights: Abolitionist Ap-proach blog, March 22, 2009, www.abolitionistapproach.com.15 Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, “Utiliz-ing Animals,” Journal of Applied Philosophy,January 1995, p. 13.16 Peter Singer and Richard A. Posner, “AnimalRights,” Slate, June 15, 2009, www.slate.com.17 Carl Cohen, “The Case for the Use of Ani-mals in Biomedical Research,” The New EnglandJournal of Medicine, Oct. 2, 1986, pp. 865-869.18 Jan Narveson, Moral Matters (1999), p. 135.19 Ibid.20 Robert Agnew, “The Causes of AnimalAbuse: A Social-Psychological Analysis,” Theo-retical Criminology, February 1998, p. 177.21 University of Chicago Project on AnimalTreatment Principles, Jan. 8, 2007, http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2007/01/university-of-chicago-project-on-animal-treatment-principles.22 Quoted in Janie Gabbett, “Meat IndustryFaces Emboldened Animal Rights Lobby NextYear,” Advocates for Agriculture blog, Dec. 10,2008, http://advocatesforag.blogspot.com.23 Testimony before University of CaliforniaAnimal Welfare Advisory Council, June 10, 2009,http://nmaonline.org/pdf/NMA-comments-UC-ANIMAL-WELFARE-ADVISORY-COUNCIL.pdf.24 Ibid.25 Testimony before House Agriculture Sub-

About the AuthorStaff writer Marcia Clemmitt is a veteran social-policy re-porter who previously served as editor in chief of Medi-cine & Health and staff writer for The Scientist. She hasalso been a high-school math and physics teacher. Sheholds a liberal arts and sciences degree from St. John’sCollege, Annapolis, and a master’s degree in English fromGeorgetown University. Her recent reports include “Pre-venting Cancer” and “Reproductive Ethics.”


committee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry,May 8, 2007, www.agriculture.house.gov.26 Niall Shanks, Ray Greek and Jean Greek,“Are Animal Models Predictive for Humans?”Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine,Jan. 15, 2009, www.peh-med.com.27 Ibid.28 Quoted in Phil McKenna, “Human Cells CouldReplace Animals in Toxic Testing,” New Scien-tist online, Feb. 15, 2008, www.newscientist.com.29 For background, see David Masci, “Fightingfor Animal Rights,” CQ Researcher, Aug. 2, 1996,pp. 673-696, and Marc Leepson, “Animal Rights,”CQ Researcher, May 24, 1991, pp. 301-324.30 Deborah Rudacille, The Scalpel and theButterfly: The War Between Animal Researchand Animal Protection (2000), p. 22.31 Quoted in ibid., p. 36.32 Quoted in ibid., p. 26.33 Ibid., p. 28.34 “Legal Protection of Animals,” Encyclopae-dia Britannica online, www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/366965/Martins-Act.35 “Science, Medicine and Animals,” NationalAcademy of Sciences Institute for LaboratoryAnimal Research, 2004, p. 21.36 For background, see Geoffrey S. Becker,“The Animal Welfare Act: Background andSelected Legislation,” Congressional ResearchService, May 28, 2009, www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS22493.pdf.37 Quoted in Marcia Clemmitt, “Labs Scurryto Meet Animal Care Mandate,” The Scientist,July 22, 1991.38 “Ohio Issue 2 Could Prevent Puppy Mill Reg-ulation,” Animal Law Coalition blog, Nov. 4, 2009,www.animallawcoalition.com.39 Ibid.40 Geoffrey S. Becker, “Humane Treatment ofFarm Animals: Overview and Issues,” Con-gressional Research Services, Feb. 13, 2009.41 Ibid., p. 1.42 Ohio Issue 2 Could Prevent Puppy MillRegulation, op. cit.43 Geoffrey Becker, “Humane Treatment ofFarm Animals: Overview and Issues,” Con-gressional Research Service, Dec. 10, 2008,http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RS21978.pdf.44 Hank Johnson, et al., letter to Secretary ofthe Army Pete Geren, July 9, 2009.45 See Peter Katel, “Emerging China,” CQ Re-searcher, Nov. 11, 2005, pp. 957-980.46 Jonathan Watts, “China Plans First AnimalWelfare Law,” The Guardian [United Kingdom],June 26, 2009, www.guardian.co.uk.47 Quoted in ibid..

FOR MORE INFORMATIONAmerican Meat Institute, 1150 Connecticut Ave., N.W., 12th Floor, Washington, DC20036; (202) 587-4200; www.meatami.com. Trade association advocates for publicpolicies of interest to the meat-processing industry, including animal-welfare rules.

Americans for Medical Progress, 526 King St., Suite 201, Alexandria, VA 22314;(703) 836-9595; www.amprogress.org. Information and advocacy group seeking toincrease public support for biomedical research animals.

American Veterinary Medicine Association, 1910 Sunderland Place, N.W.,Washington, DC 20036-1642; (800) 321-1473; www.avma.org. Provides informationabout animal-welfare issues.

Animal Legal Defense Fund, 170 East Cotati Ave., Cotati, CA 94931; (707) 795-2533; www.aldf.org. Advocates for animal-protection laws, files animal-protectionlawsuits and educates lawyers and others about animal law.

Animals & Society Institute, 2512 Carpenter Road, Suite 201-A2, Ann Arbor, MI48108-1188; (734) 677-9240; www.animalsandsociety.org. Advocates giving animalsmoral and legal rights to humane treatment.

Dr. Temple Grandin’s Web Page, www.grandin.com. The Web site of a professorof animal science at Colorado State University posts information about humanedesign of slaughterhouses and other animal-use facilities.

Foundation for Biomedical Research, 818 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 900,Washington, DC 20006; (202) 457-0654; www.fbresearch.org. Information and advocacygroup seeking to increase public support for biomedical research using animals.

Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L St., N.W., Washington, DC 20037;(202) 452-1100; www.humanesociety.org. Advocates for legislative, regulatory andbusiness changes to protect animals in a range of venues including farms, laborato-ries, the pet industry and the wild.

Institute for Animal Laboratory Research, The National Academies, 500 FifthSt., N.W., Keck 687, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 334-2590; http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarhome. Publishes information and recommendations on scientific and eth-ical issues involving laboratory animals.

Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, The Ferrater Mora Oxford Centre, 91 IffleyRoad, Oxford OX4 1EG, England, United Kingdom; (+44) (0)1865.201565;www.oxfordanimalethics.com. An international coalition of academics aiming toestablish a theoretical foundation for animal-protection laws.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA, 23510;(757) 622-7382; www.peta.org. Investigates animal-welfare issues and advocates forlegal, social and business changes to protect animal rights.

World Animal Net, 19 Chestnut Square, Boston, MA 02130; http://worldanimal.net/index.html. Provides information about animal-welfare laws and advocacygroups worldwide.

Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University; www.yerkes.emory.edu. The Web site of a leading biomedical research facility housing nearly3,400 nonhuman primates and more than 5,000 rodents provides informationabout using animals in scientific studies.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

22 CQ Researcher

Selected Sources

Bibliography

Books

Bernstein, Mark H., Without a Tear: Our Tragic Rela-tionship with Animals, University of Illinois Press, 2004.A professor of applied ethics at Purdue University argues thatit’s morally wrong to inflict gratuitous suffering, or allow suf-fering to be inflicted, on innocent beings, including animals.

Carruthers, Peter, The Animals Issue: Moral Theory inPractice, Cambridge University Press, 1992.A University of Maryland professor of philosophy andcognitive science argues that the limited nature of animals’consciousness means that humans’ ethical obligations to con-sider animal suffering are relatively minimal.

Conn, P. Michael, and James V. Parker, The Animal ResearchWar, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.A professor of physiology at Oregon Health & Science Uni-versity (Conn) and a retired public-information officer at theOregon National Primate Research Center chronicle Conn’sexperiences as a scientist who was targeted by extremistanimal-rights activists because of his animal studies and theways in which animal-protection battles have changed science.They argue that animal-rights activism is largely based onlies about lab-animal suffering.

Grandin, Temple, and Catherine Johnson, Animals MakeUs Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals, HoughtonMifflin Harcourt, 2009.Grandin, who credits her autism for the insights that madeher a world-renowned expert on livestock management, andJohnson, a science writer, suggest specific, commonsense changesin the way humans handle domestic and other captive animalsthat can preserve humans’ ability to use animals, including asfood, while greatly limiting animals’ suffering.

Linzey, Andrew,Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy,Theology, and Practical Ethics, Oxford University Press,2009.A theologian and director of England’s Oxford Center forAnimal Ethics argues there is a strong theological basis forstringent limits on human use of animals for any purpose.

Morrison, Adrian R., An Odyssey with Animals: A Veteri-narian’s Reflections on the Animal Rights and WelfareDebate, Oxford University Press, 2009.A veterinarian and emeritus professor of neuroscience atthe University of Pennsylvania argues that humane live-animalresearch is necessary to vital medical advances but that thereare potential points of compromise between scientists andanimal-rights advocates that can allow research to go forwardwhile still protecting animals from undue suffering.

Rudacille, Deborah, The Scalpel and the Butterfly: TheWar Between Animal Research and Animal Protection,Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.A former researcher and writer from the Johns HopkinsUniversity Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing chroniclesthe history of live-animal experimentation and activism to endit, from the early 19th century through the 20th.

Scully, Matthew, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suf-fering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, St. Martin’sGriffin, 2003.A journalist and former speechwriter for President George W.Bush describes his observations of animal-using industries in-cluding whaling, hunting and factory farming, and argues thatthe political arguments often used to shield those industriesfrom strict animal-welfare regulation are illogical, inconsistentand often unethical.

Articles

Mitchell, Natasha, Behind the Scenes: Animal Experimen-tation Ethics Committees, transcript, “All in the Mind,” ABC[Australia] Radio National, Jan. 19, 2008, www.abc.net.au.An Australian neuroscientist, an animal-protection advocateand a veterinary researcher describe how laboratory ethicscommittees struggle through disagreements to develop hu-mane research protocols for animal studies and discuss cur-rent scientific opinions on how animals experience pain.

Singer, Peter, and Richard A. Posner, “Animal Rights,”Slate, June 15, 2001, www.slate.com.Singer, a Princeton University professor of bioethics whose1975 book, Animal Liberation, helped launch the modernanimal-protection movement, and Posner, a federal judge,debate humans’ ethical obligations to animals.

Reports and Studies

Becker, Geoffrey S., “The Animal Welfare Act: Backgroundand Selected Legislation,” Congressional Research Service,May 8, 2009, www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS22493.pdf.An analyst at the nonpartisan research office chroniclesCongress’ historical expansion of the scope of the main federallaw protecting non-farm animals.

Becker, Geoffrey S., “Humane Treatment of Farm Animals:Overview and Issues,” Congressional Research Service,Dec. 10, 2008, http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RS21978.pdf.The nonpartisan congressional agency names the key farm-animal-welfare issues facing Congress and the states.


Animal Fighting

Liptak, Adam, “Justices Range From Dogfights to Bull-fights, Cockfights and Human Sacrifice,” The New YorkTimes, Oct. 7, 2009, p. A14.The Supreme Court is debating whether television showsthat depict animal fighting and cruelty are constitutionallyprotected free speech.

Lockman, Tyler, “Rewards Offered to Halt Animal Fight-ing,” Arizona Republic, March 5, 2009, p. 6.The sheriff’s office and Humane Society of the United Statesare teaming up to create a rewards program to help stopanimal fighting in Maricopa County, Ariz.

Smetana, Kevin, “Culture, Law Clash in Cockfighting,”St. Petersburg Times, March 15, 2009, p. 1B.Cockfighting has become more popular in Florida as immi-grants arrive from countries where it is rooted in the culture.

Animal Research

Carson, Amanda, “Animals Still Vital to Medical Strides,”Sacramento Bee, Oct. 4, 2009, p. E5.The conversation about biomedical research must go beyondemotions toward animals to real data about how effectivedrugs are discovered.

Cutson, Robin, “Time to Move Past Animal ExperimentalModel,” News & Observer (North Carolina), Jan. 7, 2009,p. A7.Human brain imaging is proving better at devising painmanagement than decades of animal research.

Gordon, Larry, and Raja Abdulrahim, “UCLA Scientists,Supporters March for Animal Research,” Los AngelesTimes, April 23, 2009, p. A6.More than 400 UCLA scientists and their supporters ralliedto defend animal research and denounce the violent tacticsused by some opponents.

Heldt, Diane, “Iowa Plans Underground Lab for AnimalResearch,” The Gazette (Iowa), June 11, 2009.The Board of Regents for the University of Iowa has ap-proved an $11 million project to construct an undergroundlaboratory for animal research.

Farm Animals

Goodison, Donna, “Egg Farm Cruelty Crackdown,”BostonHerald, April 3, 2009, p. 28.An animal-welfare group is calling on a Boston-area super-market to stop selling eggs it claims are from a Maine farmunder investigation for animal cruelty.

Rodriguez, Robert, “Dairies Wrestle With Animal-WelfareStandards,” Fresno (California) Bee, Nov. 9, 2009.Many livestock farmers operate in a new environmentwhere rights groups and consumers demand assurances thatanimals are treated humanely.

Sutherly, Ben, “Humane Society, Farmers Spar OverLivestock Cages,” Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, May 3,2009, p. C2.The Humane Society of the United States is meeting withOhio farm groups to discuss proposed changes to the state’sstandards for housing hens and hogs.

Legal Rights

Boyd, Dan, “Several Bills Aim to Increase Animal Pro-tection,” Albuquerque Journal, Jan. 27, 2009, p. A4.Bills ranging from criminalizing leaving pets unattended in hotweather to tougher penalties for intentionally starving animalshave been introduced in the New Mexico legislature.

Semerad, Tony, “Utah’s Pound Seizure Law Implicatedin PETA Probe,” Salt Lake Tribune, Nov. 11, 2009.Some animals used in research at the University of Utahwere mistreated, according to People for the Ethical Treatmentof Animals (PETA). The animals were obtained under the state’s“pound seizure” law, which requires government-run sheltersto surrender animals to institutions that request them.

Voyles, Susan, “County Decides Not to Adopt ‘No Kill’Policy,” Reno (Nevada) Gazette-Journal, June 24, 2009.Washoe County, Nev., has decided not to adopt a ‘no kill’policy, which would have prevented vicious and very sickanimals from being euthanized.

The Next Step:Additional Articles from Current Periodicals

CITING CQ RESEARCHERSample formats for citing these reports in a bibliography

include the ones listed below. Preferred styles and formats

vary, so please check with your instructor or professor.

MLA STYLEJost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher

16 Nov. 2001: 945-68.

APA STYLEJost, K. (2001, November 16). Rethinking the death penalty.

CQ Researcher, 11, 945-968.

CHICAGO STYLEJost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher,

November 16, 2001, 945-968.

ACCESSCQ Researcher is available in print and online. For access, visit your libraryor www.cqresearcher.com.

STAY CURRENTTo receive notice of upcoming CQ Researcher reports, or learn more aboutCQ Researcher products, subscribe to the free e-mail newsletters, CQ Re-searcher Alert! and CQ Researcher News: http://cqpress.com/newsletters.

PURCHASETo purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or electronic format (PDF),visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single reports start at$15. Bulk purchase discounts and electronic-rights licensing are alsoavailable.

SUBSCRIBEAnnual full-service CQ Researcher subscriptions—including 44 reports ayear, monthly index updates, and a bound volume—start at $803. Add$25 for domestic postage.

CQ Researcher Online offers a backfile from 1991 and a number of toolsto simplify research. For pricing information, call 800-834-9020, ext.1906, or e-mail [email protected].

Upcoming ReportsGovernment and Religion, 1/15/10 Cyber Security, 1/22/10 Professional Football, 1/29/10

In-depth Reports on Issues in the News

?Are you writing a paper?

Need backup for a debate?

Want to become an expert on an issue?

For more than 80 years, students have turned to CQ Researcher for in-depth reporting onissues in the news. Reports on a full range of political and social issues are now available.Following is a selection of recent reports:

Civil LibertiesClosing Guantánamo, 2/09Affirmative Action, 10/08Gay Marriage Showdowns, 9/08America’s Border Fence, 9/08Immigration Debate, 2/08

Crime/LawPrisoner Reentry, 12/09Interrogating the CIA, 9/09Examining Forensics, 7/09Legalizing Marijuana, 6/09Wrongful Convictions, 4/09

EducationHousing the Homeless, 12/09Bilingual Education, 12/09Value of a College Education, 11/09Financial Literacy, 9/09Reading Crisis? 2/08

Environment/SocietyWomen in the Military, 11/09Conspiracy Theories, 10/09Human Spaceflight, 10/09Gays in the Military, 9/09Energy and Climate, 7/09

Health/SafetyMedication Abuse, 10/09Nuclear Disarmament, 10/09Health-Care Reform, 8/09Straining the Safety Net, 7/09Treating Depression, 6/09Reproductive Ethics, 5/09

Politics/EconomyState Budget Crisis, 9/09Business Bankruptcy, 4/09Future of the GOP, 3/09Middle-Class Squeeze, 3/09

animal rights - is the treatment of animals improving?

Documents