IN VITRO CELLULAR & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume 25, Number 6, June 1989 �9 1989 Tissue Culture Association, Inc.

E D I T O R I A L : T H E E N D U R I N G ANIMAL ISSUE*

LARRY HORTON

Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305

"I f I were to be honest, I suppose like most people here, and doubtless a good many people in the States, I have to face the fact that I simply shudder away from the subject of animal exper iments . . . On the other h a n d . . . leukaemia in children, for example, animals who suffer to save children from leukaemia, animals versus children--I just don't want to think about it. '"

Now that's not just anyone speaking. That's Jemima Shore--a sensible heroine created by author Antonia Fraser--pausing for a bit of reflection in a recently published mystery thriller about violent animal libera- tionists. Jemima's no pushover; she is a spunky, highly intelligent, independent-minded journalist. She instinc- tively knows that research with animals is important and worthwhile, yet she is decidedly uncomfortable with it. No doubt, Jemima will support research in the clinch. But don't expect her to be out in front, and don't count on her until the last moment.

Jemima's difficulty reflects not only the general public's difficulty in addressing the issue itself but also reflects the attitude of many scientists and supporters of science, including university presidents, legislators, and corporate leaders, in dealing with the public debate and its political expressions. They just don't want to think

*Previously published in the Journal of the National Cancer In- stitute ~Volume 81:736-743), May 22, 1989.

i Antonia Fraser, Your Royal Hostage, (New York: Atheneum Press, 1988}, p 106.

2 Richard Behar, "Meet the Meatless," Forbes (March 20, 1989}, pp. 43-44.

3 The terms vivisection and antivivisection fell from common usage in the 1950s and 1960s, but crept back into the language in the late 1970s and have become staple items in the debate in the 1980s. Current activist literature is replete with these terms. IVebster's Third New International Dictionary {1986) defines vivisection as "the cutting of or operation on a living animal usu. for physiological or pathological investigation; broadly, animal experimentation esp. if considered to cause distress to the subject." Antivivisection is in opposition to vivisection, and its objective is abolition of such research, not reform.

4 Anyone seriously interested in understanding the nature of the nineteenth century antivivisectionist movement ought to read Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, {Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975L To compare current rhetoric with the rhetoric of past activism, see the 1896 hearings on antivivisection held by the U.S. Senate Committee on the District of Columbia. Senate Report 1049, 54th Congress, 1st Session. May 26, 1896.

486

about it. They may find reassurance in concluding, as did a recent journalist, that the animal rights controversy is basically just "a feeding frenzy by an issue-starved, headline-huntlng media," fomented by fewer than 100 troublemakers, and on the way to burning itself out2 But such reassurance is likely to be short-lived.

There is a growing consensus among close observers of the current activism against the use of animals in research that this activism could well lead to increasingly adverse impacts on biomedical research as we know it--sooner and more dramatically than is commonly recognized. Despite claims to the contrary from some activists, the dominant forces driving today's activism are profoundly antivivisectionisP. Genuine moderates concerned with animal welfare, with whom concerned biomedical representatives would like to collaborate, have not been much in evidence. There is no sign of the activism abating, much evidence that damage has been done, and considerable worry that more is on the way. The nature and dynamics of the current controversy present special problems for the biomedical community that will require concerted effort to overcome.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

One of the most striking features of the current controversy is its continuity with the past. This is not a new issue, nor is today's basic argumentation or rhetoric itself new. For whatever reason--our reliance on television for basic information, our near-obsessive focus on the present, our fascination with newness, or our mistaking new faces for new ideas--there has been much ballyhoo in the press about a "new" animal rights move- ment. But as much as current activists like to think that they are the vanguard of a new movement, suffused with new ethical insights, that they are inheritors of a noble reform tradition akin to the abolition of slavery and child labor, and that animal rights is a natural successor to civil rights and women's rights, the truth is that the current debate is a rehash of a very old dispute, and some observers would trace the bloodlines of current activism back to Luddites, creationists, and others upset with science. Virtually every basic argument and theme heard today are repeated from nineteenth century and early twentieth century activism in England and the United States, and the resuscitated arguments from the past have no more validity today than they did when they were rejected in previous rounds of antivivisectionist activity. 4

THE ENDURI NO ANIMAL ISSUE 487

THE MORAL AND UTILITARIAN ANTIVIVISECTIONIST ARGUMENTS AND THE ARGUMENT FOR LIMITATIONS

Antivivisectionism has always rested on two fundamen- tally distinct arguments: (a} a moral argument that concludes that research with animals is morally wrong and ought not to be done no matter how beneficial its results, and (b) a utilitarian argument that animal experimentation ought not to be done because it is bad science, its results worthless. These two arguments are casually intertwined in the current debate, though they do not logically fit well together. Adopting the moral argument makes the utilitarian argument irrelevant; conversely, using the utilitarian argument implies that vivisection could be accepted if its efficacy could be demonstrated, thus contravening the moral argument. (There is another line of argument that is not antivivisectionist--that is, not opposed to animal research in to to--but advocates limitations and more regulation; these arguments are discussed below.

Of the two antivivisectionist arguments, the vital force of the movement surely comes from the moral one. I t is responsible for the intensity oi the current movement; if maintained, it virtually rules out any genuine compromise of the kind that is normally worked out in social conflicts. Not surprisingly, the emotional force and absolute nature of morally based antivivisection are most often compared to the pro-life, anti-abortion movement. Like many other religious or moral positions, morally- based antivivisection is generally accorded a respectful hearing, though it does not command much agreement from the general public. The moral a rgumen t - - succinctly put in the now often quoted statement of Ingrid Newkirk of the People f o r the Ethical Treatment of Animals (P.E.T.A.) ("A rat is a pig is a boy is a dog."s)-- is most frequently glossed over or dropped in television interviews and debates. The f i rs t -blush attractiveness of the moral equivalence of life quickly fades as its implications become clear. Few people can be persuaded that the death of a mouse should be considered the same as the death of a child or that people who eat beef are morally equivalent to murderers or that the use of animals in research to conquer disease is an evil thing. Left solely with the moral argument, antivivisection does not seriously threaten research. Polls show overwhelming support for research when the question is simply whether it is proper to use animals in research in order to serve human needs.'

s Quoted in Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live and Who Will Die," ff/ashingtonian (August 1986L p. 114.

See, for example, the poll conducted by NFO Research, Inc. This is an extensive survey of public attitudes toward research with animals. It may be purchased from the Foundation for Biomedical Research, 818 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 303, Washington, D.C. 20006. Poll data are not a measure of the merits of an argument, but they are a gauge of its political acceptability.

' Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in Medical Research (foreward by Julie Christie} (Wellingborough, England: Thorson's Publishing Group Ltd., 1988.

* Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in Medical Research, p. 139.

Yet if the fundamental underpinnings of antivivisec- tion are mora l - -and I believe they are-- the overwhelming argumentation in the current debate is utilitarian. Unlike the moral argument, which most people reject when they think about it sufficiently, the utilitarian argument is perfectly acceptable if it is accurate. The utilitarian argument is fundamentally that research with animals is bad science, and who among us is in favor of bad science?

For all the energy and lavish attention activists devote to working against research with animals, the core utilitarian arguments are few. Virtually the entire attack rests on the following points: {a} One cannot extrapolate from animal models to humans, and therefore research with animals cannot help solve human problems; {b} Research with animals is unnecessary because alternative methods are available which can do the job, and scientists are too wedded to old methods with animals to use these new methods; (c) Animal research has not led to any significant improvement in human health and, indeed has resulted indirectly in increased bad health because resources devoted to it have been taken away from patient care and from promising non-animal methods of research; and {d) Not only has animal research not led to improvements in health, but also it has positively harmed human health by permitting harmful drugs into the market (e.g., thalidomide).

There is a third line of argument in today's debate that is not antivivisectionist. This argument addressed the conditions under which research is conducted. Three items are asserted here: In) There is too much unnecessary research; {b} There is too much duplicative research; and {c) Much, if not most, research is conducted in a cruel and inhumane manner within a system that is grossly inadequate to ensure proper care and treatment of animals. These three points appear to be universally accepted and used by all animal activists, including antivivisectionists. They are particularly used by those who claim to be moderates and to support research--that is, as long as the research is necessary and properly conducted.

Not all spokespersons use all arguments, but there is little of significance in the current debate that does not fall into the categories above.

The most complete statement of the ut i l i tar ian argument appeared in a book published in England last year by Dr. Robert Sharpe, scientific director of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. 7 "The con- clusion is inevitable," Sharpe writes, "When it comes to real advances in health, animal experiments are irrelevant. To make matters worse, vivisection has constantly proved misleading, diverting attention, and resources from more reliable sources of information, much of which focuses on preventing disease rather than treating its symptoms. TM This book is expected to be widely used and quoted by activists on both sides of the Atlantic. Actress Julie Christie writes in the introduction, "Finally, with the arrival of Dr. Sharpe's wonderful book, I am armed with evidence to argue what I have always suspected-- that it is not to animal experiments we owe the major medical discoveries that have so profoundly changed our lives. With detailed documentary and historical

488 HORTON

ev idence . . , the author carefully unravels the screen of myth and propaganda built around the vivisection establish- m e n t . . . He not only exposes the falsehood of this . . . . but he makes abundantly clear how dangerous animal tests can be to h u m a n s . . . Mercifully, a book has been written from a scientific, rational point of view that might possibly serve to alleviate the mass of terrible and pointless suffering endured daily by laboratory animals. '9

Ms. Christie's effusions to the contrary, the utilitarian argument is surprisingly shallow and lacking in serious contentions. Like creationism, the utilitarian argument is so overwhelmingly rejected by scientists that one cannot mount a serious discussion of its merits. Evidence of stunning improvements in health that have depended heavily on research with animals abounds, from the discovery of insulin to organ transplantation to the eradication of polio. No active researcher even remotely resembles the animal activists' straw man who believes in the universal and immediate extrapolation of animal data to humans; in the assessment of data, efforts are made to determine precisely those physiological differences that activists claim invalidate the research. Not only are the so-called alternative research methods (many think that adjuncts is a more accurate term} actively used, but also those methods that exist have been developed by scientists in the dynamic process of trying to find better ways to answer questions--often by the same persons who are accused of failure to use non-animal models.

The arguments on the conditions of research-- unnecessary research, duplicative research, and inade- quate care and t reatment--are asserted fervently again and again. Yet it is hard to square the claim of too much unnecesa.ry research and duplicative research with the harsh reality of limited funding, tough competition for awards, merit-based allocations, and the intense pressure from the public and most affected populations for more research. And for all the earnest, deeply felt assertions of inhumane and excessive research, there is no evidence of any such systemic conditions. There are, to be sure, a few well-publicized examples of inadequate treatment; any enterprise as extensive as the conduct of biomedical science will inevitably have some improprieties. But given the sweeping charges made by activists, it is truly surprising that more substantive evidence has not been provided. The animal activists' record for accuracy with respect to gross charges of wrongdoing is pathetically poor.

Despite scientists' exasperated dismissal of the utilitar- ian argument and the unsupported nature of the argument on conditions, these arguments have a tenacious hold in the animal-rights movement; they are put forward with such fervor and frequency that some of the themes are becoming embedded in popular lore. For example, it is common to find respondents to man-in-the-street inter- views asserting that there is "too much animal research."

9 Julie Christie, introduction to The Cruel Deception: The Use of AnimaL~ in Medical Research, pp 11-12.

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION

Not only does the animal research controversy have deep historical roots, but also it is widespread. Activism against research with animals continues to be lively in Europe. Major new legislation governing research with animals has been enacted in this decade in Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Switzerland. The Netherlands is expected to follow suit in the near future. Yet the passage of legislation has not dampened activism, and European observers of activism share the same apprehensions and concerns as close observers of those matters do in the United States.

In Britain, there is a curious and simultaneous acceleration of violence and emphasis on a concerted, new, nonviolent campaign to oppose animal research. Little was heard from the Animal Liberation Front in 1987 and through the first half of 1988; that quiet was generally attributed to the trial and imprisonment of violent activists in early 1987. But between last August and this February, three major incidents attributed to animal activists have again pushed concerns about violence to the fore--a lethal bomb found underneath a car, the destruction of a deparment store by fire, and the bombing and destruction of a section of a building at Bristol University. The recent violence has come as somewhat of a surprise, since the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection has launched and is well into a slick public relations campaign to change the image of antivivisection- ists. Entitled "Health with Humani ty" and led in part by Robert Sharpe, this campaign is a long-range, profession- ally developed program, based on the antivivisectionist utilitarian argument. Sharpe's book, The Cruel Decep- tion, a thirty-minute general videotape, and a program aimed at schools all press the same theme of improving health through healthy practices and eliminating vivisec- tion.

In Germany, implementation of the new animal protection law of 1987 is now underway, and there is continued consideration of addit ional legislation to address allegations of duplicative research. The affected industries are prepared to resist such addi t ional legislation as being unnecessary, cumbersome, and expensive. Politically, animal-rights activists are hoping to gain support through the Green and Social Democratic parties. Pharmaceutical interests in Germany take the issue very seriously, and have, among other things, distributed educational materials on animal research to secondary school students.

In Switzerland, where the public overwhelmingly defeated an initiative in 1985 that would have outlawed all research with animals in that country, renewed activism, this time by the respected Swiss Society for the Protection of Animals, has resulted in another initiative that will be voted on by Swiss citizens sometime in the next two years. This new initiative begins with a blanket prohibition of research with animals, but then permits much research to continue under specific categories of exemption. Of particular concern is a provision that could severely restrict basic research by requiring a high standard of advance knowledge about the utility of the

TIlE ENDURING ANIMAL ISSU E 489

research and its benefits. Heavy campaigning on the initiative has yet to begin, but research interests are understandably concerned.

Fundamental research could also be subject t o special restrictions in Britain, where a new animal research law contains language requiring that all research be justified on the basis of potential benefits. Applied research by its very nature has specific goals and assessable benefits, but the potential benefits of fundamental research may often be less determinable even if of immense importance. Therefore, the new law has the potential to seriously impede some areas of scientific investigation. Similar language requiring that potential benefits must be considered before fundamental research can be conduct- ed has been proposed to the European Parliament, but it has not been passed, nor is such passage regarded likely in the foreseeable future.

While attempts to require assurance of potential benefits may sound reasonable to laypersons at first hearing, those familiar with the process of scientific discovery know that fundamental research--which is independent of any immediate, practical applicat ion--is the necessary precursor for applied research years or even generations in the future. Increases in the store of knowledge through fundamental research make possible practical applications; without basic research now, in areas with no contemporary utility, we may cripple science in the future.

VIOLENCE BY ANIMAL ACTIVIST~: PUTTINt IT IN PERSPECTIVE

Violence has become a standard, expected feature of the current movement against the use of animals in research. In the past seven years, there have been 29 reported break-ins in research laboratories in the United States, resulting in damage estimated at $7 million.l~ Animals have been released, research equipment destroyed, buildings burned, research disrupted or terminated, and records stolen, damaged, or destroyed.

No human deaths have occurred yet, but weird, threatening letters, including death threats, to re- searchers or laboratory animal veterinarians are not uncommon. One documented case of attempted murder is now under prosecution in Connecticut. Many animal- rights supporters deplore the violence; some defend and condone it. No one expects it to go away quickly, and there have been public statements on television by animal- rights supporters t ha t violence to persons is to be expected in the future. '1

'~ Source: Foundation for Biomedical Research. The $7 million includes only the physical damage; the cost o! research disrupted or abandoned and the loss of data and records cannot be calculated and may be as important a consequence as the physical damage.

~ KRON TV, San Francisco, "News Center 4 at 6:00," February 6, 1989.

Just as the opposition to research finds political expression throughout the country and has not been limited to one section, so too has violence been geographically dispersed. Break-ins and destruction have occurred in California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Arizona, New York, and North Carol ina-- to name just a few states. No research facility ought to be considered without risk, and indeed directors of laboratory animal programs throughout the country are keenly aware of the problem. No conference or meeting of persons responsi- ble for research animal facilities occurs without conversa- tion quickly turning to security and safety issues.

Violence and the threat of violence have resulted in �9 substantial, increased resources being devoted to securi- ty. In most financially strapped research institutions, that means diversion of resources from some other projects or undertakings. Staff morale in research animal laborator- ies has been affected, and where violence has struck or has been threatened, staff have often been under intense stress. As a group, current directors of laboratory animal facilities work under an unusually stressful situation. Researchers working in certain areas that have been targeted by animal activists also report considerable stress and worry about the future of such research, including the possible deterrent effect violence and protest will have on the willingness of future young scientists to enter certain fields.

However unpleasant the phenomenon of violence, we must recognize that at least some low level of sporadic violence will be a part of the action on this issue for the foreseeable future and that there are rather limited things one can do about it. We must also recognize that, whether intentional or unintentional, some tragic violence result- ing in serious injury or death to humans may well occur. Violence is and ought to be treated as a criminal matter. Cooperation with law enforcement and prosecution of perpetrators of violence should be aggressively pursued. Increased security measures will simply have to be included in the cost of doing business. Railing against the violence and wishing it were not so will have little effect. Improved education and public relations about the uses of animals in research may help to isolate and discourage some perpetrators, but they are unlikely to eradicate the problem.

Public opinion and political leaders abhor violence, and violence may therefore be seen as a millstone around the necks of nonviolent activists. But this utter disdain for violent radicals may cause nonviolent radicals to appear more moderate than they actually are and may increase pressures to accommodate immoderate but nonviolent activists as a way of doing something that might assuage the violence. After a violent incident has occurred, it is common to hear self-proclaimed moderates say, "Well, one has to expect such things as long as the establishment refuses to address the real p roblems"~rea l problems, of course, being the opinion of the speaker.

Without minimizing the seriousness of the problems of violence and illegal conduct, their potential for substan- tial injury to our national research program is miniscule compared to the adverse consequences to research that

490 HORTON

can occur from political decisions arrived at in a perfectly legal manner.

THE GREATEST POTENTIAL DANGER: POLITICS

The evident national pride displayed in our Federal Government's strong support for biomedical research, especially since World War I I , ought not to obscure the fact that biomedical research, particularly fundamental research, is for the most part simply a discretionary program funded by the federal government and conduc- ted under rules and conditions established by that government. Some aspects of such research are also subject to state and local government regulation, and some indirect but necessary ancillary services are dependent on local government approval--construction of research facilities, for example.

Research can be adversely affected by any number of government actions. Of course, research with animals can be abruptly terminated by direct prohibition, and one modern state with a history of general support for science did adopt antivivisection as state policy. ~2 But research can also be severely affected by other means: reductions in funding, unnecessary regulatory encumbrances, restrictions on the supply of animals, adding to the cost of essential an- cillaries, and so forth.

No one seriously believes that any branch of government in the United States would in the foreseeable future contemplate out-and-out antivivisectionist legisla- tion. That is not a reasonable prospect. But there are many people who are deeply concerned that indirect, piecemeal restrictions and encumbrances can be added by government that will have the effect of curtailing or

12 Nazi Germany embraced antivivisection, a point overlooked by those who insensitively and incorrectly compare research with animals to the holocaust. Here is an excerpt from a Nazi party press release in 1933: " . . . among all civilized states, Germany is the first country to end the shame of vivisection. The New Germany not only frees people from the curse of materialism, egotism and cultural bolshevism, but also gives rights to the tortured, tormented and, up until now, completely unprotected animals. The animal friends and opponents of vivisection in all countries will hail this act of the National Socialist government of the New Germany with a joy! �9 . . what Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and Prime Minister G~ring did and will do for the protection of animals, stands as a guideline to the leaders of all civilized states." Walter Wuttke-Groneberg, Medizin im Nationalsozialismus ein Arbeitsbuch (TUbingen: Schwabisehe Verlagsgesellsehaft, 1982), p. 321. See also, Herman Gi~ring, "A Broadcast Over the German Radio Network Describing the Fight Against Vivisection and Measures Taken to Prohibit It, 28 August 1933," in The Political Testament o/Herman G~ring, translated by H. W. Blood-Ryan ~London: John Long 1939), pp. 70-75.

L, Greg Parker, "Group Fights Research Center," Red & Black (University of Georgia), Athens, Georgia, October 28, 1988, p. 1.

14 Joe Battenfeld, "Animal Research Center Plan Draws Fire," Boston Herald (February 26, 1989).

~SPeople for the Ethical Treatment o/ Animals v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Civil No. C880818AJZ, filed U.S. District Court, San Francisco, March 4, 1988, p. 3.

'~ Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 49, Wednesday, March 15, 1989, p. 10831.

eliminating some important research. Some troubling matters have already occurred.

The San Francisco Bay Area has three internationally recognized research institutions--the University of Cali- fornia at San Francisco, the University of California at Berkeley, and Stanford Univers i ty-- that have been and continue to be in the forefront of biomedical research. Each of these institutions has been involved in disputes with animal activists over the construction of new facilities. At Stanford University, for example, the Palo Alto Humane Society was instrumental in delaying local government approval of a new research animal facility and a new biology building. These needed projects were delayed for over a year through the manipulation of the state's basic environmental protection law and their costs consequently increased by over $3,000,000. Berkeley has experienced an even longer delay in obtaining approval and funding for a new animal facility which has been bitterly opposed by animal activists.

The manipulation of environmental laws by animal activists in California has been so successful that it has been exported to other parts of the country. In Georgia, with seed money from P .E .T .A. , a new group, the League for Environmental and Animal Protection, has been established and is opposing a new research facility at the University of Georgia. ~3 In Boston, a proposal for a new $120 million Science Center is now being opposed on environmental grounds by the P .E.T.A. '4

Taking an imaginative long shot, P .E.T.A. sued in March 1988 not to oppose a single construction project but to stop all federally funded research by invoking national environmental laws. The suit claimed that the Federal Government, in funding biomedical research at 17 San Francisco Bay Area institutions, was guilty of causing adverse environmental impacts " . . . o n air quality, traffic congestion, land use, noise, waste disposal, water availability, human health and socioeconomics including public services, public finance, housing and education [ in ] . . . ind iv idua l communities and cumulatively to the San Francisco Bay A r e a . . . , , i s Although the suit was dismissed in October of that year for lack of standing, there were ominous portents. The motions filed by both sides make fascinating, if somewhat disturbing, reading.

Recently published proposed regulations are the focus of intense scrutiny and concern now. On March 15, 1989, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) published in the Federal Register proposed regulations related to research with animals. These regulations take up 132 densely packed, triple-columned pages of text, and USDA's regulatory impact statement estimates that it will cost the affected in- stitutions $876 million in one-time capital costs and $207 million in annual operating costs to comply with the regnlationsJ s

These regulations are USDA's long-awaited implemen- tation of the Dole-Brown amendments, which were quietly slipped into the omnibus Farm Bill in December 1985. Two provisions account for the largest expense: (a) a requirement for exercise and socialization of dogs and (b) a requirement for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates.

THE ENDURING ANIMAL ISSUE 491

The legislation that required these new regulations was ardently sought by animal activists and was passed by the U.S. Congress without hearings in either house on the two provisions mentioned above. Congress passed these amendments in an effort to respond to pressure from animal activists; yet it is difficult to believe that members of Congress had any idea that these amendments would result in such costly regulations. Some animal research veterinarians are troubled because they fear that-- though the amendments were passed to accommodate animal activists and perhaps buy some peace on the issue--the new, extremely costly regulations will not reduce in any way the political pressure for additional legislation or executive restrictions and, significantly, will not afford any serious improvements in animal care.

The point is clear: Activism on animal issues is having an impact now at a variety of levels of government. The cost of conducting and supporting research with animals is increasing substantially. Activism is increasing, not diminishing. Very real burdens are being placed on research, and many of them in incremental and almost invisible ways, so that it is difficult to attract public or governmental attention to the cumulative effects.

PUBLIC PRESSURE AND POLITICS

Political action does not occur in a vacuum; it usually mirrors public opinion as expressed in political advoca- cy. All views are not equal in politics. Expressed views carry more weight than unexpressed views. Views expressed by organized groups that engage in real poli t ics-- that is, those who endorse candidates and contribute money--usually count more than views expressed by single individuals. Views of persons or groups known to vote and to encourage others to vote carry more weight than those of persons or groups with low or unknown voting records. Silent majorities get run over a lot.

There is nothing very mysterious about the American political process; it is open, and the important parts are visible for all to see. On most issues, the corny, straightforward civics texts are a lot closer to the truth about how the system works than are the clark suggestions by cynical political commentators. Dedicated advocates get attention, and tireless, dedicated advocates who stick with the process on a long-term basis stand a good chance of achieving something.

On the animal rsearch issue, the modest success animal activists have had so far and the potential they pose for political successes in the future can be easily explained: Animal activists have worked the system hard and consistently, with a fair degree of skill. The biomedical community has worked the s y s t e m sporadically and

,7 Richard Behar, "Meet the Meatless," Forbes (March 20, 1989), p. 44.

,8 Newsweek (December 26, 1988), p. 51. ,9 John McArdle quoted in Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live

and Who Will Die," IVashingtonian (August 1986), p. 116.

lightly, usually with success, but on this issue, virtually all the work of the biomedical community is defensive. (Operating in a strictly defensive mode will virtually ensure a net loss; after all, a hundred victories--or rather, staving off a hundred defeats--and one loss would be a net loss.)

Conventional wisdom may see the animal activists as the scrappy underdog grappling against the biomedical behemoth backed by massive resources. With respect to political action and media relations, however, the actual facts are quite different. Animal activist groups have vastly more resources devoted to political action and public relations on the animal research issue than does the biomedical community. P . E . T . A . - - j u s t one of hundreds of animal activist organizations--is reported to have 65 staff members, 17 and Newsweek estimates the combined budgets of animal protectionist organizations at some $50 million. TM Even reducing that amount substantially would still leave the animal activists with far more resources allocated to animal research issues than the biomedical community allocates. The Foundation for Biomedical Research and the National Association for Biomedical Research-- the only two national organiza- tions working solely on this issue--have combined budgets of approximately one million dollars and a combined staff of nine. Other biomedical organizations do have an interest in this issue and are involved, but generally on a low-priority basis. Visit virtually any congressional office, and you will be told that they rarely hear from the biomedical community but that mail from the animal activists is constant.

Despite the lopsided nature of the political pressure, most members of Congress would prefer to avoid the issue. Most are genuine supporters of biomedical research, and they would not want to do anything that might harm that research. But they must deal on an everyday basis with conflicts, and they know that there is generally some give in just about any position. When they can do something to accommodate persons actively concerned about animals and do so without apparently harming research, they will be inclined to do it. Furthermore, to the extent that there are improprieties-- bad research or cruelty, for example--Congress will be disposed to support corrective action.

The repeated, aggressive pushing of the utilitarian antivivisectionist argument, with its undercutting of science, is bound to increase skepticism about the worth of at least some research unless this argument is more forcefully rebutted than it has been to date. As the former national spokesman for the Humane Society of the United States said a few years ago, biomedical researchers " . . . a r e up on a pedestal, hut we're whacking away at the base of that pedestal, and it's going to fall."19

A loug-term match-up between committed activists, increasingly well organized and well funded, aggressively working the political process and working the news media, on the one hand, and timid, sporadically involved, lightly organized, defensive members of a regulated enterprise, on the other hand, will not be much of a contest. If that remains the case, look for the activists to move ahead.

492 HORTON

A SERIOUS PROBLEM: PERCEPTIONS OF MODERATION

The biomedical community faces a serious problem, a problem not of its creation but one ingrained in public discourse in America and in the premium our political system places on moderation. The controversy over animals and research is seen as a sharp two-sided issue, with staunch antagonists at both extremes. Yet the biomedical community does not represent an extreme position. I suppose that an extremist on the biomedical side would be someone who would defend willful mistreatment of animals or who would believe in the divine right of scientists to do whatever they wish to animals without any kind of regulation; but this is an extinct species--or at least if there are any surviving specimens, they have no standing in the scientific community and have not come above ground for a long while. The biomedical community, in fact, occupies a true centrist position. It advocates and accepts the basic tenets that have previously been urged by moderate spokespersons and which members of the public support: preference for the use of non-animal models whenever possible, minimization of pain and suffering, regulation and inspection by qualified officials, and participation by laypersons on animal care committees.

Although they do not represent extreme views, biomedical scientists are inevitably at one end of the spectrum of those who speak out on the issue. At the other end are those who truly do represent extreme, radical views--P.E.T.A, or any number of other active groups. Journalists covering a story too often will talk to representatives of P.E.T.A. or the Animal Liberation Front on the one hand and a distinguished biomedical scientist on the other. Our deeply ingrained values tell us to eschew extremes and search for the truth in the middle, to search for a moderate solution between the two extremes.

If a Nobel laureate is at one extreme and a member of the Animal Liberation Front is at the other extreme, who occupies the middle? Humane Societies and other so-called moderate critics--even though they may not be moderate, informed, or responsible. The inevitable pressure to find the truth in the middle, to reach an accommodation between the two extremes, therefore, results in the steady drift away from true moderation. To arrest this drift, the biomedical community must establish its credentials as true pillars of moderation.

The misperception of the biomedical community's moderation creates a political problem. That problem is compounded by the fact that many decidedly nonmoderate groups--such as humane societies that have undergone

2o Lise Giraud of the Palo Alto Humane Society, speaking on the NBC TodayShow, May 24, 1988.

2, United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Eduction, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.

22 Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1988.

radicalization--are incorrectly seen as moderates. Many self- proclaimed moderate animal-rights advocates are actually false moderates; their positions and rhetoric are often in- d is t inguishable from those of acknowledged an- t ivivisectionists. And even some ardent anti- vivisectionists--some P.E.T.A. spokespersons, for exam- pie--are skillful at masking their true objectives with a gloss of apparent moderation, which can be removed only by hard questioning: The Palo Alto Humane Society, throughout its long opposition to the construction of a new research facility at Stanford University, continued to claim that it was the soul of moderation, and got away with it for a while. But nearly a year after the controversy began, a spokesperson for the Humane Society explained on national television, "There is no way of using animals in biomedical research without abusing them. It causes them enough stress, anguish, physical torture and so forth so that it constitutes abuse.' ,20 Thus, the moderate position of opposition to abuse was converted into a de facto antivivisectionist position by simply defining all use of animals in biomedical research as abuse.

Strident advocates seldom achieve direct success, though they often set up conditions that enable moderates, or those thought to be moderates, to make change. Sorting out the perceptions of moderation on this subject ought, therefore, to be given a high priority by the biomedical community. It may take some skilled public- relations assistance and considerable effort, but future political success may rest on these perceptions.

CONCLUSION: WHAT THE BIOMEDICAL COMMUNITY CAN Do

The first reaction of decision-makers when faced with a troublesome, highly emotional conflict with contradic- tory opinions flying about is to convene a blue ribbon group to study the problem. The time it takes to do the study may serve as a cooling-off period, and the resulting report may provide factual clarification on disputed points. That is not a bad way to proceed, but it has now been done with this issue--twice--and both efforts, one by the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress 2' and one by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 22 have been complet- ed without making a dent in the controversy. The biomedical community has to move beyond the study option.

Some of the observations in sections above may make it appear as though animal activists are poised for inevitable successes that will do grievous harm to biomedical research. That would be a whopper of an incorrect conclusion. No doubt activists will make such efforts, but the outcome is by no means certain. The biomedical community can, if it chooses, swiftly take command, prevent misguided policies from being adopted in the future, and even reopen matters that have been decided for the moment (such as the ban in some states of the use in biomedical research on pound animals that are destined to be killed).

As was pointed out at the beginning of this commentary, this is an old issue. Scientists and

THE ENDURING ANIMAL ISSUE 493

supporters of science have fought it again and again, and with full success. There is virtually no instance in which an organized, energized, mobilized coalition supporting science has failed to win. This is true with respeet to direct ballot initiatives as well as with bills in legislatures.

I emphasize that the biomedical community can take command, but it will require a special effort. First, the problem has to be recognized for what it is: a tough little problem that will not go away on its own. Because, for committed antiviviseeitonists, this is above all a moral issue--the rationalizations about bad science and unnec- essary research notwi ths tanding--an antivivisectionist program will continue to be pushed by all available means at its proponents' disposable. Do not expect antivivisectionists to try to accomplish their objectives in a single stroke; most sophisticated activists are quite satisfied to take one step at a time while keeping their ultimate objective firmly in mind.

This issue must be put in perspective with other political concerns of the biomedical community. I am not at all making the point that this is the most important issue facing the community, but it is one of the issues of importance and should be given an appropr ia t e priori ty--which I believe has not been done to date. Fortunately, most of the political issues facing the community deal with resource-allocation questions and acquisition of resources. In the processes where those decisions are made, the competition is generally a civilized and respectful one between competing social goods. The animal controversy is one 'of the few political issues /acing the biomedical community that is driven by an active opposition, and not just any opposition but a righteous opposition that is not averse to using dirty tactics and misrepresentation. (Fetal and recombinant DNA research also have some righteous opponents, but their opposition is of a lesser magnitude.)

Developing successful strategy and tactics would be a relatively easy task- -not quite trivial, but not greatly

difficult--provided that one condition is met: The issue mus t be truly recognized by scientists as serious enough to warrant their personal invo lvement on a pr ior i ty basis. 23 If that condition is met, all else that is necessary will follow. The issue will be met on both the political and the public relations fronts, with lay supporters of science, including patients and beneficiaries of research, playing a critical role. But if the issue is treated as a more or less inconsequential irritant, as I believe it has generally been treated so far, and it is assumed that someone else will take care of it, then one should expect a continuation of trends of the past decade2 4

Some scientists believe that it would be inappropriate for scientists to be too visibly active on this issue. Does not self-interest impeach their objectivity and credibility? Should not others--perhaps the voluntary health associa- t i o n s - d o the job? But self-interest does not disqualify one from active leadership in a political issue; in polities, legitimate interests are understood and appreciated. Being seif-interested is one of the best reasons for involvement, and, of course, self-interest here coincides with a general interest in science and the continued supply of the fruits of science for the betterment of our planet and its inhabitants. Non-scientists can indeed play an extremely important role-- the critical role in essential lobbying--but not without the full support and active involvement of scientists themselves.

Historians and journalists in the next century will tell future generations how serious this controversy was and how it got played out; they will surely find the answers obvious and will be amused by our blind spots and ineptness. But we, not knowing what will happen, must find out the hard way: We have to decide in the rough-and-tumble world of public debate and politics just how society will respond to the current activism on animal issues. Of the many participants in the decisions to be made, no groups will play a more important role than scientists themselves.

23 The term "scientists" includes physicians and others trained in science, whether or not they are actively doing research.

24 The American Medical Association's recently announced intention to take an aggressive leadership role in supporting the importance of biomedical research with animals and in countering the animal-rights movement on this issue could make a dramatic difference in the nature of the public debate and political actions, but it is still too early to judge the impact and effectiveness of this just-iaunched AMA initiative.