Selected articles from Arkangel No.11
 Contents:
Missing The Point
by David Phillips
'You do not settle whether an experiment is
justified or not by merely showing it is of some use. The
distinction is not between useful and useless experiments.
but between barbarous and civilised behaviour. Vivisection
is a social evil. because if it advances human knowledge, it
does so at the expense of human character...' -George
Bernard Shaw.
The real question in the 'vivisection debate' is not why we
are opposed to animal experiments, but how we are going to put
an end to them. Some of the recent articles in Arkangel seem
to suggest that all we have to do is prove that vivisection is
medical fraud, and that will be an end to the matter. But here
it is they who are 'missing the point'. The point is that it
is actions, not words, which bring about any real change in
society. A quick look at the history of other struggles shows
that those in power cannot be persuaded to do anything which
is not in their own interest. Merely proving that vivisection
is not a valid science is not enough. After all, the
vivisectors already know this, or don't care, and the
politicians will only act if and when their positions are
threatened.
Only by building a large and active movement of opposition,
will we ever see an end to animal experiments. Therefore our
main aim should be to encourage others to become active
campaigners. Experience shows that it is almost always the
animal suffering which inspires people to become active, and
the reasons for this are obvious.
It may be possible to convince the public and politicians
that vivisection is a fraud and hazardous to health, but this
is hardly going to stir up a mass-movement. Vivisection would
just be another in a long list of health dangers, competing
with issues such as global warming, ozone depletion, food
contamination, nuclear power, acid rain.... the list goes on.
Moreover, telling people about health dangers hasn't exactly
achieved amazing results in other fields. Most people know
about the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and poor diet, yet these
remain the biggest causes of premature death in the western
world.
With the population so apathetic in the face of all these
known hazards, it seems a bit optimistic to expect people to
raise much of a fuss about the health dangers of vivisection,
however serious. It may take a long time for animal
experiments to be stopped on moral grounds or because they are
no longer profitable, but waiting for abolition as a health
issue will take much longer.
The recent articles from 'scientific' anti-vivisectionists
seem to rely entirely on one main argument to support their
view, which is that animal experiments have continued and
increased, and this means that the ethical arguments have
failed. But the medical fraud issue is just as old as the
moral argument, and has been used repeatedly over the years,
with the same results as the moral arguments. In the early
years of vivisection, public pressure forced the governments
of the day to set up two Royal Commissions, in 1875 &
1906, to hear arguments for and against animal experiments.
The anti- vivisectionists who gave evidence included some of
the most highly respected members of the medical profession,
who gave numerous examples of the ways in which the
experiments were not only useless, but misleading and
potentially dangerous. The reason that the Royal Commissions
failed to act was that they were packed with vivisectors and
their political friends, so that the outcome was a foregone
conclusion anyway. Nobody should imagine that the political
situation is any different almost a century later. In going
down this same dead end road it is the medical fraud
campaigners who should examine their tactics.
Animal Liberation and the Hard Option
By Annie Lib
It's good to see that Black Sheep (author of the article
'Animal rights and the Easy Option' in Arkangel l0) has
thought about strategies for the movement, and what will
achieve the best results for animals. However, I feel that
this article is written from one angle only, which Black Sheep
openly states: "...the most important lesson we can learn, it
seems to me, is a political one; work from within". Perhaps a
lot of people agree, and this is what I consider an animal
rights objective, where we are in the business of
conversion.
There are some people who are not working towards animal
rights, or are into conversion, because they believe we are
working from a huge disadvantage point already. The system we
live under is specifically designed to control people. As soon
as anything ever becomes a threat it is outlawed, or the
people involved oppressed still further; the unions,
particularly the NUM, or the new laws to stop hunt saboteurs,
for example. The ruling class, who have spent centuries
building up a system to profit and protect themselves, are not
going to allow the smallest threat rise against them. I can't
think of one useful piece of legislation that has helped
animals, for instance, badger baiters are not deterred!
On the other hand, Britain has some of the toughest
criminal legislation in Europe; its intelligence service is
also one of the most highly developed in the world; we have
one of the largest percentages of people in the population in
prison; and in Britain 95 % of the wealth and land in this
country is owned by 5 % of the people. The list goes on and on
to prove that we are far from living in a 'free' country,
where working from within is plausible. Black Sheep regularly
reflects on the comparative successes of the equal rights
movements, i.e of women's and ethnic minority's rights. Black
Sheep admits that they "still have a long way to go", but I
would say that the so-called achievements in these areas is
superficial, as is any work within the capitalist system.
Women and ethnics (?) may now have slightly better chances of
getting jobs, or they may even be able to be seen to attain
positions of relative authority, but since when has becoming
more of a part of the abusive society we live in, been a
success for a true liberation movement! I doubt if all the
7,000 people deported in 1992 or the victims of the 7.800
racial attacks in the UK in 1991 (both vast increases over the
past few years) will be willing to acknowledge these
"successes"?
The authorities are happy to see us believing we have
achieved great successes in terms of various rights and
liberation movements through conversion. The capitalist system
can adapt quite easily with consumer changes. In terms of
animal suffering, people often quote successes regarding
cosmetic testing, or the growth of vegetarianism. The
consumers were given the highly acclaimed vegetarian 'wonder'
food Quorn (produced by an ecologically destructive and
vivisection based company) which was tested on animals and
includes animal ingredients. Consumers were also fed Boots'
cruelty -free image, hiding the face of vivisection they
heavily indulge in. Looked at closely, the large amount of
vegetarians in this country (7% it is put at) often still eat
white meat (chicken, and other vegetables with wings) and
still many more eat fish. The vegan population is put at
200,000 - compared with at least 600 million animals killed
each year in the UK for food, it fades into relative
insignificance.
Anti-Vivisection; Time To Move On?
by Barry Maycock
The anti-vivisection debate (see Arkangels 9 & 10),
discussing the relative merits of scientific or ethical
arguments against vivisection, is an old favourite, a hardy
perennial - in fact it could go on forever! - and it provides
much entertainment, as well as a generous quantity of weeping,
wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Perhaps the Great Archangel in
the sky should blow the whistle, and then we could all go
home. However, at the risk of taking the game into extra time
(and boring everybody to death), I will add a few more
comments. Firstly, it is misleading to refer to
anti-vivisection as if it were one campaign, because, as David
Lane points out, this is not one campaign but several,
embracing issues as diverse as weapons testing, space
research, food testing, cosmetics, car safety testing, etc. It
is obvious that different arguments will apply in different
cases, and their tactical deployment will vary accordingly. In
this article I shall concentrate on the use of animals in
medical research. For this seems to be the contentious issue
at the heart of the controversy.
The second point to be made is that this debate is often
presented in terms of a choice between 'science' (hard-headed,
rational) on the one hand, and woolly old 'ethics' on the
other. However, this is not the case: science doesn't float
around in some ethically-neutral vacuum, it is embedded in the
values of society. Science justifies its eminent position by
the claim that it is based on certain principals (to do with
the improvement of human knowledge and the quality of human
life) that are themselves ethical. The concerns of the
'concerned' medical scientist, in particular, are rooted in
ethics. It is not 'ethics' which is in question, as in the
supposed choice between 'a baby or a dog' - it is the strength
of the ethical case for animal rights, the amount of ethical
consideration we should give to animals, when human health or
human life is at stake.
Scientific anti-vivisectionism need not condemn the case
for animal rights as a whole, merely find it less applicable,
or perhaps not strong enough, on this particular issue. But it
is easy to see how an attitude of scepticism about animal
rights can slide into one of contemptuous hostility, as David
Lane's quotation from SUPPRESS makes clear. According to this
viewpoint, 'animal rights people' (as dismissed by SUPPRESS)
are part of the problem, not the solution, and positively
detrimental to the cause of antivivisection. This whole
approach is human-centred; animals we put back in their proper
(inferior) position - the place from which animal rights
campaigners have for so long, and with such difficulty, tried
to rescue them. Indeed, much scientific anti-vivisectionism
seems to go further, and seeks to detach itself from animal
rights altogether, so that in theory there could be a
meat-eating anti-vivisectionist who is solely concerned with
human health, or correct scientific methodology. It is strange
indeed that animal rights campaigners should find themselves
on the same platform as the people who seem to despise them.
It isn't hard to see how scientific anti-vivisectionism can be
a divisive and disruptive force within the animal rights
movement.
This attempt to appeal primarily to human self-interest,
and to down grade the question of animal suffering, is a
perverse one to make for a movement which must surely seek to
do the opposite. In fact it seems to betray a remarkable lack
of confidence in the case for animal rights. After all,
ethical arguments are central to our other campaigns, because
the philosophy of this movement is based on compassion (and
the belief that in certain crucial instances human self
interest can be set aside) and this is the source of its
strength. In this respect it is closely linked to the
philosophy of the Green Movement, with its belief that the
planet and ecosystem have an 'intrinsic value' irrespective of
human self-interest, use and exploitation. Surely it must be
confusing for people to attend meetings organised by animal
rights campaigners, filled by animal rights supporters who
distribute leaflets and posters depicting animal suffering,
only to be told by the speaker that this is a 'human health'
issue. I suspect that they know, in their heart of hearts that
it is not, but they go along with the scientific argument in
the belief that it is a strong one. But if ethical arguments
are good enough in our other campaigns, then why is
antivivisection an exception'?
The reason is obvious; in our society at the present
moment, the idea that animals should not be made to suffer
unnecessarily is now widely accepted. People do not, on the
whole, regard animals simply as property, to be treated as the
owner thinks fit. And by an extension of this principal, most
of our campaigns could actually be included within the current
moral framework, without any need to go outside this framework
by introducing difficult ideas about 'rights', or even obscure
philosophies such as 'deep ecology'. The argument (concerning
'unnecessary suffering') is a strong one, and easily
understood, and could even be used against factory farming,
the dairy industry, etc, on the grounds that an affluent
society such as ours could find alternative sources of food
without recourse to animals. Of course there will always be
disagreements about the meaning of that key word
'unnecessary', Society is hypocritical and inconsistent, and
principles that are accepted in theory may never be applied in
practice. But it is a strong ethical case, to weigh animal
suffering against human pleasure and profit. The exception is
vivisection, where animal suffering is being weighed against
human suffering, now and in the future. This is surely the
reason for the attempt to bypass difficult ethical problems
altogether and to use the 'scientific' argument instead.
So how strong is the scientific case? The strength of its
main argument seems to lie in its simplicity, that vivisection
is a wrong methodology, that animals and human beings are
manifestly different, that the results of research on the one
cannot be applied to the other, and this is therefore
scientific fraud, maintained by deception, in the cause of
greed and self-interest. In other words, it is self-evidently
unscientific to use animals in this way, and any scientist of
any integrity would have to accept this. So how could a
vivisector, therefore, respond to this argument'? The answer
is; quite easily. The concerned, 'enlightened' scientist could
argue like this: "Yes, I agree that the results of animal
testing should not be applied to human beings on any kind of
crude, simplistic way, and the results should be treated with
caution, yes, I too deplore the bad drugs manufactured and
promoted by bad drugs companies. But in many cases scientific
research must necessarily be inexact, and animals can yield us
useful information; if society allows the use of animals for
food, clothing, and indeed for all sorts of trivial reasons,
then it seems perverse not to allow the use of animals as
necessary material in scientific research that may prevent
human (and indeed animal) suffering, and may save human (and
indeed animal) lives. And, by the way, aren't you wearing
leather shoes'?" What begins as a scientific issue leads us
back, inevitably, to the problem of animal rights.
The scientific argument, according to its own philosophy,
needs to be tested scientifically, by examining the results of
vivisection - its effects. We could argue that vivisection has
done more harm than good, but it is not clear how we would
produce the evidence for this assertion. In any event, the
vivisector can reply, if this is the case, then more animal
testing (not less) is needed, to reduce the harmful effects.
This is the vivisector's argument about Thalidomide, that more
animal testing (not less) would have revealed the deficiencies
of the drug. So we might then have to adopt a more
uncompromising position, and state that no benefits have ever
been conferred on human beings as a result of animal
experimentation. This argument permits of no exception, and
for this reason usually provokes incredulity; in the end it
has to be accepted (unscientifically) on trust, since it is
surely impossible to 'prove' one way or the other.
Unfortunately, the vivisection lobby has an easy response to
this; it can simply produce a small child whose life has been
'saved' by animal experimentation. Or someone could say: "Yes,
I took the drug, it worked as it was supposed to do, the pain
has gone, the proof of the pudding is in the eating!" I
suppose we could say that the person hasn't really benefited
(pain is good for the soul!), that, terrible side effects are
ticking away in the body. We could discuss society's attitude
to disease and its treatment, and the importance of social
factors in creating ill-health. We could argue that the
experiments were unnecessary (and therefore' alternatives' are
unnecessary) because we need a different, 'holistic' approach
to the care of the human body and the human soul. This is a
technique known as 'moving the goalposts', where the argument
continually shifts its ground. But it is already trying to
prove too much, and is collapsing under its own weight.
In the end we cannot rely simply on an assertion about
'wrong methodology', because the methodology has to be proved
wrong by its bad effects. The effects have always got to be
bad because one good effect, so intended, might indicate that
there is something right with the methodology . So we have to
be prepared to argue about every case, which is surely
impossible. And this focus on ends rather than means runs
counter to another argument within the anti-vivisection case,
that the ends do not justify the means. Imagine the kind of
outcry there would be if someone in power proposed that old
people, or the unemployed, should suffer the kinds of
scientific experiments inflicted on animals, on the grounds
that the human race would benefit immeasurably from them. The
objection to this would be, that the issue of benefits does
not apply; the idea is wrong on principle, because human
beings are considered to have certain rights, not just in this
society, but universally applicable. Animals are not
considered to have such rights, and that is why they are used.
It has nothing to do with science; they are used more or less
as lifeless matter is used, because they are considered to
have no value.
Whatever the merits of the scientific case, it has often
been said that this is simply a matter of tactics, that all
sorts of arguments are worth using, as long as they have a
chance of success. There is something to be said for this
pragmatic approach, but campaigners who use the scientific
arguments need to be very sure of their ground in other words,
of their science. The spectacle of a tongue tied campaigner,
struggling for words when confronting a self-assured
white-coated 'expert' is not usually a happy one. And one
problem with the scientific case is that it confronts
scientists on their own ground, where they feel most secure.
They are much less comfortable when trying to answer awkward
ethical questions. Another problem too, is that it elevates
the scientist, the doctor, the expert, at a time when many
theorists, in the Green Movement and elsewhere, have
questioned the claim of the scientist to be the self-appointed
arbiter of human, animal, and planetary destiny. These two
tendencies, to elevate scientists and to cut them down to
size, pull in opposite directions.
Nor do I think much of the 'mud-slinging' school of
argumentation which seems to believe that if enough arguments
are slung at a target, something at least will stick. But a
dozen weak arguments are no substitute for a strong one. I
have often come across leaflets crammed with diverse (and
often contradictory) arguments because the writer is obviously
unsure of the strength of his own case.
And this is why scientific anti-vivisectionism is
important, because it emphasises a fatal flaw in the animal
rights movement - the weakness of the ethical case for animal
rights. But the point is, not to discard it, but to strengthen
it, to establish the theoretical basis for animal rights on a
much firmer foundation. This is one of our most important
tasks, and it only seems to be attempted by moral
philosophers, rarely by activists and campaigners, the people
who actually write the leaflets and argue with the public on
the streets.
Those who object to ethics claim that the whole subject is
woolly, vague, messy, unsatisfactory. Of course it is, but
that is true of all ethical questions, including the ethical
basis of scientific research. There is no easy escape from
ethics into science. Ethical theories of human rights are
equally vague, woolly, messy, unsatisfactory, but they still
form part of the conceptual framework within which governments
make decisions, and people live their lives. They have become
established, and cannot be wished away by clever people
demonstrating all the flaws and weaknesses.
It has also been argued that the ethical case against
vivisection has 'got nowhere' in the past century or so, in
fact vivisection has grown because of the weakness of our
arguments! This is absurd; vivisection has grown because
consumption has grown (with the growth of population,
industrialisation, capitalism) including the consumption of
health care. To blame our weak arguments for this growth is as
absurd as to blame the same arguments for the growth of
factory farming over the last half-century. Factory farming
has grown for the same reasons as vivisection, because
consumption has grown. Our arguments (and our campaigns),
strong or weak, have nothing to do with it. If our cause
hasn't succeeded, it is because of the strength of the forces
ranged against us, the powerful vested interests, the might of
governments and the transnational corporations that control
them. Faced by our failure to make dramatic progress, it is an
easy option to seek scapegoats in our own movement, to blame
our poor arguments, or 'corrupt' societies. But we know who
our enemies are, and they are not our fellow campaigners.
To me this is what the debate is really all about, along
with the other controversies that storm through the pages of
Arkangel, the search for scapegoats in which everyone blames
everyone else for our supposed lack of progress. If the
ethical arguments have 'got nowhere' then we should be honest
enough to admit that the scientific case is not the 'knockout
blow' that it is claimed to be. As year follows year, and
vivisection is still with us, then there may soon come a time
when we can argue that scientific anti -vivisectionism is
'getting nowhere', because it is struggling against the same
powerful forces that have always impeded us. In such
circumstances it is easy to turn to 'the enemy within'
corruption within our own ranks, and scapegoat anyone we don't
like. But arguments about corrupt anti-vivisection societies,
and about the power and corruption of the drugs companies,
which take up an enormous amount of space in these debates,
are not directly relevant to this issue at all. It is
important to discuss these matters, but they have nothing to
do with the principle of vivisection, which was established
long before the drugs companies (and the animal rights groups)
came into being. Vivisection doesn't have to be about drugs,
or even the treatment of ill-health, it is justified as being
part of the acquisition of knowledge, in the way that the
dissection of animals is introduced to school children.
Personally I am not at all pessimistic about vivisection.
Far from 'getting nowhere', the ethical case has already been
conceded - by vivisectors themselves. In a recent issue of one
local paper, a supporter of vivisection dismisses the
scientific argument as 'nonsense', but is defensive about the
ethical aspects, defending only the 'limited use' of animals,
their 'small but vital contribution', and supporting the
development of alternatives which will make animal testing
unnecessary. If vivisectors themselves can concede this much,
then they haven't much of a case left. Nor will the drugs
companies collapse if vivisection is removed; they will
probably turn 'Green' overnight, and continue to sell their
useless and harmful products.
I actually believe that the arguments against vivisection
have been won, which is not to say that its abolition is
imminent. The case against fox hunting has long been won, in
my view, but fox hunting is still with us. I also believe,
controversially I suppose, that vivisection takes up too much
energy, space and time within the animal rights movement,
especially the acrimonious (or perhaps rather silly)
controversy. The ferocity and paranoia generated in this
debate seems totally absurd - out of all proportion. It has
been said that people are afraid to speak out through fear of
receiving a mountain of hate-mail, or a deluge of bile and
abuse. But my advice would be, that if people get too
hysterical over this, then it is best to back away, and gently
agree to differ.
It is surely time to move on - to the discussion of really
difficult issues, such as the abolition of
factory-farming.
|
