We need more epiphanies

Last weekend a colleague sent me a link to the following article:

Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher

It’s a heartening account of a vivisector who saw the light and acknowledged that what he was doing to sentient beings went beyond his moral boundaries. It restored a little bit of my faith in humanity.

Another colleague then sent me another story – a bit older (from 2004) but of the same theme.  Don’t Fall in Love With Your Monkey

Each of the articles made me wonder – could those who willingly inflict suffering on animals “in the name of medical progress” actually have an epiphany?

Like many others, I honestly struggle to understand how anyone can inflict fear, pain or any harm on another – regardless of whether that other is human or non-human. Humane Research Australia generally focuses on the scientific arguments that oppose animal use (ie HRA supports alternatives to animals in research in order to expedite real medical advancement), but even if it was of human benefit, is it right to use animals? 

No doubt we could gain valuable knowledge if we used a human child in medical experiments, yet no one would dream of doing such an atrocious act. Regrettably, it seems this moral boundary does not extend past our own species, allowing other sentient and some highly cognitive animals to be used (or abused) in any manner of research, so long as the researcher convinces their institutional Animal Ethics Committee that the use is justified as it might lead to an increase in knowledge.

“The physiologist is no ordinary man. He is a learned man, a man possessed and absorbed by a scientific idea. He does not hear the animals' cries of pain. He is blind to the blood that flows. He sees nothing but his idea, and organisms which conceal from him the secrets he is resolved to discover”. ~ Claude Bernard

So who actually does this ‘work’ today?  If we look to the researchers we find that they often have no physical contact with the animals involved in their research. Their work is often administrative and tied up with securing grants. This might suggest cognitive or emotional dissonance on their part. Then there are the PhD students who often simply do as they are told in order to obtain their doctorate. And there are the technicians – often caring people who mightn’t even agree with animal experiments but are there to “do what they can” in order to provide those animals with the best life possible – short though it may be.

I was disturbed some years ago when I attended a seminar/workshop for animal technicians and there was a discussion on how best to deal with the guilt of causing harm to animals. Some of the tactics used were to allocate the animals a number rather than a name to avoid attachment, keeping a “spare” animal in the lab which was not used in experiments but instead petted and shown affection, and paying more attention to their own animals at home – to make up for what they were doing to the lab animals. If indeed these people required a coping mechanism to appease their guilt wouldn’t that suggest that their sub conscious was simply telling them that what they were doing was wrong?

Similarly when I was at university, a colleague (who was also an animal technician) was telling a group of us that when her daughter’s friends visited she lied about what she did at work because they “wouldn’t understand”.  Perhaps they did – and it was she who didn’t.

At Humane Research Australia we often hear from people who feel uncomfortable – sometimes outright enraged - about what they are expected to do in an animal laboratory or what they have witnessed. I suppose they see us as an outlet. However when we suggest a meeting, request evidence or further information we consistently see a wall go up – a retreat from previous statements or not wanting to go “on record” and it’s always out of fear of possible repercussions, whether simple negativity from their colleagues or the threat of their studies or careers being quashed.

Some months ago I provided evidence at a senate hearing about the use of primates in research. Also presenting was Assoc. Prof. James Bourne, Chair of the Gippsland primate breeding facility and himself a researcher who uses primates in invasive neurological experiments. He proudly proclaimed “I am about making cures to humanity. I want to know that, in my career, I have done something for the benefit and welfare of humans.” A noble endeavour perhaps, but I question humanity when it requires the inhumane treatment of others.

I can only hope that Bourne and others in his field will some day have an epiphany like those in the articles linked above and come to the realisation that just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Our morals should extend to all those that may suffer. Only then will humanity truly be worthy of his cures.

For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust