Peta: Animal Rights Essay
PETA: Animal Rights
Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in 1980, and since then has been working on getting the point across to the public that animals “are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” (PETA: Official Page). PETA also focuses on educating policymakers and the public about the abuse of animals and making it known that animals deserve the right to be treated with respect.
PETA deals with many animal rights issues, some including fair treatment to animals in movies and entertainment, such as Khartoum. PETA is a non-profit organization with a purpose of getting better treatment for animals. The organization has uncovered many illegal projects, which harm animals in doing so. In 1981, PETA uncovered the abuse of animals in laboratories and experiments, which launched the Silver Springs monkeys case. In this experiment, Dr. Edward Taub was cutting major nerves in the arms of monkeys, and teaching them how to use the paralyzed arm. While people argued that this experiment had no value to it, Taub did apply the technique to some human patients, and it ended up working. According to records, 25 percent of Taub’s patients regained the use of the paralyzed arm (The Silver Springs). But, as PETA unmasked the cruel treatment of the monkeys and got involved in the case, it resulted as being the first arrest and the conviction of an animal experimenter in the United States with charges of cruelty to animals. It also was the first confiscation of abused laboratory animals, the monkeys, and the first United States Supreme Court victory for animals in laboratories (PETA: Official Page). PETA made a huge difference.
PETA, though it does many things, has four main objectives. They focus on animal cruelty on factory farms, which are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and intensive livestock operations (ILOs). These farms are more worried about profits and high volumes of goods than they are about human health, safe food, the environment, fair treatment of animals, and the surrounding economy (Factory Farms). PETA also focuses on cruel treatment to animals in laboratories, in the fur trade, and in the entertainment industry (like Khartoum). They also work on projects helping birds, beavers, and abused...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
Better Treatment of Animals Will Help us to Remain Human1837 words - 7 pages Every day in countries around the world, animals are fighting for their lives. They are enslaved, beaten, and kept in chains to make them perform for humans' "entertainment"; they are mutilated and confined to tiny cages so that we can kill them and eat them; they are burned, blinded, poisoned, and cut up alive in the name of "science"; they are electrocuted, strangled, and skinned alive so that people can parade around in their coats; and worse....
The Use of Animals in Research808 words - 3 pages In March 1980, there emerged a group called PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This group, founded by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk, fights against the use of animals for research. PETA became a well known name between 1981 and 1990 when they went up against IBR, Institute for Behavioral Research. In the book Monkey Business, the story is told of the ten year battle between PETA and IBR. “Through it all, the Silver Spring...
Domestic Eco-Terrorism, PETA, ALF & ELF1134 words - 5 pages Domestic Eco-Terrorism, PETA, ALF & ELF With President Bush’s “War on Global Terrorism” making front page news reports and filling the news waves on the evening news, the American Public might not realize that there is in fact a war of sorts going on behind the scenes in their own country. This is the war on home-grown terrorist organizations. Moreover, it is the war to fight against the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and its...
Argument Essay - Animal Testing is necessary.1675 words - 7 pages Argument Essay - Animal Testing is necessaryIs it really necessary to take the lives of animals in the name of science and for the betterment of humanity? For animal rights activists, like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the answer is no. PETA pressures labs into halting experiments, because they believe that animals are not to be...
Animal Abuse Awareness2301 words - 9 pages Animal Abuse Awareness “Ignorance is bliss.” Often times we hear that saying but never truly stop to think of its validity. Think of all the things we as mankind are unaware of. Obviously, there are a number of issues out there that people do not want society to know about. But when it really comes down to it, there isn’t much out there that we wouldn’t be able to learn about, if we really wanted to. Specifically pertaining to...
PETA Campaign Analysis2332 words - 9 pages PETA, an animal rights organization, constantly receives national attention and a certain shock value using powerful and distinct images to expose their messages of animal suffering. Starting in 1980, many of their campaigns have attempted to use powerful visuals with the use of celebrities to address the issue of animal cruelty and to persuade people to convert to an animal friendly lifestyle. Their campaign, I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,...
Animal Abuse in the name of Science1018 words - 4 pages Millions of animals each year are used in product testing, medical and education experimentation. The animals are put through medical procedures and made to perform different acts all in the name of science. Although medical research has developed many treatments and cures to disease, the suffering and long term effects by animals during this experimentation is inhumane, cruel and often leads to the death of the animal. [IdeaConnection] ...
Animal testing1999 words - 8 pages Animal Rights: Legal or Inhumane?"They're Pinky and the BrainThey're Pinky and the BrainOne is a genius; the other's insaneThey're laboratory miceTheir genes have been splicedThey're Pinky, they're Pinky and the Brain, BrainBrain, Brain, Brain."This theme song to a popular cartoon is a mockery dealing with experiments carried out on animals. In the cartoon, one mouse is made very smart and wants to take over the world while the other is...
A Discusision on Animal Rights1325 words - 5 pages I IntroductionII Animal IntelligienceA. Ameslan1. Washoe2. LucyB. Yerkish1. Lana2. Trainer incidentIII Animal activists groupsA. PETA1. Formed when and by whom2. PurposeB. ALF1. Formed when and by whom2. PurposeC. PPF1. Formed when and by whom2. PurposeOutlineIV Pros and cons of animal rightsA. Positive...
Fallacy Paper1072 words - 4 pages Fallacies are committed in every state, in every city and in every neighborhood. No race or gender is impervious to committing a fallacy. So, what is a fallacy? Patrick J. Hurley defines a fallacy as, “A defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone.” These defects result in misconception in an argument. Many times they are accidental, other times they are committed on purpose. However, either way,...
A Discusision on Animal Rights1280 words - 5 pages I IntroductionII Animal IntelligienceA. Ameslan1. Washoe2. LucyB. Yerkish1. Lana2. Trainer incidentIII Animal activists groupsA. PETA1. Formed when and by whom2. PurposeB. ALF1. Formed when and by whom2. PurposeC. PPF1. Formed when and by whom2. PurposeOutlineIV Pros and cons of animal rightsA. Positive...
« New Polls Offer Positive Outlook On The Public's View of "Controversial" ScienceWhen The Words “Just” And “Before” Foreshadow Bad Things For Medical Research »
PETA Should Rethink Its Campaign Against Animal Research
By The Intersection | June 30, 2011 3:14 pm
This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., a research scientist and policy wonk, who encourages the scientific community to get engaged in the policy-making process
I know I’m getting into controversial territory with this post, but for the sake of the safety of my fellow scientists, I feel compelled to comment.
Animal-rights group PETA is kicking off a new campaign to generate opposition to animal research. The organization has created a series of billboards targeting researchers at the University of Washington. The signs will feature compelling images of animals accompanied by the statement, “If you call it “medical research,” you can get away with murder.”
Now, I understand PETA’s position on this issue. Really, I do. The practice of using animals for experimental research is a controversy with a long history. However, I believe PETA has gone too far with their campaign tactics. To those people at PETA, whom I consider to be members of the progressive family, I would like to say, this is a misleading and dangerous campaign. The implication of the tag line is that scientists are using animal research in order to justify the unspeakable crime of murder. To say, “If you call it medical research,” this campaign implies that researchers condone murderous behavior. By falsely implicating scientists in this way, PETA is providing justification for moral relativist reactions. This is no different than the message used by anti-abortionists to rationalize the murder of medical practitioners. I believe this is risky language to use in this context. By continuing this exercise, PETA is putting the lives of scientists at risk.
The organization should be well aware of groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front who are willing and capable of carrying out crimes that threaten the lives of scientists. This campaign might be misconstrued as support for those types of actions.
Now let’s talk about the issue. According to the ads, the desired outcome is to have scientists, “Switch to a better way.” This brings up a longstanding debate over alternatives to animal research. It is one that I will not argue using my own words. Instead, I will use the words of others who have said it much more eloquently than I ever could.
First, in regards to “finding another way,” according to the Dr. Hadwan Trust for Human Research, the UK’s leading non-animal medical research charity,
“There is a range of different methods that can be used to replace animal experiments. These include cell and tissue cultures, analytical technology, molecular research, post mortem studies, computer modeling, epidemiology (population studies), ethical clinical research with volunteer patients and healthy subjects, and the use of microbes such as bacteria.”
Although this may be true and has been implemented for a great deal of medical research, it does not solve one major problem for animal researchers. Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty makes the following point,
“There is no alternative to the use of animals for analyzing the complexity of immunity.”
Another Nobel Prize winning scientist, Dr. Harold Varmus, Director of the National Cancer Institute has stated,
“Now, more than ever, research with laboratory animals is required to bring the benefits’ of advances in molecular genetics, neuroscience, and other highly productive fields to clinical application through the study of intact organisms.”
As much as we would like for scientists to be able to end the practice of animal research, PETA and other animal rights activists must understand that to end this work would significantly impair advances in medical research. In many cases, there are no alternatives to animal research. This is especially true for HIV/AIDS research. According to Dr. C. Everett Koop, Former U.S. Surgeon General, “We would be in absolute, utter darkness about AIDS if we hadn’t done decades’ of basic research into animal retroviruses.” For these reasons, scientists and activists must continue to strive to find an agreeable solution to this ethical dilemma without resorting to threats.
At least one aspect of this dilemma involves the question of whether animals have rights. According to Tibor Macan, a Hungarian-American philosopher,
“Only those capable of deliberation and choice can have rights, since a right by definition designates an area in which someone has free jurisdiction. Unless you have the capacity to reason, how can anything be up to you to decide? The most fundamental objection to the notion that animals have rights is that only human beings have the requisite moral nature for ascribing to them basic rights. However closely humans and lower animals resemble each other, human beings alone possess the capacity for free choice and the responsibility to act ethically.”
You might be surprised to find that I disagree with Machan. I believe animals do have rights. In response to Machan’s position, I cite the words of Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacque Rousseau,
“in some measure of our nature, in consequence of the sensibility with which they are endowed, they [animals] ought to partake of natural right; so that mankind is subjected to a kind of obligation even toward the brutes. It appears, in fact, that if I am bound to do no injury to my fellow-creatures, this is less because they are rational than because they are sentient beings: and this quality, being common both to men and beasts, ought to entitle the latter at least to the privilege of not being wantonly ill-treated by the former.”
Here I find my justification for animal research. As you can see, while making the case for granting “rights” to animals, Rousseau uses the term “wantonly” which in my mind provides an opportunity for assessing actions that might be considered “ill-treatment.” I believe that scientific research can by no means be considered “wanton” or malicious.
Federally-funded scientists must go through a complex deliberative process in order to justify research involving animals. The research must be necessary to answer a specific scientific question and alternatives to animal research must be considered. A protocol must be submitted and approved by a highly-knowledgeable oversight committee and proper facilities must be guaranteed in order to humanely house the animals. Once the decision is made to use animals, researchers must conform to the laws, regulations and policies that govern the practice. These constraints are rigorous and thorough. The NIH Office of Animal Care and Use Regulations and Standards provides the documents, standards and links to resources about appropriate laboratory animal procedures. If a researcher is found to violate these regulations, I believe that individual should be stripped of their right to use animals for research and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
As someone who has been through the process of writing animal research protocols for everything from bacteria to mice, I can tell you that it is both grueling and expensive. By no means, do scientists “wantonly” choose to conduct animal research. Given the choice between animal research and a cheaper, less labor-intensive and less controversial process, I’m confident scientists would choose the latter. Therefore, animal research is morally consistent with ascribing rights to animals.
Based on the fact that I agree that animals deserve certain rights, you might wonder how I can justify my support for animal research. I rationalize animal research by considering a device that Chris Mooney often uses to explain human rationalization. It is the classic psychological tool known as the “trolley problem.” In this psychological test, you are given certain scenarios and asked what you would do. The scenarios usually involve an out-of-control trolley car hurtling down a track toward a group of five unsuspecting people. You are told that by activating a switch, you can save their lives. However, by flipping the switch, the trolley will hit one other person. What do you do?
I would flip the switch.
For me, the trolley car represents any number of tragic diseases, cancer, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, you name it. The five people in the scenario represent the American population. The one person who takes the hit symbolizes the animals used in animal research. It is an unpleasant choice, but one that must be made. In this case, flipping the switch has saved and will continue to save millions of peoples’ lives.
We can only hope that no one loses their life because of PETA’s campaign.
Follow Jamie Vernon on Twitter or read occasional posts at his personal blog, “American SciCo.”
CATEGORIZED UNDER: Bioethics