INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper' left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6"x9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Accessing the World's Information since 1938

300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106*1346 USA

8804008

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL RESEARCH

Ali, Cairo Fatima, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1987

® 1987

Ali, Cairo Fatima All rights reserved

UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or _____pages

2. Colored illustrations, paper or ______print

3. Photographs with dark background_____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy j / *

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides______of page 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several oaoes^ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost______in spine

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct______print

11. Page(s)______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered■______. Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages______

1 S. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received

16. Other______

University Microfilms International

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL RESEARCH

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of■the Requirement for

the Degree Doctor ot Philosophy in the Graduate

School of the Ohio State University

By

Cairo F. Ali, B.A., M.A.

* w * * *

The Ohio State University

19B7

Dissertation Committee; Approved by

U.K. Meyer

J*C. Bresnahan

R. Roth Advisor L. Schmidt Department of Psychology Copyright by Cairo F. Ali 1987 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1 express sincere appreciation to Dr. Donald R. Meyer for his guidance and insight throughout the research. Special thanks go Co Dr.

Patricia M. Meyer who was an inspiration for me throughout ny studies.

1 would like to thank members of my advisory committee, Drs. Jacqueline ttrensahan, Robert Koth, and Lyle Schmidt, for their assistance and comments. Appreciation is expressed to Jaral Christopher for her technical assistance and friendship.

ii VITA

April 14, 1 ‘J5 8 ...... Born - Fitchburg, Massachusetts

1980 ...... B.A. Thiel College, Greenville, Pennsylvania

1983 ...... M.A. Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1983 - 1986...... Teaching Assistant, Ohio State University

PRESENTATIONS

Collier, A.C., & Ali, C.F. (Nov. 1983). The influence of the endogenous opiate system on ultrasonic distress vocalization: A developmental study. Presented at the annual meeting for the international Society for Developmental Psychobiology, Hyannis, Mass.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Psychology

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 11

VITA...... ill

CHAPTER PACE

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1

11. ANIMALS IN ANCIENT TIMES...... 8

111. RISE OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND...... IS

IV. THE ANTIVIVISECTION MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND .... 21

V. RISE OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA...... 28

VI. THE ANT1V1V1SECTION MOVEMENT IN AMERICA .... 37

VI1. FROM ANIMAL WEFAKE TO ANIMAL RIGHTS...... 50

Vlll. ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATION...... 64

IX. FROM ANIMAL RIGHTS TO ANIMAL LIBERATION .... 72

X. MAJOR ISSUES WITHIN THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT...... 78

XI. STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES WITHIN THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT...... 101

X U . ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION...... 118

XUI. BREAK-INS: ACTIONS BY MEMBERS...... 148

XIV. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT ...... 169

XV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH...... 188

iv CHAPTER PAGE

XVI. STANDARDS FOR THE CARE AND USE OF LABORATORY ANIMALS...... 201

XVI1. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION ...... 211

XVIII. THE COST OF ANIMAL RIGHTS...... 224

XIX. CONCLUSION...... 237

LIST OF REFERENCE...... 242

LIST OF REFERENCE NOTES...... 237

APPENDICES

A. Letter Sent to Various Animal Welfare/Rights O r g a n i z a t i o n s 297

B. List of Acronyms...... 299

C. Individuals Affiliated with Other Organizations...... 303

D. Major Organizations Within the Animal Rights Movement...... 306

E. Animal Rights Organizations' Financial Information...... 310

F. Letter from Peta ...... 313

v CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

And God bleB&ed then, end God said to then, "Be fruitful and nultiply and fill the ear.th and subdue it, and have dominion over the flah of the sea and aver the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." And God said, "Behold 1 have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit, you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. (Genesis, 1:28-30).

There are seme individuals who have taken strong exceptionto the foregoing Biblical injunction. Instances have occurred in whichsmall groups have banded together to convince society of their "new” principles of human morality and justice. To enforce their demands for a re-evaluation of the rights of non-human animals, they have broken into laboratories which conduct either medical or psychological research and have wreaked havoc upon both human beings and animals. They have already destroyed equipment and facilities which cost taxpayers millions of dollars, have disrupted the careers and work of scientific researchers, and in the process have sometimes endangered the lives of animals whose rights they profess to uphold and to protect*. These actions were all taken in the name of animal rights. Proponents of this new Ideology are now increasing in number and strength throughout the

1 2 world. The movement has become a force within the United States. At 2 present there are over 55 national animal welfare/rights organizations •

One-third of these organizations have been established since 1980.

Prior to this time the majority of groups were founded on the principles of animal welfare. As such, their primary interests were oriented towards providing shelter, care, and treatment for animals. These activities are most commonly associated with groups like Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs) and the Humane Society of the

United States.

However, in the last decade there has been a sudden incresse in the number of animal rights organizations. These new groups aim at providing for the physical well-being of animals, like the animal welfare groups, but they also believe that animals are entitled to the same rights, liberty, and freedom that human beings receive. They hsve been remarkably successful thus far, particularly in the area of administrative law.

The general trend In the animal rights movement haB been toward increasing use of terroristic tactics. This is amply demonstrated by the number of university laboratory break-in6 that have occurred in 3 recent years . These actions were taken in the name of animals and ware attempts to uphold the civil rights of animals. Over 18 universities in the United States have been subjected to burglary, vandalism, and the removal of animals from their animal research facilities since 1979. A third of these break-ins were into psychology departments. Various organizations within the animal rights movement have accepted responsibility for these break-ins. But in very few instances have any 3

L of these organizations/individuals been penalized for their actions .

These activities of the enimal rights movement are increasingi not only in terns of frequency, but also with respect to financial and enotional costs to the experinenter and univeraity. Researchers are being violeted by groups of individuals who are actively seeking to totally abolish or heavily regulate all aninal experinentation. Through the use of the media, break-ins, demonstrations, and extensive campaigning techniques, the animal rights movement has depicted animal experimentation as an endeavor that la wasteful in terms of money, time, information, and animal llves^.

Since research is conducted in laboratories to which there is limited public access, the animal rights movement has promoted the notion that animal experimentation is a secret, devious science that is hidden from public scrutiny. As such animal rights advocates believe that they must act as the vanguard of the animal rights movement**.

According to such activists, this entails carrying out activities, whether legal or illegal, to achieve their goal of animal rights and liberation^. Their primary target has been animal research facilities.

On April 20, 1985, 20 laboratories at the University of Californla-

Kiverslde were broken into* Seven hundred anlmels were stolen from this state-supported Institution. In addition, the thievas spray-painted graffiti on walls; dumped globs of paint on desks and floors; and destroyed equipment and records of data. An underground activist group called Aninal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for this destruction. The physical cost of damage to the research facilities was

□ more than $700,000 • This was not an Isolated event. 4

In Kay 1981, Alex Pacheco volunteered to work for Dr. Edward Taub

on a project with aonkeys at the Institute for Behavioral Science In « « Maryland. Pacheco was then, and continues to be, the President of a

group called People for the Ethical Treataent of Aniaale (PETA). Five

months later, Pacheco end an accomplice entered Into the laboratory late

at night and photographed scenes which they had prearranged as blatant

distortions of the actual laboratory arrangement. At a court hearing

Pacheco confessed to re-arranging things in the laboratory in order to emphasise the circumstances. Furthermore, Pacheco and his accomplice 9 stole and xeroxed data from the files of Dr. Edward Taub .

At a later date, they alerted the media to a prescheduled police

raid on the laboratory. Dr. Taub was criminally charged with cruelty to animals. Two years later, after all the facts were presented, the

Maryland Court of Appeals dismissed these charges**.

Within the last six years, 18 incidente of break-ins, vandalism, and theft have been reported at various universities and research facilities throughout the United States. Most of these acts have occurred within the last two years. Although these events have been highly publicized by the media and animal rights groups, the full impact of these actions and the short- and long-term consequences of these events have yet to be presented to the media and public.

There are numerous other animal rights groups and supporters who claim that animal research is Immoral and try to undermine experimental research by making uninformed, false, and/or exaggerated statements regarding the use of animals in research. For example, Mobilization for

Animals (MFA)— an animal rights group that is based in Columbus, Ohio— 5 has claimed that "the cools of Che experimencal psychologists are mutilation, castration, agony, starvation, and insanity". However, they do not scate from where they received this information.

In order to investigate the legitimacy of the foregoing statement,

Coile and Miller (19B4) surveyed all of the articles published in

American Psychological Association (APA) Journals within the last five years. After an extensive analysis of psychological literature and data, Coile and Miller (19B4) found that none of the claims made by MFA 12 people could be substantiated ,

There are numerous animal rights and animal welfare groups that are expressing similar criticisms concerning the use of animals in research.

Their position is reflected in "A Declaration Against Specleslsm" which was signed during a symposium on animal rlghta that was held at Trinity

College, Cambridge in 1977:

Inasmuch as we believe there is ample evidence that many other species are capable of feeling, we condemn totally the infliction of suffering upon our brother animals, and the curtailment of their enjoyment, unless it be necessary for their own individual benefit*

Ue da not accept that a difference in species alone (anymore than a difference in race) can Justify wanton exploitation, or oppression in the name of science or sport, or of food, commercial profit, or other human gain.

Ue believe in the evolutionary and moral kinship of all animals, and we declare our belief that all sentient creatures have rights to life, liberty, and the quest for happiness. 13 Ue call for the protection of these rights . 6

In order to enforce the ebove declaration that was signed by animal

rightists, aone members of various aninal rights groups have taken it

upon themselves to break Into aninal research laboratories and frae 14 15 research anlnals , picket restaurants/slaughterhouses that use veal , 16 and actively lobby in Washington, D.C. against farners who raise and

care for anlnals.

Many aninal welfare/rightists believe that the use of anlnals for

scientific, agricultural, or any other hunan purpose is norally wrong^.

Animals and huun beings are considered to be equals. Therefore, they 18 19 have launched a movement te end hunan exploitation of anlnals '

In order to understand the Ideology, strategies, and conBequencea

of the aninal rights novenent, an analysis of its tactics, funding

sources, and its effect upon national policy concerning psychological

and bionedical research nust be exanined. This information will pernlt

a comprehensive assessment of the costs to human beings of the

fulfillnents of the goals of the movement should they cone to fruition.

I propose also to assenble information with respect to the goals of scientists who conduct experiments with animals. This will previde a

balanced perspective for the evaluation of the pros and cons of the alms of the animal rights novement. In order to obtain this information, menbers of the aninal rights organizations and aninal researchers will

be interviewed. Documents, publications, reports, and administrative

laws will be reviewed.

Moreover, a full investigation into past and pending legislation concerning the use of animals in research will be undertaken. The movement has developed an Increasingly effective lobby. In the past, 7 the aninal rights movement has not been successful in totally eliminating/regulating research. However, in recent years, such bills and bills tor what are termed "alternatives” for animal research have been regularly presented to Congress.

The rights of animals, like those of human beings, are moral questions rather than scientific questions. However, the positions that we take on the questions, and whether for religious, humanistic, or pragmatic reasons, have consequences chat can be anticipated but are not necessarily apparent to a person who is unfamiliar with animal research.

The final purpose of my study will be to assess those consequences as clearly and as fairly as possible. CHAPTER 11

ANIMALS IN ANCIENT TIMES

Throughout tine human being* have concerned theneelvea with the role of animal* in relation to people. Difference* of opinion regarding auch isauea a* whether animal* have aoule and If animal* are entitled to certain rights have been sources of debate for thousand* of years.

Queatlona dealing with this type of subject matter include discourse of a moral nature.

What is moral? The American Heritage Dictionary of the English

Language defines moral as a "concern with the judgment of goodness or badness of human action and character"1. This definition presupposes the view that there is a system ef some sort against which someone can infer whether or not an action or one's character is considered to be good or bad. Therefore, depending upon which ayatem or set of beliefs one abides by will determine the nature of one's morality.

For example, many Hindus, Buddhists, and Jainists have accepted the concept of ah ins a— noninjury to sentient creatures— as the main guiding principles of their life. As such they are required to follow certain precautions to avoid Injuring or harming any living organism whether it be human being, aninal, or insect. Jainists are well-known for carrying out these beliefs to the greatest degree. For example, they wear face masks to avoid accidentally swallowing or inhaling bugs, and will

8 9 carefully examine the ground on which they walk to avoid atepping on 2 Insects .

In addition, many believers of the "ablese" concept support plnjrapole— animal homes— in India* These are places where people care for the well-being of animals, especially cattle, by providing them with food, water, and shelter until the animals die a natural death. They do not always provide the animals with medicine or sacrifice the animal If it is in pain. They merely allow the animal to die of natural causes.

Even during periods of drought and starvation, these animals ara afforded the same comforts— sometimes even more comforts— as human beings. These plnjrapole have existed for thousands of years and continue through the present. Followers of ahimsa believe that 3 plnjrapole represent humanity's inner need or desire to express mercy .

These moral beliefs stum from the Hindulstlc concept of universal harmony with life. For many Hindus, Buddhists, and Jainists, judging of a behavior as good or bad is not dependent upon the existence of a supreme being, paradise, or hell. A person in this instance does not judge himself/herself as different from non-human anlmala— all exist on earth as one. These views differ from those set forth in Biblical,

MidraBhic, and Talmudlc literature which consider human beings to be superior to animals and "his obligations to the world about him would 4 appear to fall into various categories of minor and major importance** in regards to other creatures.

In an analysis of the above mentioned literatures. Dr. Noah Cohen examined the Judaistic concept of "tsa'ar ba'ale hay im**— prevention of cruelty to animals. His findings indicate that in the Bible and 10

Talmudic literature, anlnals are put on earth to be of aervice to people* However, he states that the literature also provides a # » consistent and thorough systen to regulate aanklnd's relations to anlnals in terms of work, food, and dominion^.

For exanple, in The Book of Genesis, God says to Noah, "...Into your hands are they (anlnals) delivered." The Old Testament provides many instances where anlnals are referred to and nost of the references recognize the difference between people and beast. At the same tine the

"...dignity of the animal was recognized...and was treated as a tragic necessity"6.

These same beliefs are similarly expounded in The New Testament.

After a thorough review of the Old and New Testament, Saint Thomas

Aquinas stated that "Wherefore it is not unlawful if man uses plants for the good of animals, and anlnals for the good of man," and "if we regard them (animals) as the good things that we desire for others, Insofar, to wit, as we wish for their preservation, to God's honour and man's use; thus too does God love then out of charity."^.

In summary, the Christian's view on hunan being's relation to animals has nalntained the sane beliefs that were stated In Biblical literature. In addition, the Conmlttee on Religious Affairs, Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York stated their position regarding the use of animals in experiments as follows:

Jewish law sanctions medical research on anlnals, Including vivisection. Unlike our fellow human beings animals are in nan's service. It is intellectually dishonest to serve neat at the table and then to lobby for legislation against nedical experimentation on animals. However, it is a violation of biblical law to cause 11

unnecessary pain to animals. During research experiments, every precaution must be taken to protect the animal from unnecessary suffering. Experiments designed to promote human health are In keeping with the religious rules governing man's relations with infra-human species .

According to this committee of rabbis, human beings de have dominion over animals, there are no sanctions against eating meat (from animals 9 with cloven hoofs that chew the cud) . Furthermore people have the right to use animals when necessary. Nevertheless, some Individuals have questioned the accuracy and/or completeness of the Bible's treatment of animals. In one case an Anglican clergyman tried to supplement the Bible's treatment of animals by adding a passage dealing with the humane treatment of cats. Others have also felt that the

Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths have proven inadequate in their 10 teachings about animals .

The Bible and Talmudic literature are very clear in sanctioning the use of certain animals for slaughter and work, as mentioned previously.

In addition, the Koran states explicitly that people can eat the meat of certain animals and employ animals for service to humankind:

He has given you beasts, some for carrying burdens and others for slaughter. Eat of that which Allah has given you and de not walk in Satan's footsteps (Koran, t:142)

These beliefs have been challenged by others though. During a symposium on 'The Ethical Aspects of Man'B Relationships with Animals' held at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1977, John Aapinall presented a talk on 'Han's Place in Nature.' He asserted that people have deified themselves through the teachings of the Bible, Koran, and Das Kapital*

Aapinall believes that people's treatment of animals has been se cruel 12 chat he would "be very happy to see 3-1/2 billion huaans wiped froa the face of the earth within the next 150 to 200 years and 1 (Aapinall) ea quite prepared to go ayaelf with this majority"11.

It is quite clear that individuals differ in their interpretation and assessnent of behaviors which are norally acceptable or not. To sone individuals the loss of an anlaal's life is not equatable to the loss ef a hunan being's life. The search for inforaation which will aako life "Sweet, that_Paln shall be postponed, and that the Light of 12 Truth shall Pall upon the Dark Places..." are the guiding principles that others believe in and accept. For instance. Dr. Janes Harbasse, a surgeon in Brooklyn, New York at the turn of this century, strongly stated his belief that physicians and researchers ware guided by

"feelings of moral obligation to both aen and animals (which) embodies 13 the highest human attributes." .

Opposition between chose who seek to terminate all use of anlaals by people and those who employ anlaals as a means of gathering knowledge to benefit society and animals alike have led to great differences of opinions. How an individual decides which side they will take is determined by what they have experienced in the past. In addition, inforaation that a person is presented.with will help In the formation of their beliefs. Therefore, if the individual is presented with inforaation which is misleading or taken out of context, it nay lead to the formation of uninformed attitudes.

For example, a traveling exhibit show passed through New York City in 1909 presenting to the public their belief that anlaals should not be used in research. As part of their exhibit, they showed the crowd an 13 incinerator in which they claimed cats had been burned alive* However, the truth of the matter was that the laboratory incinerator was used to 14 burn "infected refuBe and waste material!" .

The accusations that were made in the 1909 demonstration are similar to those mentioned earlier by the animal rights group,

Mobilization for Animals (MPA) in 1984,^ 75 years later. In both cases individuals were asserting that much cruelty and abuse were randomly and wantonly being directed against animals by researchers. What they failed to do was present the information to the public in a manner which was truthful and rational. For example, when Coile and Miller, psychologists, surveyed the research that MPA opposed, they found MFA claims to be exaggerated and insubstantlable1*’. Therefore, individuals who were exposed to these MFA demonstrations were and continue to be provided with incorrect information.

because many people are unfamiliar with the work and facilities of animal researchers, misrepresentations and falsehoods regarding an animal researcher's use of animals may be accepted as the truth by many.

For example, in 1971 a book of essays was written by various animal welfare advocates who were philosophers, novelists, botanists, and clinical psychologists. In the introduction the editors stated that:

One element of our strategy was to keep strictly factual papers to a minimum in order to allow for more general and far-reaching studies...the broader moral, sociological, and psychological implications of our treatment of animals provide the strongest and most compelling reasons in argumentSj^alling for the cessation of such treatment . 14

Although these writers nay feel that the use of animals is inaoral and unjustified, it is the right of every individual to aake his er her own decision. According to three najor religions— Judaisa,

Christianity, and Islam— huaan beings have dealnion over anlnals.

Accordingly, Jews, Christians, and Moslems believe that huaan beings are considered to be superior to animals. As such they have certain obligations, but eating meat and using animals are considered to be moral, ethical, and acceptable behaviors on the part of humanity. CHAPTER III

RISE OF THE ANIHAL WELFARE HOVEMENT IN ENGLAND

Numerous books and assays have been written expressing personal convictions regarding the use of animals by people. During the 1700'a a number of papers were published In England regarding bull-baiting, cock fights, and bear fights by various writers and philosophers. Much of thi6 literature reflected the belief that being cruel to animals would cause one to be cruel to humans, as well. However, it wsb not until

1809 that a bill was first proposed in England by Lord Erskine to prevent cruelty to animals, especially bovine animals* In his speech to the Parliament. Lord Erskine said. HThe extension of benevolence to objects beneath us. become habitual by sense of duty inculcated by law. will reflect back upon our sympathies to one another.• •

Lord Erskine's bill for animal protection passed the House of

Lords, but did not pass in the House of CommonB. It was not until 1822 that the animal protection legislation was finally passed by both Houses through the actions of Richard Martin, a member of Parliament. The bill was called The Martin Law, HAn Act to Prevent Cruel and Improper

Treatment to Cattle"^.

Although England may have been the first country to introduce formal legislation preventing cruelty to animals, Germany had

15 16 previously surpassed England in terms of actually treating animals humanely. For example, in 1766 a German horse rider was sentenced to death for riding his horse to death. By 1789. bull and bear baiting was no longer considered to be an acceptable form of public entertainment in

Germany. In contrast, bull and bear baiting ware not considered illegal 3 practices in England until 1835 .

It was not until October. 1822 that Hartin and others in England began to hold meetings which eventually led to the establishment of the

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) on June 16,

1824. The guidelines for this society were:

1. The circulation of suitable tracts gratuitously, or by cheap sale, particularly among persons entrusted with cattle, such as coachmen, carters, and drovers.

2. The introduction into schools of books calculated to impress on youth the duty of humanity to inferior animals.

3. Frequent appeals to the public through the press, awakening more general attention to a subject so Interesting, though too much neglected.

4. The periodical delivery of discourses from the pulpit.

5. The employment of constables in the markets and 8Greets; and

6. The prosecution of persons guilty of flagrant acts of cruelty, with publicity tg the proceedings, and announcements of results’* •

Although members of the SPCA had tried to enforce the animal protection legislation of 1822, they were hindered by their poor financial status. To a great extent the SPCA was managed and supported by the Reverend Arthur Broome. However within two years of its 17 establishment* the Society was bankrupt and Rev. Broome was put in debtors* prison. These actions were all taking place during a time when

England was still imposing capital punishment for over 200 different crimes, supporting child labor practices, and placing individuals who were poverty-stricken into debtors' prisons5.

Reverend Broome was bailed out of debtors' jail by Richard Martin and Lewis Gompertz, another wealthy member of Parliament. Within a year the Society found itself, once again, financially incapable of meeting its expenses. Broome was forced to search for other employment. By

1828, Gompertz had replaced Broome as honorary secretary of the SPCA.

Since Gompertz had ample funds at his disposal, the SPCA was able to broaden its activity.

In Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Han and of Brute^,

Gompertz depicts the way some ^nipals ware being treated during the early 1800's. He says that some cattle were being driven over 100 miles to slaughterhouses located under the streets. Gompertz depicts certain instances of cruelty in slaughtering techniques of that time. For instance, he describes ways in which veal was obtained at that time, i.e., calves were bled to death to drain the blood out of the meat prior to being knocked unconscious. During this same era, horses and donkeys were ridden until they dropped from exhaustion. It is clearly evident that In England, instances of animal misuse and abuse were occurring during the early years of the SPCA.

However, England was taking steps to remedy these blatant and unnecessary instances of cruelty to animals. By 1833, Parliament passed an amendment to the Martin Law of 1822 which entailed punishment of 18 chose sconing or beating cattle being driven to Market, and prohibiting bull, bear, cock, and dog fighting. TVo years later, any person who

"wantonly and cruelly beat, ill-treat, abuse, or torture any domestic aniraal was subject to the law”^. All of these acts were later combined to form the Cruelty to Animal Acts of 1849 and 1854. These acts were obtained through the actions and support of members of Parliament who were also members of the SPCA. Although the society faced several problems— financial and Ideological— the group continued to lobby for O new laws regulating the treatment of animals .

In 1640, Queen Victoria became a patron of the SPCA and authorised the SPCA to add "Royal” to its name. The Royal Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) continued to petition for legislation that would prevent cruelty to animals. However, animal experimentation was not a major concern of its members. Its involvement with the issue arose in 1863 through the efforts of Hiss Frances Power

Cobbe. While in Italy, Hiss Cobbe became acquainted with the work of

Professor Moritz Schiff of the Department of Physiology at the Royal

Superior Institute in Florence. Schiff was examining reflex physiology in dogs. When Miss Cobbe returned to London, she circulated a petition asking for restriction in the use of animals in research. She opposed the physiological research that was being conducted by Schiff. Later Q she generalized her disliking to ail types of animal research .

Cobbe was an English spinster who was involved in many other issues at that time. In her autobiography, Life of Frances Power Cobbe(lO) she lists many of the activities she was interested in (cf. other societal issues of the day like feminism, religion and philanthropies). Huch of 19

Cobbe's endeavors in the lB70's focused on vivisection, however* She adamantly opposed the use of any animal in medical research. Miss Cobbe took it upon herself to wage a battle in behalf of animals used in experiments.

Although Cobbe adamantly opposed vivisection— -a type of experimentation in which an incision into an animal is carried out for scientific purposes— she was not strongly supported by other RSPCA members. Many members of the RSPCA were physicians or worked in areas of human and animal health services. They were familiar with physiological and medical experiments and did not want to play a role in hindering scientific research. Other members of the RSPCA supported the anti­ vivisection movement^.

These conflicting views forced the RSPCA to'determine what position it would take with regard to vivisection. Thus the Royal Commission of the RSPCA was formed in 1B75 to evaluate anti-vivisection claims. After a thorough review of pertinent facts, the Royal Commission made a decision. Due to the large number of disparate views held by members within the RSPCA Commission decided that "...the Society could not take one, and only one, view on this subject" 12 • In effect, the Royal

Commission’s decision did not favor either supporters or opposers of vivisection.

However, the Royal Commission did support some types of vivisection as necessary means of acquiring information for the benefit of human

beings and animals alike. Based on these findings, the British government then legislated the 1B76 Cruelty Animal Act. This act did 20 not impress proponents of anti-vivisection. They were very dismayed that the RSPCA had not taken a stronger stance concerning animal experimentation. In an effort to see that all forms of animal experimentation be halted antivivisectionists banded together to form their own organizations.

hut these actions did not hinder the growth of the Society. It continued to flourish. In a review of the first 100 years of the RSPCA,

Edward G. Fairholme and Wellesley Pain, Chief Secretary and Editor of the RSPCA respectively, had this to say about the Society's work:

Would that Broome, Martin, and early pioneers could be with us...what they would feel in realizing that the seeds which they had sown and husbanded had brought forth such an abundant harvest...the Society prides itself on being the guardian of the nation's animals .

The RSPCA has continued its efforts on behalf of animals in all walks of life, while antivivisectionists have narrowed their point of interest primarily to animal experimentation. The animal welfare movement is currently very active in England* Numerous local SPCA's have been formed since the initial formation of the RSPCA. These societies have continued to provide protection to animals in need, and

8till carry out measures to insure that people treat animals kindly. CHAPTER IV

THE ANTIVIVISECTION MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND

As Che twentieth century approached, antivivisection appeals becaue more prominent in England. Following the establishment of Frances

Cobbe's Victoria Street Society, a group adamantly opposing vivisection, a number of other related groups began to crop up. As is often the case with emotional issues, differences of opinion became rampant.

These differences of opinion were reflected in the establishment of

12 different antivivisection groups in England by 1900. Cobbe's group was one of the most well-known out of these groups. Her success was in part due to her organizational skills and ability to recruit well-known society figures to her society's cause:

...the countenance of eminent men in order to attract membership and subscriptions. Without such support, there would be no point in trying to form a society. Cobbe maintained a prestigious group of vice presidents, who might or might not actively participate.... Their role was primarily to attract public interest and confidence...

Nonetheless, problems did arise. Cobbe was very fixed in her beliefs that the Victoria Street Society needed to fight for legislation which would totally and permanently abolish vivisection. Her views were not favorably accepted by the Honorable Stephen Coleridge, an attorney.

He believed that the fight for vivisection legislations should be gradual.

21 22

These differences of opinions resulted in a parting of ways for the

Victorian Street Society* The faction opposed to Cobbe then becane known as the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS). This upset

Cobbe, who then started her own totally abolitionist group called the

British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in 1B9B*

French represents the antivivisection movement at this time to be

"soured by disharmony and disunity" • In published letters from that

time, jealousy and personal ambitions within the movement appeared to be playing a large role in the acceptance of certain policies and objectives. According to French, the movement's goal of antiviviBection 3 was inextricably meshed with the personalities of those involved •

Numerous other groups existed in England that either sided with the

NAVS's or BUAV's positions* However, the antivivisection movement never

really became well organized. The separation of NAVS and BUAV from the

KSPCA occurred around the time of the 1876 Cruelty to Animal Act.

Eventhough vegetarian groups integrated with antivivisection groups,

there never was a successful alliance between these groups to form a united front.

in addition to the lack of unity within the movement, many ocher individuals were working to counteract antivivisection claims (i.e., A Haldane, Barcroft, Cannon, Nagendie, Sherrington, Schaefer, & Ferrier) .

English physicians and physiologists, during the late 180U's, began to write books and letters to magazines in an effort to inform society

about animal experimentation. By this point in time, newspapers were

siding with either vivisectionists or their opponents. In a book written by George Gore called The Utility and Morality of Vivisection, 23 he presented his esse against antivivisection tactics in the following way:

It requires very little skill to ask complex questions; it is also far more easy to challenge experimentalists to prove their statements than to acquire the ability to understand their proofs. It is not a duty of scientific man to answer every question, because, however much may be explained, there always remain unexplored portions of science for anti-sclantlfic persons to cavil about. Most scientific investigators consider that by making costly and difficult experiments and giving the result of them to public, they have thereby mare than fulfilled their duty in the matter •

This rebuttal to antivivisection claims was Intended to halt the rising number of accusations being made against vlvlsectors.

Even the Royal Commission of the RSPCA supported animal experimentation. In a quote from the 1876 Royal Commission Report they stated:

...it is impossible altogether to prevent the practice of making experiments on living animals for the attainment of knowledge applicable to the mitigation of human suffering or the prolongation of human life:...that the greatest mitigations of human suffering havg been in part derived from such experiments...

Supporters of vivisection Included Chsrles Darwin. Thomas Huxley,

H.G. Wells, and Arthur Conan Doyle. Wells and Doyle were later to become members of the Research Defense Society^. This society was an offshoot of the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research

(AAMR). AAMR was formed in 1882 to counter antlvlvlsectlon claims. For example, in 1881 David Ferrier, a physiologist, was accused by Frances

Cobbe of conducting a study on cerebral localization without the appropriate license. Ferrier was prosecuted for this sctlon. But as it 24 turned out, he had not done the brain surgery. Another licensed research, G.W. Yeo, had carried out the experiment. These actions brought against an innocent researcher who had shed much light on localization of function within the cerebral hemispheres angered animal experimenters.

This case provided the impetus to form the AAMR. The AAMR proposed to educate the public about experimental medicine. By 1908, AAMR was decreasing its efforts to educate the public. This led Dr. Stephen

Paget to organize the Research Defense Society In 1908 to continue to educate society about experimental research and to counter antivivisection claims.

Society was becoming familiar with the advances made by Edward

Jenner (1798) with smallpox vaccines, and the achievements of Claude

Bernard (1840) which include: the role of the pancreas in digestion, vasomotor innervation, effect of curare on neuromuscular transmission and the glycogenic function of the liver, and numerous theoretical U concepts . Another major experimental research contribution of this time waB made by Louis Pasteur.

In 1877, England had experienced a large number of rabies cases*

Since the rabies virus was not understood at Chat time, large numbers of dogs were killed to prevent the spread of the disease. It was not until

1885 that Louis Pasteur developed the first vaccine to combat rableB.

These results were obtained after several years of research with dogs.

Nevertheless, George Richard Jesse, founder of the Society for the

Abolition of Vivisection, considered Louis Pasteur's work to be an exemplary case of incompassionate and inhumane treatment of animals. 25

Pasteur's identification of the rabies virus and development of the subsequent rabies vaccine were looked upon as despicable activities by antivivisectionists. Many of these antivivisectionists were appalled by

the fact that Pasteur cane up with a vaccination to save the lives of hunans and dogs alike.

On the other hand, many nenbers of the RSPCA ware very supportive of Pasteur and his findings and helped to enforce antirabies measures.

By 1889 over 30 people were reported dead due to rabies and 312 dogs were found to have rabies. After the lmpleaentatlon of Pasteur's

immunizing vaccine (only 4 years later), the number of human deaths had fallen to Bix and the number of Instances of reported rabies was down to

38. Irrespective of these results, many antivivisectionists hung onto

their beliefs that Pasteur's work was morally and ethically abhorrent.

Yet the fact still remained that Louis Pasteur's work with the rabieB 9 virus saved and continues to save the lives of many animals and humans .

The achievement of Pasteur with the rabies virus and vaccination and other immunological discoveries obtained via animal research quieted the antivivisection movement in England during the turn of the century.

The public acknowledged the benefits of animal research and there was little support for abolition of animal experimentation. Parliament was hesistanc to establish any new legislation that would impede experimental research. Nevertheless, the antivivisection movement continued its efforts to halt animal research10.

Cobbe's group, the BUAV, is still in being and continues to seek legislation that would prohibit animal research. The Union has now been

in existence for about a century. However, its members are by no means 26 agreed upon as Co what ita major concerns should be. Some have accepted the notion that animals should have rights as human beings. Others do not believe that animals have rights, but contend that people have certain duties towards animals**. Although the union represents a diverse population, all of its members are supportive of campaigns against animal research.

Another group, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), was formed in

England in 1976. This underground rightB group is currently active in both the United States and England. One of their strategies is to enter— either legally or illegally— into private or state-owned research facilities and "liberate" experimental animals. Since many of their acts involve breaking and entering into private property, theft of data, destruction of equipment, and removal of animals— ALF members remain covert and will not ordinarily Identify themselves. Instead, they pass materials to other rights groups who then take the stolen property and findings to the media. Hence, they have rarely been arrested and tried for their acts .

However, two very active and vocal members of the ALF, Ronnie Lee and Emma Peel, did grant an interview to the magazine. New Society, in

January 1985. They said that their organization is seeking to end any form of animal use, whether it be on the farm, in the laboratory, or for 13 sport . If these actions were to come about, both agreed that animal liberation would be "far greater than any socialist revolution," ALF considers the fight for animal rights to be one of the major, final social issues concerning society. As such, they believe that any and all actions that would serve to end any form of animal use by society 27 are justified.

A comparison of the aalmal welfare movements beginnings and its present state in England reveals a striking metamorphosis. The SPCA's initial objective was to end inhumane treatment of animals through legal methods. Although the antivivisection movement arose less than a century ago it quickly began to rival the animal welfare movement eventhough few of the animal welfare groups at that time were anti- vivisection. Now many animal rights groups are primarily antivivisectiont demand that animals be entitled to the same rights as peoplei and claim that human beings do not have the right to use animals for any purpose whatsoever. The more radical members of the animal rights movement have stated chat as long as people use animals, they 14 15 will wage a war to take this right away ’ CHAPTER V

RISE OK THE ANIMAL WELFARE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA

The development of the animal welfare movement in the United States closely parallels that which occurred in England* The first legislation dealing with animals was passed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who in

1641 declared that animals were not to be beaten or abused in public.

However, the first American society that was officially formed to deal with cruelty to animals was not organized until 1866. The American

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty (ASPCA) was established on April

111, 1866 in New York by Henry Bergh, the son of a wealthy shipowner^.

Bergh, who had previously been a Secretary of the Legation and an

Acting Consul at St* Petersburg in Ku b s Ib , had witnessed numerous scenes of cruelty to animals, especially against horses, donkeys, and dogs.

After returning to the United States, Bergh decided that he would spend his time seeking legislation that would prevent the practices.

Two weeks after the ASPCA was formed a bill was passed by the New

York legislature which stated that "every person who shall, by his act or neglect, maliciously kill, maim, wound, injure, torture, or cruelly beat any horse, mule, cow, cattle, sheep, or other animal, belonging to himself or another, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of 2 misdemeanor" .

28 29

This legislation is reflected in the guiding principle of the ASPCA as stated in its constitution:

To provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States* to enforce all laws which are now or may hereafter be enacted for the protection of animals and to secure, by lawful means, the arrest and conviction of ail persons violating such laws •

This law was imposed in a number of cases at that time. For instance, a horse driver who had lit a fire under his horse because it could no longer pull its load was prosecuted. There were many such instances of overt cruelty, and the Animal Welfare Act of 1866 provided an effective and legal method of enforcing humane treatment^.

Henry Bergh and many of his associates were also eager to end what they viewed as inhumane. For example, at that time butchers tied the legs of cows together and threw them atop of one another for transport

in a wagon. Frequently some of the cows were suffocated in the process.

Whenever Bergh saw instances of this behavior, he would take the butcher

to court, and the practice was eventually suppressed after many such encounters^.

Although Bergh had been involved in numerous legal actions against individuals whom he believed to be treating animals cruelly, the courts would no longer allow him in to prosecute cases because of his extreme

tactics. For instance, he once banged the heads of two drivers together

because of the way they were hauling cattle to market. Many of the

legal battles were being taken over by Eldridge T. Gerry, an attorney who became primarily responsible for prosecuting cases of inhumane

treatment of animals**. The ASPCA attacked many of the practices of that 30

time by providing services to Abused animals. An smbulance service, watering stations £or horses, and humane education were some of the primary interests of the society. Another interest of the society was the prevention of cruelty to children. In 187S, the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC) was established by

Eldridge T. Gerry7.

Gerry was eager to build the NYSPCC into a strong legal support unit for children. Meanwhile, the ASPCA was gaining power— 'financially and legally. More people were aware of the activities of the ASPCA and were bequeathing large sums of money to the group. Yet children were not legally or financially protected at all at that time. Nevertheless, other parts of the country also became Involved in animal welfare neglecting child welfare. The ASPCA was the prototype for a number of g other animal welfare societies throughout the U.S.

The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

(MSPCA) which was formed in 1886, was very similar to the ASPCA.

George Thorndike Angell, a Boston attorney, was the primary force behind the establishment of the MSPCA. Like any new organisation, the MSPCA needed financial and political backing. Angell appealed to a number of his colleagues and other well-to-do citlsens of Massachusetts for their aid and money. Once the MSPCA received the support it needed, an active campaign was launched to seek legislation protecting animals from cruel treatment in Massachusetts. Numerous articles were written to Boston newspapers requesting from people that they support the passing of a bill which would prohibit cruel treatment of animals. Within three months the Massachusetts legislature passed the bill, and Angell and 31 members of the HSPCA began to devise methods of enforcing the lew end 9 educating the public about the humane treatment of animals •

These MSPCA actions directly parallel the beginnings of ths ASPCA, although there was no direct interactions between the two organisations.

TVo years later, Angell went to Chicago, Illinois and helped to establish the Illinois Humane Society. He traveled throughout the states "...as far West as Dakota and South to New Orleans...”*^ and gave lectures encouraging people to establish SPCA's in their area. By the

1880's many small animal welfare organizations were established throughout the United States. However, it was not until 1882 that

Angell and Reverend Thomas Timmins began their work to create the

American Band of Mercy to aid children. These events paralleled the development of the animal welfare movement and humane movement in New

York. In both cases, animal welfare groups existed before child welfare groups were ever even conceived. Why animal welfare issues concerned the creators of the ASPCA and the MSPCA before child welfare issues did is a question that has never been addressed thoroughly. It could be chat there was less public resistance to interfering with animals and their abusers than there was to children and their abusers.

What is clear is that the animal welfare movement rapidly began to grow. In 1877, Angell helped to form the American Humane Association.

The directors of this new association were the same as those who served on the board of directors of the MSPCA**. But the two groups differed in their objectives. The MSPCA was primarily interested in enforcing the N.Y. anti-cruelty bill chat was passed in 1868. On the other hand,

The American Humane Association sought to educate the public in its treatment of animals. 32

None of the anlul welfare organizations at this time were directly involved as associations in the issue of the use of animals in research.

Actually many of the leaders of these societies and organizations had expressed support for animal research. In a letter written by Henry

Bergh. nephew and successor to Henry Bergh of the ASPCA wrote:

No one deprecates more than 1 the infliction ef needless suffering on God's defenseless creatures; but that which is necessary is not cruel. I have great confidence in the medical fraternity as a body. They have' done more in the cause of humanity than any class of men who have existed; for their constant alleviation of suffering— -not its infliction.... Those enthusiasts who are clamoring for the total abolition of vivisection consult neither the Interests of the creatures they represent, nor the welfare of mankind....

Let humanitarians, therefore, not attempt to scoff at such learned opinions and substitute therefor their own uninformed sentimentalism; but with the medical profession and ourselves, unite in an earnest and well-meant effort to bring about such changes as may not interfere with.the legitimate and necessary workings of science •

Similar sentiments were expressed by Angell, founder of the NSPCA and The American Humane Society in a letter written to his anti­ vivisection friends in 1891:

...we are afraid our anti-vivisection friends, in their zeal to relieve the suffering of dumb animals, have fallen into the same error, in which bygone ages, led the Catholic to deal unwisely with the Protestant, the Protestant with the Puritan, and the Puritan in his turn with the Baptist and Quaker.... The world's history shows that very little can be gained by denouncing those who, without cf^minal intent, differ with us in views of right

This letter by Angell, founder of the MSPCA was representative of the multitudes of other SPCA's throughout the United States. These 33

letters depict the growing dissension experienced within the animal welfare societies shortly after their establishment. Differences of

opinions between welfare and anti-vivisection advocates becaae very

apparent only eight years with the establishaent of the American Anti-

Vivisection Society (AAVS). On May 1, 1883 nany wealthy socialites of

Philadelphia joined together to fora the AAVS. They signed a charter which stated that they sought the total abolition of all research

involving vivisection on aninals. The founder of the new group was Mrs.

Caroline Earle White who was also the founder of the Woman's

Pennsylvania SPCA .

Prom its inception the AAVS has endeavored to terminate all forma

of medical research involving living animals. The society's motto— “You

cannot do Evil that Good may result"— represents the flrmneBS of their stance. Now there are numerous organizations which function under similar guidelines throughout the world. Many of them are also united

as the World League Against Vivisection and for the General Protection

of Animals. All of these groups seek total abolition, not merely

regulation, of animal research. Any group not strictly adhering to 15 these beliefs is not accepted within the League .

It is apparent that a philosophical and political rift existed

between animal welfare groups like the SPCA's and humane societies and anti-vivisection associations. The letters written by Angell and Bergh,

leaders of the two largest animal welfare organizations, regarding antivivi8ectlon are representative of the positions taken at that time

by the MSPCA and the ASPCA, respectively. As such they demonstrate that many members of those Societies and society in general were not against 34 animal research and understood the nature of the rationale for animal research. Differences of opinions between those who supported animal research and those who were totally against it led to the formation of additional antivivisection groups throughout the United States.

In a survey conducted by Roswell NcCrea in 1910, en the Humane

Movement, he stated that the general issue of vivisection to the antivivisectionlst was "...clearly a moral, not a scientific one"*^.

Included in this survey is a quote from the winning essay on antivivisection by Lena Britton in 1908:

Can we afford to allow the moral sense of our youth to be gradually crushed out by sanctioning a pitiless and demoralising practice? It would be better indeed to die of lock-jaw, dlptheria, tuberculosis, cancer scrofula, or all combined than to be responsible for such offense •

This view strongly differed from that of the organizational position of the SPCA'a which sought to provide animals with homes, food, and care. The anti-vivisection group's primary aim was to terminate the use of all living animals in biomedical research. Under no circumstances would they condone the use of animals in any type of research, even if the research were to be of benefit to people and animals***

Anti-vivisectionists directly opposed the stand the SPCA was taking with respect to animal research. They believed that it was an "utterly illogical position of calling themselves (SPCA) animal protectors and 19 yet not opposing vivisection" Because some individuals could not decide which group to belong to, they founded other organizations which adopted what they considered to be a moderate position between that of 35

Che SPCA and Che ancivivieection groups. For exaaple, the Vivisection

Reform Society of Chicago and the National Society for Humana Regulation of Vivisection accepted the position that there should be some regulation of animal research but not total prohibition of all such research. This trend of aninal welfare groups splitting up and fornlng splinter groups, due to differences of opinions, was to be repeated in the 1970's20.

By the 1880's many snail localized animal welfare organizations had been founded throughout the United States. Many of their nenbers felt there should be some unity amongst these groups. The American Humane

Association then became elected as the umbrella group. In 1886, the president of the association stated:

The scope of the Association is the extended scope of the societies which compose it.... Its mission is to remedy universal cruelties by universal remedies, to foster a national recognition of the duties we owe those who are helpless, to spread knowledge^Qn humane organizations where such do not exist .

The general purpose was to unite groups dealing with inhumane treatment of children and animals alike. Great emphasis was placed on seeking legislation to prohibit the transportation of cattle that were ill, institution of humane slaughter techniques, and seeking legal justices for children created cruelly. This association and many of its affiliations have remained very strong and presently have budgets of 22 several million dollars a year . 36

The early 1900'a saw a tremendous growth in the number of associations which dealt directly with the adoption of stray and/or unwanted animals for pets. For example, the Bide-a-Wee Home Association of New York was founded in 1902 by Flora D'Auby Jenkins. The primary intent of this association was to find homes for unwanted cats and dogs.

Blde-a-Wee is now a multimillion dollar organisations with numerous animal care facilities throughout New York. Dogs and cats are still placed in homes, and are provided with veterinary care. A similar case in point is the Animal Refugee Association of Maryland which was founded in 1908 to place unwanted dogs in hones. By 1910, the association had also set up a Horse's Rest Farm— -a field where old horses which could no 23 longer work would retire .

The aninal welfare movement continued to spread throughout the

United States in the fora of local humane societies. These welfare and humane societies are currently carrying out many of the same activities that Bergh and his colleagues had initiated over one hundred years ago.

Dealing with stray and unwanted cats and dogs is a primary concern for these groups. One of their major goals is to seek homes for these animals and reduce the number of strays and unwanted animals through 24 spaying and neutering programs .

By the turn of the 20th century, a diverse host of associations had arisen to deal with animal welfare issues. These groups were not unified in their beliefs, actions, or principles. Some were concerned with the general welfare of all animals, others were primarily focused on abolishing animal research, while others were more interested in dealing with stray cats and dogs. Of these groups, the antivivisectionists were to become the most outspoken for their cause. CHAPTER VI

THE ANTIVIVISECTION MOVEMENT IN AMERICA

The early 1900*8 was a period of developnent for antivivlsectlon organizations in America. During this tine.a number of bills were being proposed to state legislatures by antivivisectionists to regulate and/or abolish the use of animals in research. For instance. District of

Columbia State Bill No. 34 requested that all forms of vivisection must be controlled in the following manner:

a. investigators have to be licensed

b. only studies which will advance new physiological findings and decrease human ailmentB are to be allowed

c. animal must be anesthetized

d. limited use of animals in demonstrations to classes

e. penalize offenders of this bill*.

A list of other requirements were Included in the bill. However, the bill was not passed. A similar bill was also placed before the Illinois legislature in 1905. This bill was supported by the Vivisection Reform

Society which was located in Chicago and incorporated in 1903.

Secretary for the Vivisection Reform Society, S.R. Taber, had this to say about the antivivisection bill that was pending legislation in 1905:

37 38

It further sought to bring the vivisection of duab sninals within reasonable bounds by providing that experiaents should be aade only by qualified physicians in registered laboratories...far froa being an antivivlsectlon measure the provisions of the bill were noderate....

The Vivisection Refora Society believed in regulating vivisection but not in total abolition. This position is reainiscent of the stance taken in England by Stephen Coleridge as President of The National

Antivivisection Society. The Vivisection Refora Society did not deny the vast amounts of knowledge that had been achieved through anlaal experimentation.

Contrary to Coleridge's group, the Vivisection Reform Society believed that animal experimentation was a necessary Beans of gaining information and an excellent method of teaching physiological functions 3 to students of science • These beliefs were s Ib o upheld by soae antivivisectionists in England.

Other antivivisectionists maintained that vivisection had to be ended immediately. For example, in a report read to the International

Anti-Vivisection and Animal Protection Congress held in Washington, D.C. on December 9, 1913, Hiss Llnd-Af-Hageby stated her beliefs concerning animal experimentation. She urgently requested that vivisectors stop using animals and begin a search for alternative methods of understanding physiology. Her approach to devising guidelines and tenets to govern animal experimentation were labeled Constructive Anti-

Vivisection. In essence, she stated that many animal researchers are not inhumane, but simply uninformed, and therefore subject to err.

Consequently, the goal of the antivivisection movement, according to 39

Lind-Af-Hageby, was to simply restrict certain types of experiments or 4 find alternatives .

Ur* Albert Leffingwell, former President of the American Humane

Association, also attended this meeting in Washington, U.C. He talked about all the changes that had occurred in America in the last century.

He mentioned the abolition of slavery and the increased number of research facilities conducting animal experiments as only two examples of transformation within society. Leffingwell concluded his speech by saying:

We are living today in a period of unrest and change such as the world has never known before. A new social consciousness has awakened throughout the civilized world...will not the question of vivisection be merged in the larger problem, the adjustment of man's relations to animals on the basis of justice....

Other antivivisection organizations cook a much stronger position against the use of animals in research than did the Vivisection Keform

Society or The American Humane Association. For instance, AAVS which was initially named The American Society for the Restriction of

Vivisection stated its purpose w s b "for the total abolition of all vivisectional experiments on animals and other experiments of a painful character^.

The AAVS has fought for and continues to work cowards the cessation of all animal experimentation. In 1929 the annual report of the AAVS,

the President's Address, states explicitly that their group was united

in its effort to inform the public about experiments being conducted on animals. In this same report the recording secretary refers to "a new

forward movement— a National Anti-Vivisection Federation" that believes 40

that "vivisection is immoral and oust therefore be abolished^*

Members of AAVS at that tlae were very eager to see that legislation pertaining to animal researchers and laboratories be obtained. In the 1933 AAVS annual report a request for unity aaong all antivivisection groups was aade again. It was emphasised that if legislative actions were to be taken they would need to present a united front. These sane statements were to be aade again in the late 1970's and 1980's. For example* in 198S Connie Kagan founder of Anlnal

Political Action Committee stated that:

To make things click activists have to begin

understanding...that politics is not about justice

but about power...we have to understand the

importance of alliances. We have to increase our

power base every chance we get by striking g alliances with those who share our concern .

During the early years of the AAVS members were active in developing programs for children. One such program called The Hies

B'kind Junior Humane Club was started in 1933 to instruct children about

Inhumane suffering* cruelty, and neglect that animals are exposed to.

Through this club and the dissemination of literature to tbe public* antivivisactlonists hoped that they would be successful in countering q arguments in favor of vivisection .

Another issue that AAVS members have constantly dealt with ia the

Pound Seisure law. This state law requires that unclaimed animals from shelters are to be made available to research facilities (in Minnesota*

New York* Massachusetts, Connecticut, Utah). Numerous brochures were 41

distributed by AAVS opposing these lews. In 1906 the public was warned

by this same group to watch over their pets "lest they fall into the

hands of vlvlsectors**^.

During the late 1930's and early 1940's, AAVS began an extensive

campaign across America to prohibit the procurement of unclaimed dogs

from pounds. They were successful in some states, but in many others

they were unsuccessful* Their failure can be priswrily attributed to

strong public support of the medical community. For instance, by 1950

Wisconsin, New York, California, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts,

Connecticut, and a host of ocher states passed Pound Seizure laws with a

large majority vote.

These unsuccessful efforts by antivivisaction societies ware very distressful to members of the AAVS. Hany of their actions hsd been

geared to prevent experimental research with animals. But the public was in favor of biomedical research and was backing legislation which 12 would further medical and scientific knowledge . Nevertheless, anti-

vlvisectionists continued campaigning against animal research*

Although antivivisectlonists repeatedly attempted to deride and negate benefits obtained via animal research they were unsuccessful.

These failures to obtain legislation prohibiting animal research were evident throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Even though many well-known individuals, like George Bernard Shaw, an English essayist and critic, and William Randolph Hearst, owner of the San

Francisco Examiner, had become affiliated with the antlvivisection movement little headway was made with the cause. 42

George Bernard Shaw, stood firaly with antlvivisectioniste through the early 1900's. He condemned animal research and believed that such researchers should be penalized in the following way:

The proper place in organized human society for a scoundrel who seeks knowledge or anything^else without conscience Is the lethal chamber <

This statement was made in response to an earlier article written by H.G. Wells, a novelist and friend of Shaw. In this article Wells supports animal research as a necessary and beneficial method of acquiring information. Wells goes on to say that he would save the life of Ivan Pavlov, the Russian physiologist, before he would save the life of his friend Shaw. Wells firmly believed that society auBt support research which would explain and cure many of life's aaladieB.

This position was in strict opposition to Shaw's point of view which was:

The vlvisector, 1 declared, is actually that worst of scoundrels...the vlvisector maintains that knowledge as such is so supremely sacred that in its pursuit the professional man of science may commit the most revolf^ng atrocities merely to satisfy his curiosity .

These two perspectives, i.e., Wells' 6 Shaw's, epitomize the state of affairs that existed and continues to exist between animal researchers and antivivisectionists. Since the establishment of antivivisection societies, heated arguments concerning the necessity and methods of animal research have been put forth. In numerous editorials,

William Randolph Hearst sided with the antivivisection movement in his newspaper— The San Francisco Examiner. Hearst strongly opposed the killing of any animals. Even when his home became infested with mice 43 and rats he was reluctant to have the rodents exterainated* Ha finally allowed the use of poison to kill the rodents when all of the plants In his orchard were being destroyed^*

Hearst had a special affinity towards dogs. At his hone he always kept a few dogs nearby. His deference toward dogs is clearly evident In one of his 1941 articles:

Hind you. your columnist is not opposed to vivisection where it is necessary. But why allow promiscuous vivisection, and why vivisect's nan's best friend? Are there not rats and rabbits and goats and guinea pigs enough in the world? Why not vivisect these pests? Why not vivisect the enemies of man— not his best friends? And why vivisect promiscuously anyhow? He are the only highly civilized nation in the world that allows it. Even backward Germany--brutal Germany, as we describe her— does not allow vivisection except under special permit .

Although claims against scientific animal research and its benefits were more frequent many of them were easily refuted by animal researchers and their findings. For instance, Dr. John D. Stewart, a physician and member of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences in 1947 quoted Cardinal Manning as saying:

...my firm determination...to assist in putting an end to that which 1 believe to be a detestable practice without scientific result...to prohibit altogether the practice of vivisection. Nothing can justify— no claim of science,j^o conjectural result, no hope for discovery....

Dr. Stewart contradicted this statement by acknowledging the development of the iron lung which involved anesthetizing cats and haB since saved the lives of hundreds of children. Iron lungs were used to Induce artificial respiration in individuals incapable of maintaining adequate self-respiration. Stewart went on to mention dyptherla which used to 44 kill 60,000 people annually but no longer did because an antitoxin was found and tested on rabbitB and horses and was then uBed on hunan beings. Dr. Stewart listed a host of other therapeutic drugs and techniques that had cone about through animal research to benefit humans***.

In this same article, Dr. Stewart also mentions a number of findings which have saved the lives of millions of animals. Included in this list are anthrax, swine-fever, distemper, blackleg, and tuberculosis. Stewart concluded his article by stating that painful 19 research was infrequently conducted on animals . In most cases, the animals were anesthetized, another discovery by animal researchers

(Humphrey Davy in 1799 with nitrous oxide and Michael Faraday in 1818 20 with ether) that was Initially tested on themselves

Other memberB of society were offering pamphlets and brochures to the public to inform them of medical breakthroughs. One such pamphlet was published by the Public Affairs Committee, a non-profit educational organization that discusses social and economic problems in America. In its 1953 pamphlet entitled “Medical Research May Save Your Life!" it states that medical research in the past decade and a half has added 21 over eight years to the average life span .

One major discovery was the polio vaccine. In 1938 Dr. Jonas Salk received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to determine how many kinds of polio viruses existed. Using tissue samples from monkeys he was able to isolate the virus and eventually develop polio vaccines. 45

Similar accounts of other major medical breakthroughs employing

animal research techniques were the use of streptomycin and isoniazed in

the treatment of tuberculosis, sulfa drugs to combat pneumonia and

penicillin to fight infections* With the advent of these therapies* the 22 death rate in the United StateB dropped 15Z between 1937 and 1950 •

These diseases and therapies may not seem as miraculous today as

they did to people in the past. However, many millions of lives , human

and animal, were spared pain and despair that had at one time been

thought impossible to stop. These discoveries affected the everyday

lives of millions of people. Consequently, many individuals were in strong support of animal research.

The government was an additional source of support to research. Xn

1930 the National Institute of Health was established. By 1948, more

InBtltuteB were added to the National Institute of Health and it then

became the National Institute of Health. Over this period of time, research funding was increased. In 1938, only $91,000 was allotted to research, by 1945 this increased eightfold. By 1952, almost one hundred million dollars was being given by the government to medical research.

Although this may seem to be a large amount of money, it only represented one-sixth of one percent of the nation's defense budget at 23 that time

During these years, the biomedical research community began to formally organize Itself. Biomedlcal/anlmal researchers were well aware of the high financial costs involved in doing research. They also recognized the necessity of informing society about medical research.

In 1946, The National Society for Medical Research (NSMR) wsb founded in 46 response Co these needs* Previously, this role had been assumed by the

Committee for the Protection of Medical Research* This latter group was established in 1908 as part of the American Medical Association.

Although it was initially very active in infornlng the public about research it eventually ceased to function*

With the increasing nunber of bioaedlcal discoveries and subsequent increases in health benefits, the antivivisection aovenent had lost auch of its drive. The period between the two World Wars witnessed the growth of many new animal research facllltiea through the United States.

Numerous articles extolling the "wonders” of science and its new technologies were rampant. All of these new findings provided little ground for antivlvisectionists to stand on. Antivivisection arguments daiaing that animal research was a waste of time and offered no foreseeable benefits to human or animal lives was no longer perceived to 24 be a viable stance to take .

Nevertheless, the AAVS still maintains that animal research is immoral. This is the same position it has supported for over a century.

Regardless of the reason an animal is being used, members of AAVS stick to their motto which is "Non Facias Malum ut lnde Fiat Bonum" (You cannot do evil that good may result). Therefore, they contend that all 25 forms of animal research must be halted and made Illegal .

Another organisation which is very similar to AAVS is the American

Fund for Alternatives to Anlaal Research (AFAAR)* This group is based in New York City and has about 5000 members. AFAAR is an animal rights group which believeB chat people have no right to use animals in research, on farms, in hunting, rodeos, or as clothing. In addition, 47 they emphasize the need of developing alternatives to animal use in 26 research • AFAAR and AAVS are both affiliated with the International

Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals (1AAPEA) which le based in London, England. All of these groups share the belief that human beings do not have moral and/or ethical rights to use animals in research. Although they do not dispute the existence of disease in both human beings and animals, they do deny the validity of using animals to find cures for these diseases^.

AAVS literature stresses the difference in animals and human beings and cites this as support for the notion that animal models are not valid ways of obtaining data since people and animals are different. In contrast, AFAAR grants that animal research may have provided some useful findings to society, but still supports the abolition of animal research. IAAPE also seeks to substitute alternatives to animals in research. This organization opposes the use of any animal in experiments which involve surgery, stress, or deprivation. Of these three groups, AFAAR is the only one to stress that society has no right to consider animals to be resources of any sort any longer. This group believes that only when society stops funding animal research and

Instead funds alternatives will society be morally and ethically upright. As a means of bringing about these changes AFAAR has funded numerous projects since 1977 (its inception) that have sought 28 alternatives .

During the 1950's and 1960's, the humane movement became the dominant force within the animal welfare movement. This shift in power hinged on the issue of Pound Seizure Law. As medical research increased 48 there was a correlating increase in the number of dogs being taken from pound shelters for research purposes* Since many of these animal shelters were run by humane societies* they began to protest the use of 29 stray and unwanted animals for research purposes * Strong opposition to the use of animals in research* especially dogs and cats obtained by

Pound Seiaure Laws* was taken by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

AWI was formed in 1951 to "promote the welfare of all animals and 30 to reduce the total of pain and fear inflicted on animals by man" *

This group represents a very large number of followers. In addition* they lobby for laws to regulate the use of animals in research. At present they are interested in a number of animal welfare Issues that range from banning kangaroo imports to factory farming.

The other group which was formed at this time was the Humane

Society of the United States (HSUS). Since its establishment in 1954,

HSUS has become the largest animal welfare organisation. By 1985* HSUS had over 30U,00U members and supporters who "are active in every aspect of animal welfare and dedicated to improving the quality of life for all animals— livestock, wildlife, laboratory animals, and companion 31 animals . HSUS has played a very significant role in seeking legislation of animal research on factory farming Issues* and wildlife*

With its large financial base* HSUS has become an influential lobby force for animal rights.

Efforts by AWI and HSUS to exert gradual control on Congress to legislate and enforce laws concerning animals in the laboratory have been effective. Since their formation in the early 1950's these groups 49 have continued to grow in terms of membership and legal strength.

Although AWI and HSUS are not as militant as many of the animal rights groups which were formed in the 1970's and 1980's, they have both served to pave the way for these new animal rights groups. Since the Issues have shifted from caring for stray and unwanted animals to seeking rights for animals in farms, laboratories, and in the wild, numerous groups have arisen to defend one or more of.these causes.

In Bummary, the 1950's began a new era in the animal welfare movement. Prior to this time, many of the organizations could be considered to be primarily Involved in the welfare— care and comfort of animals— -as a humane movement. However, the organizations that arose in the 1950's opened the way to the animal rights movement of today. The issue of today is not seeking homes for strays, but to petition for legal rights for animals. The new animal rights groups invest their energy resources in the procurement of these rights, which they believe 32 are due to animals . CHAPTER Vll

FROM ANIMAL WELFARE TO ANIMAL RIGHTS

Within the last 30 years, the anlnal rights movement has grown tremendously. This growth is reflected in both the number of groups concerned with animal welfare and in terms of overall membership within the various groups. One way of examining this expansion within the animal rights movement is to look at the diversity of groups that have arisen or changed since 1950.

Many organizations concerned with the well-being of animals traditionally stressed the problem of providing abused and neglected animals with food, shelter, and medical care. Organizations like the

MSPCA, ASPCA, and local humane societies are representative of this approach to the care of animals. Their primary concerns are to provide veterinary care for animals and to place stray and unwanted animals in homes. In 1985, the MSPCA managed to provide food, care, and shelter for over 52,000 animals. Only 20Z of these animals were placed in new homes (adopted). The remaining 80Z of these 52,000 unwanted animals were euthanized ("killed")*.

Another service which 1b financed through the MSPCA is the Angell

Memorial Animal Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Over 75,000 animals were offered veterinary care in this hospital last year. A major emphasis of this organization is to provide for the welfare of animals.

50 51

This is a large task, in and of itself, as reflected in the aasslve number of stray and unwanted animals that they deal with yearly.

Nevertheless, the MSPCA has recently begun to broaden its efforts to provide for the welfare of animals in other areas of society. For example, their legislative affairs department, which works with state 2 and federal officials to seek new legislation that they believe will

reinforce animal welfare in Massachusetts and the nation, is working

towards repealing the Pound Seizure Law. This law states that unclaimed animals must be turned over to research facilities when requested.

The ASPCA, like MSPCA, is actively involved in providing health care services for animals. Over 80,000 animals were brought to the

ASPCA facilities in New York City alone. These were animals which were either lost, abandoned, or injured. Like the MSPCA adoption rates, only

20X of these animals were adopted by new owners. The great majority of 3 animals held by ASPCA had to be euthanized .

Both the ASPCA, MSPCA, and numerous other local SPCA's and humane societies across the nation deal with the problem of unwanted animal strays daily. These organizations seek to provide as much comfort to animals as possible. A close look at the literature which they provide to their members and other interested individuals stresses that their efforts are directed towards providing and enforcing animal welfare.

All of their actions are in strict accordance to state and federal laws.

These animal welfare organizations tend to be older, more established groups. Most have existed for over 70 years and have a large number of supporters. For example, the ASPCA has over 123,000 members and 52

contributors, while the MSPCA has approximately 50,000 people on Its

mailing list.

They believe that they can best serve unwanted animals by providing

them with humane care for their physical well-being. These beliefs are

also supported by the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) and

the Animal Rescue League (ARL) in Massachusetts. Both of these organizations, along with ASPCA, MSPCA, and other local humane societies

are currently considered to be conservative elements within the animal

rights movements by MFA and ALF^1' ■** 6.

NEAVS and ARL are animal welfare organizations that have existed for over a half a century. Even though NEAVS's title suggests that this organization has always been opposed to the use of any animals in

research, this is not so. Most of their criticism towards animal

research has been aimed at eliminating the use of dogs, cats, and primates in experiments^*

Other groups within, the movement have also perceived NEAVS, ARL,

MSPCA, and ASPCA to be very conservative and traditional associations.

This has produced much dissension within the animal rights movement.

Much of the conflict has been fanned by members of smaller, animal rights-oriented organizations. For example, in January, 1982, members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Coalition to

End Animal Suffering in Experiments (CEASE) tried to take control over

NEAVS by replacing NEAVS's board of directors. PETA and CEASE members were unsuccessful in their attempt to control NEAVS's board of directors, but they were successful in putting pressure on NEAVS to donate funds to smaller, animal rights-oriented groups like themselves—

PETA and CEASE8. 53

Pressure placed on animal welfare organizations by certain groups

q in like Hobilization for Animals (UFA) and PETA ’ may have led the

traditionally welfare oriented groups to become more vocal in their support for more radical animal rights groups. Although animal welfare 11 12 groups report the activities of animal rights groups * in their newsletters, their own literature (cf. MSPCA, ASPCA, and other humane- welfare societies) that is mailed out to their members continues to reflect their basic philosophy which emphasizes animal welfare. There is no mention of animal rights in their own "Principles". Nor do they present to the public the belief that animal experimentation is an evil that must be eliminated. They tend to focus on caring for animals and educating the public in humane treatment of animals^*

The past philosophy of animal welfare groups had taken a

"regulationist” perspective. The belief that the government must impose certain regulations/rules to guide society in its treatment of animals is a primary principle of this position*^* In the past they have sought legislation that would terminate the infliction of unnecessary and needless pain on animals. They have also endeavored to enforce this legislation and to provide care for stray and unwanted animals which were subjected to unnecessary and needless pain.

Although their main emphasis in the past has not been towards animal experimentation, in the last five years they have begun to lobby for laws which are directly concerned with animal research like the use of impounded animals in research. Much of this activist position has been generated by contact and conflict with newer groups like PETA,

CEASE, and MFA17, 18, l9. 54

The shift in position and tactics that are presently being seen in

these traditional welfare societies is becoming very noticeable. For

example, ASPCA donated a large amount of money to the April 1983 Primate

Center Rallies that were conducted by animal rights advocates like MFA*

These rallies were to protest the use of animals in laboratories. MSPCA

has been working closely with other animal rights groups to seek

legislation repealing the Pound Seizure Law 20 .

Since the older organizations (cf. ASPCA, MSPCA, & NEAVS) receive

much more financial support than the smaller, newer organizations within

the movement, the newer groups depend on the older groups for financial

support. Consequently, many of the smaller, less traditional groups

which do not have stable and reliable funding sources are now turning to

the larger organizations for support. In order to obtain funds to

lobby, demonstrate, and distribute pro-animal rights literature to the

public, less-established animal rights groups have to depend on the

resources of large groups like MSPCA, ASPCA, and NEAVS (different

philosophies to the animal welfare groups) for support 20 . This type of

out-reach strategy or networking within the movement is proving to be successful. Furthermore, it is a very effective means of increasing the

dissemination of animal rights philosophy and objectives in the United

States22.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is one important

part of this network. Much of their literature for members emphasizes

the organization's belief in animal rights as well as animal welfare.

In a pamphlet entitled "Animal Rights", HSUS defined its interpretation

of animal rights in the proceedings of the HSUS National Convention in 55

October 1980 at San Francisco as:

.••there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals •

HSUS members believe that when one is considering the rights of animals, it is necessary to take into consideration the animal's physical and mental requirements that are essential to maintain a healthy and stress-free animal. However, they do state that some requirements (unspecified) are more Important than others and at times there may be conflicts between these rights. If these conflicts arise— between human and animal rights— then HSUS suggests that "...we should weigh our desires and needs against those of the animal— giving equal consideration to each— to see which is of overriding value”^ .

Changes in the philosophical basis of HSUS began in the 1970's. In a book published by HSUS entitled On the Fifth Day: Animal Rights and

Human Ethics. Richard Morris and Michael Fox, members of HSUS, stated that humane welfare societies had failed in clearly and rationally delineating a system or philosophy to explain or substantiate the treatment of animals by human beings. The purpose of their book (a volume of essays by various individuals) was to establish a framework 25 for understanding what was meant by animal rights .

Michael Fox is currently director of HSUS's Institute for the Study of Animal Problems. Fox's opinion of animal rights is that animals have rights relative to human rights and chat people should be the merciful caretakers of animals. He cites several references to the philosophical concepts of Buddhism and points out his belief in eco-systems and the 26 interrelatedness of all living organisms 56

Eventhough HSUS has begun Co Include references Co animal righca,

in ics literature, ic continues Co consider itself "the nation's largest animal-welfare organization...leading advocate for animal protection."

In its pamphlet entitled Helping Hands for Animals it stresses the role the organization plays as "a challenge to the nation's conscience to affirm that the welfare and rights of animals and humankind are inseparably intertwined 27 .

However, based on the literature disseminated by HSUS it becomes very clear that they have moved from a traditionally animal welfare- based organization to one that is predominantly oriented towards animal rights. Although, HSUS has attempted to define the issue of animal rights, they have yet to offer a clear-cut, and objective, explanation of their point of view. Nevertheless, HSUS president, John A. Hoyt has stated that HSUS has played a significant role in introducing animal rights:

We who represent the more traditional animal protection movement have played an important role in the evolving of the new philosophy and movement. Many years prior to the advent ot animal rights as an acknowledged philosophy, those who constituted the animal-protection movement were vigorously affirming the ethical and moral dimensions of animal protection, thereby helping to cultivate the seedbed in which this philosophy is now taking root and flowering. Perhaps it would have happened without us, but certainly not to the degree„nor speed with which it ha6 now come on the scene

HSUS does attempt to present a general system within which one can begin to examine the concept of animal rights. According to HSUS principles, animals are customarily perceived as belonging to people, thus they do not have legal rights. Consequently, HSUS has excluded 57

using legal rights as one nemos of defining aniaml rights because

currently aninals do not have legal rights like people, nor do HSUS

aenbers believe that they will attain legal rights. However, HSUS

aenbers believe that this doeB not Justify the ooission of laws and 30 guidelines on how aninals should be treated by people .

Another nethod of examining aninal rights is in relation to natural

rights. Under this conceptual franework, rights attributed to a living

being are dependent upon the philosophical beliefs that are held by the

individual. Then, if one believes that God created hunan beings and gave then doninionshlp over aninals then that is to be accepted as a

natural right. Similarly, if one believes that all living beings are created equal, then one might believe that the natural rights of hunan

beings, animals, and insects are one and the sane* HSUS states that a

"strong case could be made that animals do have natural rights. These 31 are not the rights we refer to when we speak of "aninal rlghtB .

Due to the variety of philosophies, tenets, and beliefs held by different individuals, HSUS states that there is no way to substantiate or determine what the universal, natural rights of hunan beings or animals may be. Therefore, the group clalns that it cannot determine conclusively what the natural rights of animals entails. Since people abide by different philosophies, it is the individual who must establish which natural rights arc acceptable or not. No general consensus exists at present.

Related to natural rights is the concept of moral rights. Moral rights as defined by HSUS come from two different sources: 58

(1) Our understanding of the basic characteristics and needs of human beings, and 32 (2) Our fundamental belief in justice and fairness .

Note that thlB definition of moral rights is solely dependent upon how certain individuals choose to define moral* There is no external source of decIs ion-making other than the opinions and beliefs of certain individuals. The concepts of justice and fairneSB are not defined well, either. This allows for much leeway in the interpretation of what moral rights actually exist and how they are to be determined.

Uther interested persons dealing with animal rights issues have interpreted moral rights in a very different manner. For instance, in the view of Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State

University, and author of several books and articles on animals, moral rights are universal. This means that if two individuals (or animals) are similar in certain ways then the moral right that is entitled to one should also be entitled to the other. Secondly, Regan says all individuals (animals) should be entitled to the same moral right's equally. For instance, all are entitled to liberty or freedom to the 33 same degree .

HSUS policy doeB not use the same definition of moral rights as

Regan. HSUS subscribes to the position that conflicts will arise between moral rights of one kind or another. In instances of conflict, one is placed in a position of determining which right is more valid or worthy. However, HSUS does not state explicitly what kind of conflicts may arise, or how they are to be dealt with fairly. But the organization does stress the necessity of using fairness and justice in 59

Che process of selection. Therefore, they state that since species

differ they have different inherent needs and rights. As such, people

oust determine which of these needs or requirements are essential to the

animal's well-being and then try to ensure that these needs are

provided.

The arbitrariness of moral rights has long been a subject of debate amongst philosophers. For example, Jeremy Bentham, an English utilitarian philosopher in the 19th century, questioned the necessity of analyzing or establishing moral rights at all, since the only rights which are of any true value are legal rights. Bentham, who was an early advocate of legal rights for animals, believed chat animals should be entitled to legal rights because they feel pain like people. He defended his position without ascribing to animals'moral or natural

rights .

In contrast to Bentham's argument, Regan concludes that animals do have moral rights since they have Inherent value. Consequently Regan

believes that society must see to it that Hclalms-toH these rights and

"claima-against*' those denying these rights are addressed at all times.

Yet, Regan does allow for certain cases in which moral rights have to be overridden. For example, his “mlniridc" principle states that

When we must choose between overriding the rights of many who are innocent or the rights of few who are innocent, and when each affected individual will be harmed in a prims facie comparable way, then we ought to choose to override the rights of the few in preference to overriding the rights of the many .

Another addendum to the moral rights due to an individual is

Regan's “worse-off" principle which says that: 60

Special considerations aside, when we must decide to override the rights of the nany or the rights of the few who are innocent, and when the harm faced by few would make thea worse-off than any of the nany would be if any other option was chosen, thence ought to override the rights of the nany •

For Regan, there are certain situations in which the inherent value of an Individual is not sufficient, in determining the aoral rights of an individual and whether or not they will be enforced. His two principles— niniride and worse-off— offer systeas chat are to be used to deteraine if the rights of an individual (aniaal) should be overridden.

However, it is unclear who Regan assuaas will determine whether or not the aoral rights of an individual should be overridden. Regan aerely labels the doers as "we." Siailar Co HSUS's predicament, Regan does not mention clear-cut, unbiased, objective ways in which "we” can deteraine if rights are comparable or will result in worse-off conditions for

Individuals if they are denied.

This same issue was addressed by HSUS in a somewhat siailar vein.

HSUS states that "we have a aoral obligation to give then (aniaala) fair 37 consideration, and to deny them only if other rights are overriding"

For example, HSUS does not promote abstinence from eating meat, i.e., vegetarianism. But it doeB suggest that a more humane way of treating animals can result in more productive, economically efficient faraing systems." Hence, HSUS is in conflict with many other organizations within the aniaal rights movement which claim that people have no right 38 to eat meat .

HSUS also conflicts with other organizations in its treatment of animal research. Recommendations are made by the National Association 61

for che Advancement of Humane Education (NAAHE), a branch of HSUS, to

eliminate the uae of anlaala in high school research and to use

alternatives to animals in research when appropriate. But NAAHE is not

totally abolitionist in its treatment of animals in research---i.e., does 39 not argue that all forms of animal research must be stopped .

It becomes eminently clear when analyzing the positions taken by

various individuals and organizations within the animal rights movement

that there is not a single distinct explanation of “animal rights.”

Supporters of the animal rights movement contend that fighting for the

legal rights of animals is simply the logical sequel to the human rights

movement. For instance, Tom Regan believes that those who are fighting

for animal rights “are partners in the struggle to secure respect for

human rights.... The animal rights movement is cut from the same moral AO cloth as these" . Regan goes on to make it quite clear that the animal

rights view is absolutely abolitionist in regards to the use of animals

in research, as a food source or in hunting. In these instances,

Regan's animal rights view categorically claims that human beings have

no right whatsoever to treat animals in ways that one would not treat

human beings. Animals are entitled to the same moral, natural, and

legal rights as those given to humanity. Whether this means that Regan would consider cannibals to be moral because they eat human beings and

animals, without discriminating between the two, is unclear.

Comparing HSUS's definition of animal rights and that of Regan

testifies to the wide difference of opinion that surrounds this issue.

The issue of animal rights was initially drawn to the attention of

society by Richard Ryder in Victims of Science. In this book, Ryder 62 reiterated much of what Jeremy Benthan had stated over a century ago.

Both claimed that since animals are sentient (feeling) beings they 41 should be treated as one would treat another human being . According to Ryder's position, animals should be entitled to the same moral rights as people because both feel pain and suffer.

This stance is similar to that held by the members of the American

Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) of Jenklntown, Pennsylvania. AAVS's policy is set forth in a pamphlet entitled The Case Book of Experiments with Living Animals. In the following quote, AAVS expresses its understanding of biomedical research and animal researchers in the following way:

But that is not the purpose of their murderers who wear the holy mantle of science, though they perform their rites much as an Aztec priest at a human sacrifice. The priest was placating the gods, the scientist courtB the demons of disease. Like the Aztec, the scientist defends his acts on holy grounds. His god is his own Invention it is called Science...He executes his experiments, his torture and his murder of animals in the name of this god, and he cunningly Justifies his acts not with a promise of abundant Jigrvests but with a promise to cure disease....

The essence of this position being that animals are sentient beings and as such they should not be used in experiments. Although AAVS states that animals should not be used in experiments because It is immoral, they do not address the use of animals in other situations.

The conclusion of the Preamble to the Charter and By-Laws of the AAVS summarizes clearly the groups primary objective: "There is no cure for vivisection except complete abolition and on this we shall take our stand, now and always." 63

In summary, nany antivlvlaection organizations are still concerned with the well'-being of animals. Their primary concern has been and continues to be the use of animals in research. However, a comparison of old and new philosophical explanations for this opposition to animal research has changed. Initially, antivivisectionists and animal welfare advocates were against researchers because they did not want animals to feel pain. Although, antivivisectionists and aniaal welfare advocates still accept this rationale, they have also accepted the belief that animals have personal rights. One of these rights is not to be used in experiments. Hence the goals of antlvlvisectlon groups is no different today than they were in past years. However, the rationale for their beliefs have changed. CHAPTER VXII

ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS

The 1950*8 witnessed the formation of a host of new organisations concerned with animal well-being. These organizations were formed under the same supposition of past groups— laws had to be passed to protect animals from researchers, farmers, zoo keepers, hunters, meat eaters, and all other individuals interested in using animals.

One 6uch group is Friends of Animals (FOA). This group was founded in 1957 in New York City. At present FOA has over 125,000 members who are presided over by Alice Herrington. This society has a diverse array of issues which it attacks including animal research, factory farming, hunting, and pound seizure. FOA'a goal is "to achieve a humane ethic in man's relationship with the non-humans of this earth...to prevent particular wrongs or to encourage particular rights of animals"*.

FOA policy is in strict opposition to animal research. With its funds it has founded and continues to support a group called the Medical

Research Modernization Committee (MRMC). This committee has over 650 members who look into ongoing research and then they decide if the 2 research has been beneficial to society . In the March 1985 issue of

ACTIONline, the FOA's newsletter, they had an article describing some of the findings of MRMC. Briefly summarized, MRMC found the following fields of study to be either irrelevant to human beings or redundant and

64 65

a waste of monay: psychology, abuse and addiction studies, trauaa and

Inpact studies, Including burns, Injuries, wounds, gunshots, poisons,

etc. (Remember that this Is only the decision of MRMC members.) 3 However, these decisions are made collectively by MRMC members •

Although MRMC Is supported by FOA, mention la made that “Members of

MRMC probably have a diversity of opinions on the morality of animal

experimentation....In that respect, MRMC Is independent of Friends of

Animals" . FOA is composed of a mixed population of individuals.

However, all members are active supporters of animal rights. As such

this group seeks legislation and condones actions which would terminate

the use of animals in many different sectors of life. Examining the

literature of FOA, one notes little mention of moral or natural rights.

The MRMC is directly supported by FOA. FOA deals with all forma of

animal use while MRMC focuses its attention on animal research. The

organization's basic premises involve informing the public about the

condition of animals as they see it and asking people to Bupport the

group in seeking legislature that will ban hunting, research, factory

farming, and the use of pound animals for research. So their primary

efforts are directed towards establishing legal rights for animals^.

This approach to animal rights differs greatly from that proposed

by Buddhists Concerned for Animals (BCA). This group was formed in San

Francisco in 1962 and currently has over 2,000 members. These

individuals stress the religious factor in their efforts to enforce

animal rights. They believe that each person must help to change society's treatment of animals in order to better one's own spiritual existence^. 66

Another group which has only existed since 1985 is the

International Society for Religion and Animal Rights (1SRAR). This group was founded by Joan Newman* a graduate student of Berkeley's

Graduate Theological Union. In a statement addressing the group's philosophy* Newman said: MWe believe animals have rights, and that religious traditions should support them...we will work to develop curriculum and educational materials for seminary programs which embody a theology defending the rights of animals"^. Newman believes that animal rights are related to other issues like feminism and human rights. These two groups, BCA and 1SRAR* differ philosophically from

AAVS and FOA, yet they are all currently considered to be animal rights 8 groups .

Although these groups are fighting for animal rights, they have different reasons for their actions. For some, religious reasons compel them to fight for laws which would afford animals the same rights as people. Others believe that regardless of religious, moral, and/or ethical reasons, society has to give animals 'their' rights because they 9 are sentient . Still others believe that human beings and non-human beings are simply different species co-existing on the same planet and

Chat no species is better, higher, or of more worth than another.

Therefore, all species must be created similarly. Based on this concept of non-specleslsm, animals should be provided with the same rights commonly ascribed to human beings only. This position was previously presented as part of "A Declaration Against Specieslsm" which was signed at the animal rights symposium held at Trinity College in Cambridge,

England in 1977I0. 67

A society which has been very energetic in seeking out legal rights

for animals is the Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL).

This society was formed in 1955 and from its inception has focused on

attaining legal rights for animals. In the literature disseminated by

thiB organization there is no mention of specieslsm, religion, morals,

or ethics. The great majority of readings provided state that the

fundamental premise of SAPL is to obtain federal legislation concerning

research animals, methods of slaughtering, wildlife conservation,

whaling, and fishing. This society is interested in the rights of

animals with no mention of specific philosophical justifications for its

actions. In a handout distributed by the SAPL it does state that its

basic purpose for existing is to see that laws get passed^.

Many of the organizations that were formed prior to this time did

not lobby for legislation because that could result in a loss of their 12 tax-exempt status . However, in 1977 the Tax Reform Law of 1976 came

into effect. This federal law allowed charities and other tax-exempt■

organizations to seek political actions and lobby without jeopardizing

their tax-exempt status. The growth spurt in both the number of animal

rights groups and activities that the animal rights movement experienced

in the late 1970's and early 1980's parallels the passage of this law.

One group which has formed since the passage of the Tax Reform Law

of 1976 is Humans Against Rabbit Exploitation (HARE), a tax-exempt, non­

profit, grass roots animal rights organisation founded in 1982. HARE is

an offshoot of Trans-Species Unlimited, another animal rights group that wa6 founded in 1981. Both groups are located in State College,

Pennsylvania. These groups are similar in their ideology which they 68

13 state as "the total elinlnation of animal abuse and exploitation" •

HARE emphasizes the use of rabbits in factory farms and research, while

Transpecles Unlimited (TSU) includes all animals in its policy statement. In a pamphlet distributed by TSU entitled "Animal Rights:

What's It All About?," they define their concept of animal rights as

"human and animal liberation through education and radical, non-violent, political action...liberation of animals depends heavily upon the revolutionary transformation of human consciousness..." These beliefs can also be applied to HARE which is now composed of many groups across the United States, Canada, Australia, and England 14 •

HARE and TSU are representative of many other animal rights groups across the world. They are fairly new organizations which are very vocal in stating their opinions and in passing out literature describing their beliefs. Examining some of their literature one immediately notes that TSU is not simply Beeking changes in the way society treats animals but is seeking global changes concerning humankind's view of life in general. For instance, in their pamphlet, "Speclesist or

Transpeclesist?" they say

If...you believe, as we do, that human beings are morally obliged to free themselves as fully as possible from all forms of homocentric and speclesist thought and action, then you may wish to Join us at Trans-Species Unlimited in the struggle for the total liberation of the planet Earth and its inhabitants •

This approach has been labeled philosophical activism by Dr. George

Cave, founder of TSU. This means that an individual takes their own beliefs and implements them. Put another way it means that one's philosphy has to be acted upon. This approach to bringing the issue of 69

animal rights to the public is definitely allitent. It is an approach

that became very popular during the civil rights and anti-Vietnam

movements of the 1960's. TSU has successfully employed this type of

strategy in many of their campaigns. For example.

...TSU has mounted many highly visible and successful demonstrations in support of anlmalB. Including protests of veal production, laboratory abuses, for sales, rodeos, and commercial rabbit breeding...have entered and blockaded laboratories...engaged in non-violent civil disobedience agf£nst animal abuses in research laboratories... .

They have also been successful in soliciting the help of other group

members to participate in their campaigns in other parts of the

country^* Moreover, TSU is a member organization of various 19 coalitlonB, as well as task forces on specific animal right issues .

Since there are so many things that TSU opposes, like eating meat,

use of fur or leather in clothing, buying pets from pet stores, keeping exotic pets, circuses, hunting, crapping, fishing, and animal research,

they must be very energetic in their attempts to obtain help and support from ocher grass root groups.

Some animal rights groups are Is b b diverse in the issues that they deal with. For example, Beauty Without Cruelty (BWC) is a New York

based organization with over 5,000 members that was founded by Muriel

Lady Dowding in 1972. This group states its aim is:

To inform the public about the massive suffering of many kinds of animals in the fashion and cosmetics industry. To provide information about substitute fashions and cosmetics which have not involve^death, confinement, or suffering of any animals . 70

which are being tested on animals, and the use of fur and leather in

apparel. Many BWC board members are affiliated with other animal rights

groups, too. For instance, vice-presidents of BWC who belong to other

animal rights groups include: Cleveland Amory, President and Chief

Executive Officer of Fund for Animals; William Cave, President of the

American Anti-Vivisection Society; and Helen Jones, President of

International Society for Animal Rights.

This is a good demonstration of networking within the movement.

Networking allows people with experience in other organizations to share

their expertise and resources in campaigning, fund-raising, and media

strategies with other groups. For example. Dr. George Cave, president

of TSU, is also a coordinator for the Farm Animal Reform Movement

(FARM), director of the Society for the Study of Ethics and Animals, and 20 advisor for the Animal Political Action Committee . Ethel Thurston and

Muriel Lady Dowding, president and founder of BWC respectively,

trustee/board members of AFAAR 21 . Gretchen Wyler is a board member of

AFAAR, vice-president of BWC, and vice-chairperson for Fund for 22 Animals . Michael Fox is director of the Institute for the Study of

Animal Problems, a branch of HSUS and president of the International

Network for Religion and Animals23

Individuals not involved in the movement may be hesitant in donating to or belonging to groups chat are againBt certain activities which they do. So if there exists groups which deal with only a few

specific issues like HARE (rabbit exploitation) or BWC (cosmetics, fur,

and leather usage) then more people will contribute because there are only limited issues being dealt with and these may be ones with which a n d leathet 11 ~ti t i only n^j w i. • ilch they n o a*- i o f 71 and leather usage) then more people will contribute because there are only United 'issues being dealt with and these nay be ones with which they are not in opposition* Consequently* overlap amongst nenbers of different anlnal rights groups is becoming very popular* CHAPTER IX

PROM ANIMAL R1CHTS TO ANIMAL LIBERATION

Many of the groups previously nentioned are currently very active in seeking legislation to support anlnal rights. However, these actions are believed to be insufficient methods of acquiring anlnal rights by some individuals. These individuals have taken it upon themselves to become animal liberators*. Because these animal liberators enter research facilities, farms, and other places where animals are kept and illegally free (liberate) these aninalB; and because they support direct action to give animals rights like human beings, they are considered to be the freedom fighters of the animal rights movement.

The philosophical framework for animal liberation was initially presented by Peter Singer in his book Animal Liberation (1975). Singer states the essence of his philosophical beliefs in the following quote:

The core of this book 1b the claim that to discriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race is immoral and indefensible...I believe that the case for Animal Liberation is logically cogent, and cannot be refuted; but' the task of overthrowing speclesism in practice is a formidable one .

One group that seems to abide by the above statement is Animal

Liberation Front (ALF). This is an underground organization which was first heard of in England in 1976— a year after the publication of

72 73

Singer's book. Since Chat cine ALF has been involved in a number of illegal activities to further their cause— animal liberation. For example. Ronnie Lee, a member and spokesman for ALF in England, was interviewed by Philip Windeac and had this to say about ALF:

The attack on the Charles River Laboratories was the firBt ALF activity: vehicles were damaged, and several thousand pounds worth of damage was caused...there is now one ALF action every day...ALF groups meet Informally in small cells. Some operate In their locality; others travel SO to 100 miles for a raid .

Ronnie Lee goes on to say that the short term goals of ALF is to cause economic losses to people who use animals. This will then result in expenditure of their money on tighter security Bystems, which will then reduce the amount of available money to be spent on animal research.

Their long term goals aim at eliminating animal research/industries by L making them too expensive to conduct .

Some recent demonstrations of ALF activities include the Hay 1964 break-in to the University of Pennsylvania's Head Injury laboratory and illegal confiscation of over 60 hours of videotaped data. They also entered the City of Hope Hedical Center in Duarte. California and stole

115 animals from the research facility. Another break-in occurred on

April 20. 1985 at the University of California-Rlverslde research centers. Once again animals were stolen and the facilities were damaged^. Hore detailed information concerning these break-ins will be provided in a later chapter.

There are numerous similar cases of break-ins. burglaries, and damage caused by ALF members. These animal liberation activists claim that these raids are necessary to enforce their moral beliefs that 74 animals have rights not be used in experiments. These actions are being taken all across the world because ALF has members in Canada, Holland,

England, USA, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, France, and South Africa.

For instance, last year British ALF members placed messages inside some

Mars candy bars claiming that they had put rat poison in some of them.

Although this was not true, the Mars Company was forced to recall their candy bars and consequently suffered financial losses. These actions were taken because the Mars Company was studying tooth decay in monkeys and ALF opposed their research**.

Most of ALF activities are not revealed to the public by ALF sources. Since ALF members do conduct illegal acts they remain underground. As a result, they have to work through others to get these activities publicized. ALF members typically hand over the Btolen animals and data to a member of the group People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals (PETA)^. PETA is an activist group which w s b co­ founded by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk in 1980. This Washington,

D.C. based group haB a number of smaller branches throughout the USA.

In a personal communication from Fran GoldluBt, Chairperson of the local

PETA-Ohio branch, she described the organization as "a group working on local issues as well as national efforts. PETA is a direct action group Q whose stand is always for the animals without compromiseM •

The Chairman of PETA, Alex Pacheco, has been previously identified as the person who entered Dr. Edward Taub's laboratory at the Institute of Behavioral Research in Maryland and took photographs, data, and monkeys from the research facility. In the essay "The Silver Springs

Monkey" Pacheco expresses his belief that "...The animal protection 75

q novenent has not been aggressive enough or persistent enough** • He continues by saying that animal rights advocates must continue to fight for as many reforms as possible with the ultimate goal being the total abolition of animal usage by society. In a PETA pamphlet entitled,

"Animal Rights," the following description of the organisation is provided: "PETA is an educational and activist group opposed to all forms of animal oppression and exploitation"***. The foregoing statement characterizes the nature of this organisation. Many of their activities are described sb exposes of animal abuses or acts that represent their bellefs— whether or not these activities are illegal or not is no longer an issue. An article in PETA News describes their actions as "an attempt by PETA to explain their support of Civil Disobedience as a practice for animal rights advocates...."**

Basically, PETA believes that the animal rights movement has to become more forceful and united if it is to achieve their ultimate goal which is establishment of equal rights for human beings and animals, alike. In an effort to achieve these aims, PETA works with other organisations within the movement 12 .

Another group that shares a similar philosophy to PETA is MPA. MFA is a relatively new group that has only existed since 1981. However, it haB been very active in seeking out new members and has many supporters across the U.S.A. The following claim is made in a 1985 brochure distributed by MFA: "...we have organised the largest grass roots network of animal activists throughout the world, with hundreds of local, state, regional, and national Mobilisation groups actively 13 working to and the suffering*' . The organisation itself consists of a 76 coalition of aany other groups and their activities are coordinated at local and national levels by Richard Morgan, HFA's International

Coordinator. At present it has been estinated that there are over

80,000 nenbers and contributors to MFA.

This group is well-organized in taking political action and contends that the issue of anlnal use has to be treated like a political aovenent if they are to achieve their goal which is anlnal liberation.

This is epitonized by a book that was written by Richard Morgan,

International Coordinator for MFA, entitled, Love and Anger: An

Organizing Handbook. Morgan cites the handbook's use as: “An organizing handbook for activists in the struggle for animal rights and 14 in other progressive political movements” . As a political aovenent

MFA has been very effective in its efforts to reach out to nany segnents of society. By being very active in terns of denonstrations, campaigns, and sit-ins, they have attracted a large number of college students to their ranks. MFA stresses the necessity of renaining “radical, active, caring entitles” for animals rather chan becoming a big business like some anlnal welfare societies^. Through the use of young people, who volunteer their services to MFA, this organization has been able to continue its efforts and campaigns towards anlnal liberation even though it does not have a large revenue*^. So a large part of MFA's activities are continued through these college students.

A fear that is shared by nany nenbers of anlnal liberation groups is that animal welfare/rights groups will becone more conservative as they nature. MFA nenbers want to prevent this from happening. In a

1983 Annual Financial Report of Anlnal Welfare Organizations, MFA 77 suggested that nany of the larger, nore conservative groups in the aovenent nay actually be hindering the novenent's efforts for anlnal rights rather than enhancing then. HFA stated in this report that nany of the larger groups which have large aaounts of noney were not using the noney to benefit aninals, but to naintain the group's

Infrastructure* This report Is one of the nore recent public deaonstrations of dissensions between anlnal welfare and rights groups.

MFA is very forward and outspoken about its opposition to anlnal research and to animal welfare/rights groups that do not live up to its expectations^.

The transition fron animal welfare to rights to liberation has been very rapid. Numerous groups have arisen within the last SO years. A list of these groujps and the categories (i.e., welfare, rights, or liberation) which they belong to is produced in Appendix D.

Since the idea of anlnal liberation was first introduced by Singer in 1976, there has been a trenendous increase in the number of animal

“liberations" in the USA and England. Animal liberators are no longer interested in trying to change the laws and beliefs of people by conventional means (cf. dissemination of information, lobbying). They are taking direct action which in most cases has been illegal. In their search for legal rights for animals, they have committed numerous illegal actions against society. CHAPTER X

MAJOR ISSUES WITHIN THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Diversity within the animal rights aovenent Is exeaplifled by the

multitude of smaller distinctive organisations that have cropped up in

recent years. These groups are of either grass root origins or are

offshoots of larger groups. Frequently) as groups Increase in else

differences of opinion begin to arise. Also, members of different

organisations may feel strongly about a particular issue and band

together to form an additional group that stresses the issue they are

interested in. This occurred in 1981, when members of various animal

rights groups formed the Burger King Boycott Coalition (BKBC). The

primary objective of thiB group was to stop Burger King restaurants from

offering veal as part of their menu.*

In order to achieve this goal, supporters of BKBC petitioned,

demonstrated, picketed, and distributed literature to the public stating

their objections to veal sandwiches at Burger King. By 1984, Burger

King restaurants no longer offered veal sandwiches. At present there

still exists differences of opinion concerning the absence of veal from

Burger King's menus. BKBC believes their actions against the .restaurant

caused Burger King to stop offering veal. On the other hand, Burger

King states that veal sandwiches simply did not sell as well as their other sandwiches, so due to business practices they stopped offering

78 79

veal. Since nenbers of BKBC believed that there efforts here were

successful in curtailing veal sales, they are now carying out the sane 2 strategies against Canadian Burger Kings.

Another group which was formed in 1985 is the International Network for Religion and Anlnals (1NRA). In the process of its formation it absorbed members of Agape. Agape, itself, had only been around since

1981. Even though Agape no longer exists, many of its principles and 3 objectives continue to be disseminated via its incorporation into 1NRA.

The director of INKA is Dr. Michael Fox. Dr. Fox is also director of

HSUS's Institute for the Study of Animal Problems.

INKA states its purpose and goals are to incorporate religious teachings into the analysis of animal welfare and rights. By holding meetings, developing programs, acting as a clearinghouse to distribute material to religious centers, schools, and other interested parties, and by gaining grass root supports, INKA hopes to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity's attitude toward the treatment of our 4 animal kin." In effect, INKA is working towards the integration of the various religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism) as a force within the animal rights movement.

INRA has very different objectives and strategies than those of the

Institute for the Study of Animal Problems which is also under the direction by Dr. Michael Fox. In a personal communication to the author

Dr. Fox stated the purpose of this Institute of HSUS in the following manner: "The Institute is the scientific branch of the Humane Society of the United States and we publish various scientific reports, monographs, and textbooks dealing with such issues as factory farming, laboratory animal care and research, etc."^ 80

Conparing che philosophies and actions of these two organizations illustrates the variety of beliefs and objectives that are currently held by people within the aovenent. A further demonstration of this type of co-affiliation within the animal rlghtB movement exists between the Coalition to Stop Draize Rabbit Blinding Tests and the Coalition to

Abolish the LD SO. The LD SO is an experimental technique used to determine the lethal dose of a substance. Any new substance that may come into contact with people or animals must be tested to determine at what dose it would cause death. These coalitions were established in

1979 and 1981, respectively, by Henry Spira who still functions as the coordinator for both coalitions.

These two groups are affiliated with one another and each group is composed of approximately 400 animal welfare and rights groups according to Henry Spira.^ Although each group has different objectives— one to end the use of a scientific procedure and the other to end the use of a particular species in a test procedure— they share common methods of attaining their objectives. For instance, both groups are active in lobbying for legislation that supports their goals. They also conduct boycotts and demonstrations against agencies and companies which either employ the LD 50 test and/or use rabbits. Spira explained why he believes in forming coalitions to fight these single causes separately;

We wanted to adapt to the animal movement the traditions of struggle which had proven effective in the civil rights movement, the union movement, and the women's movement. We realize that we were surrounded by systems of oppression, all related, and reinforcing each other, but in order to influence the course of events, we knew that we must focus sharply on a single significant injustice, one clearly limited goal. 81

This stateaent clearly depicts the intentions of the anlnal rights

novement as a segment of society waging a fight to bring about changes

in society. Although they nay not share common beliefs regarding the

various facets of animal welfare and rights, they are united in their

efforts to bring about changes. Sone of the larger issues that are

being dealt with by the animal rights noveaent are anlnal

experimentation, factory farming, hunting,-and the pet population.

Different groups hold different opinions and stances regarding each of

these topics. Arguments concerning these issueB are rampant between

various groups within the novement and between the noveaent as a whole u and society in general. A comaon thread that does weave throughout the

movenent, though, 16 the desire to change present rules and regulations

concerning aninals in our society to ones that would be subject to the

approval of nenbers of the animal rights novement. These individuals

are Interested in regulating anlnal research, eventhough they have not

received any formal training or experience in this field.

This is clearly reflected In their ongoing efforts to either abolish or regulate anlnal experimentation.*® As we have observed there exists a wide range of opinions regarding the use of animals in research. Some groups are strictly abolitionist in their viewpoint.

This neans that they oppose all forns of vivisection on animals and are not satisfied with laws governing the care of animals in research facilities. This is the position of the American Anti-Vivisection

Society (AAVS). In its pamphlet "Why We Oppose Vivisection," AAVS states that it norally opposes the use of any animal in any type of research which may be physically or mentally stressful to the animals.** 82

Furthermore they list • variety of aniaal studies which they believe to

be of no value or use to mankind or animals and these include burn

studies, aggression studies, effects of radiation and chemicals, sleep

deprivation, pain studies, and stress-induced heart disorder studies*

This is only a partial list of research topics they oppose.

Similar feelings are shared by the Society Against Vivisection, a

group of abolitionists based in Costa Mesa, California* Like AAVS they

totally oppose the use of animals in research because "animal research

is a scientific mistake and a social affliction." 12 These groups allow

no room for half-measures, i.e., to allow research on certain species or

topics. They oppose all forms of animal experimentation and condone

only the use of alternative methods— whether or not these alternatives

constitute valid scientific techniques or not does not really concern 13 them.

The antagonism they direct towards research is dependent upon the

amount of suffering they believe animals are subjected to. This

suffering is unjustifiable regardless of the purpose or findings of the 14 research. Different attitudes toward animal research have been

adopted by different people, some oppose animal research because they

believe that human beings have no moral and/or ethical right to subject

animals to conditions that may cause pain or harm to them.*^ Those who

accept this position believe that regardless of the merit of the

research and the possibility of alleviating human and animal ailments,

animal research is immoral, unethical and thus should not be condoned.

Those who abide by these beliefs must be willing to forego all benefits

that have or will result from animal research. For instance, a major 83 medical Illness chat has becone evident within recent years is Acquired

Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). . At present researcher are striving for ways to halt, eliminate or treat this fatal disease. Part of the search for treatment and cure involves the use of animals. Those who oppose thje use of animals in reseach must therefore oppose the search for a cure or vaccine for AIDS.^

Another attitude concerning animal research is that animal research should and only if altnerative methods are not available.1^ Those who accept this position believe that all animal research must be evaluated a priori to determine whether ornot thje research is ef value to humans and animals alike. A primary issue within this position is the definition of what constitutes a valid and reliable alternative (see

Chapter 15). For example, Dr. Richmond Hubbard, Chairman of the Medical

Research Modernization Committee, a group affiliated with Friends of

Animals, suggests that an alternative to using animals one should use

I Q "informed volunteers.•.to study mental illness and human problems.M

Whether a mentally ill patient is capable of making an "informed" decision is not addressed by the author. Even if alternatives are available. The researcher or outside parties must decide whether or not the research is worth being done. For example, according to Dr.

Hubbard's committee there are many areas of research which are redundant, useless, or should only be conducted directly on humans.

These Include: psychology, human behavior problems; mental aberrations; drug, alcohol, or smoking ubo; trauma and Impact studies; burns; and 19 poisons. Individuals who accept this viewpoint must then determine for themselves and in essence for other members of society whether or 84 not animal research within a particular field la justifiable or not.

The third viewpoint regarding animal research believes that animal research is a necessary and valuable means of obtaining information concerning human and animal welfare. Those who accept this position

believe that:

...laboratory animals are indispensable to progress in medicine; in assisting medical scientists to discover the cause of disease, how illness affects tissues and organs, and what different approaches may work.

Those who accept this latter position realise that animals are capable of perceiving pain and suffering. However, they also believe that animal research, even in instances where the animal is subjected to pain or harm, is necessary. Necessity in this instance refers to the use of animals in potentially painful circumstances to elucidate principles or 21 information that may benefit human and animal well-being. This position does not equate human and animal considerations or rights.

Human Interests outwelght those of animals. As a consequence, medical and/or psychological benefits may be accrued at the expense of animal lives.

These three positions basically reflect present societal attitudes towards animal research, different animal welfare/rights groups accept different positions. Some groups are strictly abolitionists. Hence they oppose all forms of animal research. For example, 1SAR is an abolitionist animal rights groups which adamantly opposes the mere regulation of animal research:

Regulation of exploitation reinforces the exploitation while offering a salve for the human conscience at the expense of the victims. 85

On the other hand, HSUS Is actively involved in regulating animal

research. Although HSUS literature does not include talk of epeciesisa,

it does condenn the use of animals in research. HSUS is very careful in

never explicitly stating that all animal research should be terminated.

But it does give a list of experimental techniques that are used and 23 states that they are "unreliable, outmoded, or unneccesary" without stating who compiled the information and from where they obtained their data.

Hany organizations do not question the merit of animal experimentation, but do suggest that further requirements and laws be legislated to protect animals. For instance, in a book published by

the Animal Welfare Institute (AW1) called Beyond the Laboratory Door.

the writers conclude that:

Society must leave to scientists the judgment of the scientific value of an experiment. But scientists are not uniquely qualified to evaluate the ethical acceptability of an experiment. That judgment belongs to society as a whole.

This type of position is a very difficult one to execute. AVI implies that they do not want to judge the scientific values or merit of a study, but they still want to be able to control how the experiment will be conducted. Ofen times the merit of the study is based on the design of the study, though. For some reason, AW1 assumes that the merit and protocol of the experiment are mutually exclusive. They will agree to the experiment's merits, but will then subject procedures of the studies to the scrutiny of individuals who may not be familiar with the techniques employed. Consequently, these individuals may eliminate those parts which do not meet with their approval and in the process undermine the merit of the study. 86

Some animal welfare groups are not interested in the regulation of animal experimentation. They are primarily concerned with the animal's welfare. For example, the Morris Animal Foundation is an organisation in which pet owners, educators, scientists, and veterinarians all work together to solve companion animal health problems. They are concerned with the health problems that are frequently encountered by dogs, horses, and zoo animals. Therefore, this foundation funds research which actively seeks to find cures for the animals and provide them with 25 improved health. In a personal communication to the author from

Claude Ramsey, Executive Director of the Morris Animal Foundation, he stated the goal of the organization as follows: "We believe all animals have a right to good health and man has an obligation to help provide that health.**26

These varying and conflicting perspectives can all be found to exist within the animal rights movement. Some individuals/groups are very uncompromising in the stand they take, whereas others are more flexible. But the trend that is becoming apparent within the movement is a move from regularionism towards abolition of animal 27 experimentation. Whether or not this trend will continue to grow in strength will depend on how successful the movement is in their campaigns, lobbying skills, and unification of supporters and financial resources.

Another area of concern for members of the animal rights movement

Involves the raising of animals for food in our society. This topic is frequently referred to as factory farming by members of the movement.

To most individuals it means the raising of livestock for eating 87

purposes. Differences of opinion abound between groups regarding the

morality and ethics of eating meat. Some groups are totally appalled on that people continue to Include meat as part of their diet. others

believe that meat-eating is acceptable as long as animals are treated 29 humanely before slaughter.

Some groups which are very outspoken in favor of vegetarianism and

the abolition of farm raised animals include American Vegetarians of

Akron. Ohio. American Vegan Society, and the Vegetarian Activist 30 Collective. The latter two groups are based in New York. Different

groups provide different reasons for accepting vegetarianism as a way of

life. These beliefs range from ones which claim that meat consumption

causes ill health to those which state that it is Immoral and cruel to 31 eat meat. Some groups even propose that animals should become

vegetarians, also. So they avoid purchasing food for their pets which may Include animal products.

Some individuals believe that certain things must be done to eliminate what they consider to be bad agricultural practices rather than forcing all people to eliminate meat from their diets. For instance, Jim Hason, co-founder of Animal Rights Network, Inc. and founder of Agenda, magazines which publish information relevant to the animal rights movement, stresses the important role the consumer can play in curtailing meat sales. In his article "Brave New Farm?" he provides a list of 13 "demands" the consumer should make so that agriculturalists will cea6e rearing animals in ways that he and others within the movement believe to be immoral, cruel, and unethical. These

"demands" range from getting the government to stop subsidizing farmers 88

to demands that antibiotics, growth factors, and other additives to the 32 grain of livestock be made illegal. He does not discuss the future

implications of these deaands, though. Many groups within the noveaent

are actively involved in seeing that Mason's deaands are put into

action. These groups Include HSUS, the Farm Animal Refora Movement

(FARM), the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), and Food Anlaal Concerns

Trust (FACT). There are nunerouB other local humane groups which urge

individuals to support these measures in addition to advocating

vegetarianism.

Much debate surrounds the issue of factory farming, agribusiness,

or intensive farm production (these terms are eynonomous). Both sides—

farmers and animal rights advocates— are becoming very vocal in

presenting their concerns to the public. Animal rights advocates

condemn farmers for raising livestock, while farmers oppose the

Interference by animal rights advocates into their business.

FARM is actively involved in projects to “alleviate and eliminate

animal abuse and other adverse impacts of animal agriculture on human 33 health, world hunger, and natural resources. This group suggests that

people become vegetarians because:

...the average meat and fish eating American, during his lifetime, is personally responsible.!or the needless suffering in 'factory farms'....

By becoming vegetarians, this would efficiently and sufficiently shut down farms. Some practices thar Farm opposes include the production of milk-fed veal. Calves are kept in small compartments for 16 weeks and fed a diet that is low in iron and fiber. They also oppose the raising of laying hens in cages that do not provide the hens sufficient space to 89

move around adequately. FARM nenbers are against maintaining piga in 35 battery cages.

The council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) examined

some of these charges made by animal rights advocates. After a thorough

review of current food animal produciton techniques the council

concluded that:

Because food animals are maintained to enhance human welfare, rational consideration of animal welfare requires that it be placed in perspective relative to human welfare. Economics is a useful aid in this regard. The goal of maximum profitability pursued by animal producers (and other) leads automatically to improved welfare of both animals and humans. Modern, intensive, poultryj production methods embody better nutrition, better control of diseases and parasites...current methods of managing animals during handling, trangportation, and slaughter are based upon research. viable farming faciltles they must continue with current practices. In addition, their findings indicate that current food animal production methods are no inhumane.

If everyone were to become a vegetarian the problem with "factory farming" for animal rightists would disappear. However, a vast majority of Americans are not vegetarians and do desire to eat meat and meat products. This is clearly evident because 962 of all warm-blooded animals that are killed in “slaughterhouses, laboratories, dog pounds, 37 and in the wild" are used for meat-eating purposes.

Since it is unlikely that all people will cease to eat meat, farmers will continue to provide their services. Many farmers are perturbed with the animal rights movement involvement in their affairs.

For example, a farmer's daughter recently wrote: 90

...Suddenly, it seems, hordes of moral meat rejectors are descending upon livestock farmers...having chosen not to burden themselves with producing the food that keeps them alive, they now turn and give the farmer instructions on how to produce it.

Farmers are not only bothered that animal rightists are attacking their profession, but chat they stress farming is big business and that farmers profit highly. In reality, the USDA reported that "33Z of every 39 food dollar goes to labor while 27Z represents the valued food."

These figures indicate that farmers do not profit enough for what they produce. If they were to return to old techniques for rearing animals they would not be able to provide food sources at a reasonable coBt to the public. This places the farmer in a double-bind situation. They can either produce food at a high cost and please animal rightists or continue to provide food at a relatively low cost and please the vast majority.

A related area of concern involves the hunting and trapping of animals. Many animal rights groups are seeking legislation that would ban the use of eteel-jaw traps. They are concerned that many animals are caught in these traps and seriously injure themselves or die before the trapper returns. Others are totally against Che traps because they believe that people have no moral or ethical right to wear the fur or leather of animals, regardless of the method in which the animal is caught. Many groups promote this view by mailing out cards which show a picture of a woman dragging a fur coat with blood running out of it. On the cards are written: "It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make a fur coat, but only one to wear it. If you don't want millions of animals 91

tortured and killed in leg-hold traps, don't buy a fur."^ Other, groups use other techniques to address this issue. As previously mentioned,

activist groups like Trans-Species Unlimited have gone to stores which

sell furs and either picketed the stores or held sit-ins in protest of 41 their sales and purchases.

Like other issues within the animal rights movement there are those who disagree with this view. They believe that raising fur animals on farms is alright, or at least better, than trapping animals. In a chapter written by Muriel the Lady Dowding, founder of Beauty Without

Cruelty, she addressed this type of preference in the following manner:

Fur farming is, of course, the fur trade's answer to factory farming. It offers higher production yield, complete control over the animal, ease of collection, and so on. Some people feel the farming of fur-bearing animals to be more humane than the trapping of wild ones. My feeling on this is that it is little more than the substitution of one £gpe of torture for another more prolonged form.

Fur farmers who raise minks, sables., and other types of fur-bearing animals contend that the portrait of fur-farmers frequently presented by members of the animal rights group to the public is highly exaggerated and that the animals do not suffer in these farms. They state that, if anything, the animals live longer, healthier liveB on the farms than they would in the wild.

A related topic of concern to some members of the animal rights movement involves sports hunting. A group that specializes in this area is the Committe to Abolish Sport Hunting (CASH). Luke Dommer, President of CASH, strongly opposes ’’sport" hunting because he believes sport hunters are destructive individuals who "get a thrill out of a 92

43 killing.** CASH opposes the National Rifle Association and law agencies which allow hunts to go on in state parks. One effort that

CASK has been successful in was preventing a sport hunt at the Harriman

State Park in New York. Currently, CASH, with the help of James Mason, co-founder and publisher of Animal Agenda, is in the midst of filing a lawsuit against the federal government because of current policies which allow recreational hunting in other parts of the state.

The basic strategies of this group are very similar to those employed by the Coalition to Stop Draize Rabbit Blinding Tests and the

Coalition to Abolition the LD SO. CASH has chosen one target and is trying to get legislation passed which would totally eradicate its

(hunting) existence in society. This small group faces a common problem shared by other small groups, namely that it does not have enough money to support it cause.

In this case, CASH, being short of financial resources is currently attacking the MSPCA, a wealthy animal welfare organization, on the grounds that it (MSPCA) has stock in the Humana Heart Corporation which conducts studies on heart transplants and because it pays its executives well. According to CASK's Action Report article, "C.A.S.H will attack the M.S.P.C.A.," they want MSPCA's money to go to themselves and other animal rights groups which “fight the dirty battles in the field without 44 benefit of funding,** CASH does not explain why they do not receive enough funds to support their actions against hunting, though.

Many state agencies, like Departments of Fish and Game, support fishing and hunting as measures to control the wildlife population.

They also know that many hunters eat what they have caught and do not go 93

hunting merely for the thrill of the kill. If hunting were not allowed,

the government would have to allocate more funds to control the wildlife 45 population and to enforce laws which would prohibit hunting.

Other sources of opposition include the National Rifle Association,

Tnis group opposes many of the actions that are taken by groups like

CASH because they believe that their rights are being infringed upon by 46 animal rights advocates. In addition, agriculturalists oppose animal

right bans on hunting because of crop damage. These positions are supported by individuals involved in wildlife management. They have stressed the importance of controlling wildlife populations either by hunting or other means. For instance, many species, like deer, rabbit, and grouse, would not make it through winter conditions and would most

likely die. Conversely, if these species grow in numbers they will seek food and damage crops. Aldo Leopold's conservation ethic deals with these types of occurrences by suggesting that people fully understand the characteristics of the wildlife population and agricultural necessities, then implement methods which will prove beneficial to both 47 the species and crops.

At present, there is much debate over 6port hunting. But it does not seem likely that this aspect of the animal rights movement will win many battles in its efforts to halt hunting. Before restrictions can be put on sport hunting, the animal rights groups are going to have to provide viable methods to control populations of species that encroach upon farmers' land and cause problems of predation to domestic species.

Furthermore, rifle and hunting associations are lobbying and winning against moves taken by animal rights groups to prevent sport hunting. 94

Wildlife preservation has proven to be an Interest of the 1980's.

Green Movement groups are arising across the world. These groups seek to end the notion that human beings are special. Instead they want humankind to perceive themselves as one with the ecosystem. It is what

Naess referred to as "biospherical egalitarianism"— people, animal, and 48 plants have the right to live and grow. This Green Movement which is very popular in the USA and West Germany is very similar to the animal rights movement. Both consider themselves to be political movements that are based on changing the cultural, moral, and ethical foundations 49 of society at present.

Taken to their logical conclusions, they are stressing the need to become one with nature* Society can no longer assume a higher position or role over any other living being— whether it be an animal or a plant.

Nature is the supreme force. People can not direct this force because they belong to nature— not own it.

These beliefs are clearly stated in an article by Ronald Hawkins that was published in HSUS's Advances in Animal Welfare Science.

1985/Bb. Although the group stresses that people must cease to control and manipulate the environment and animals, they do allow for some human interference in special cases. Hawkins describes how the Green

Movement's activities and policies will affect nonhuman animals, especially companion animals in the following manner:

...we must assume responsibility for correcting an overabundance of domesticated carnivores, the excess of whlcb^is not supportable by the ecosystem...." 95

Hawkins makes it abundantly clear that human beings have domesticated animals. These animals, typically referred to as companion animals, are not sufficiently capable at the time being to exist as wildlife. So Hawkins believes that "we” are responsible for helping these animals to keep their numbers relatively low (by spaying/neutering) so that the ecosystem can handle their presence.

Over 6UZ of all mayors sampled by Nation's Cities Magazines cited 52 animal control problems as their major city problem. Increasing numbers of stray and unwanted dogs and cats are populating urban communities. This in turn has cost cities increased expenditure of funds to handle these animals. Municipalities kill an estimated 13.5 53 million dogs and cats annually. Efforts to control these animals is undertaken to decrease the ri6k of zoonoses. Zoonoses refers to the 65 diseases that can be transmitted from animals to human beings. This consideration in conjunction with dogs and cats destroying property, killing wildlife, causing accidents, and polluting are listed as some of 54 the reasons for capturing and euthenizing stray and unwanted animals.

The question then becomes how does an individual determine which strategies of involvement with the ecosystem are acceptable and which are not. For instance, wolves are very efficient at stalking their prey. Part of their success is dependent upon the fact that the wolves travel in packs and outnumber their prey. Whether this behavior is morally acceptable or not depends upon who is doing the judging.

For instance, many animal rights groups are Interested in the way the pet population is treated. Some members are totally appalled that people keep companion animals at all, because this type of relationship 96 is perceived by them to be analogous to slave-ownership. Others within the aovenent believe that society owes it to these pets to protect them from harm* ThiB entails feeding and housing animalB and providing them with health support systems. Many animal welfare groups are supportive of the above mentioned actions* However, there is dissent among various members concerning the spaying and neutering of pets. Some strongly support control of pet populations and are actively Involved in campaigns promoting birth control. Others strongly oppose these efforts because they do not believe that human beings have a right to manipulate the animal's natural reproductive processes.

Most humane/welfare societies do not accept the above reasoning.

This is clearly demonstrated by their efforts to control pet populations by offering Bpaying and neutering services (c.f. MSPCA, ASPCA, Bide-A-

Wee Home Association, United Humanitarians, and numerous local humane societies). Large amounts of money are put toward finding homes for unwanted and stray animals. Nevertheless, HSUS estimates that over 13 million dogs and cats are put to death annually because shelters and pounds are unable to locate homes for them.^

This large pet overpopulation problem is due to two factors according to HSUS. First, most pet owners fail to get their pets sterilized and the dogs and cats continue to have litter after litter.

Secondly, some people may get a pet, but after a while get tired of caring for it, so they turn the animal out to survive on its own.

One of HSUS's objectives is to inform the public about the availability of sterilization programs and to educate local humane societies in methods to help reduce the pet overpopulation problem. 97

This problem results in the death of millions of animals and costs taxpayers millions of dollars annually to implement capture and euthanization programs for these strays and/or unclaimed animals.

Although HSUS does not have its own facilities to handle pet overpopulation, they do pass out information to local humane societies chat would help them develop a successful program to reduce the problem's size. HSUS philosophy concerning pet overpopulation does not address the morality of sterilizing animals and euthanizing them. Both conditions are regarded to be necessary and needy so they do not Judge 56 their own actions as cruel, Immoral, or unethical.

To others within the movement, the keeping of pecs is not acceptable. They believe that humankind has no right to keep pets as possessions. This is the position of Singer. He and his wife do not have pets because "...we didn't 'love' animals. We simply wanted them treated as the independent sentient beings that they are, and not as a means to human ends..." Singer's position is that animal lovers are like "nigger-loversHe draws this analogy by pointing out that one does not have to love or adore someone else in order to treat them morally. So, even though he is not particularly fond of animals, he will uphold their moral rights. This stance would then consider forced sterilization and euthanasia of pets to be immoral, speclesist decisions that constitutes a legal and moral injustice against animals.

Regan addresses these topics in The Case for Animal Rights by saying that animal and human welfare are not really different from one 58 another in terms of "interests, benefits, harms." In the case of animals there is no way of ascertaining the animal's preference to live 98

or die. Consequently, human beings make this decision for the animals.

Somehow people have to decide whether or not euthanasia is in the best

interest of the animal or not. Since animals cannot state their

preference, people have to decide chat the animal's future life would

not be worth living. Kegan assumes that if one knows that animal will

suffer constant, acute pain then euthanasia is a must.

Regan's argument about future pain may be in reference to the fact

chat many animal rights advocates oppose the use of pound and shelter

animals as research animals. They argue that the animal's life should

be terminated rather than allowing them to continue their existence as

research animals. Regardless of whether the experiment is painful or

not is no longer an issue for these opponents to Pound Seizure Laws.

Host states allow research facilities to purchase unclaimed, to-be-

euthanized animals from pounds and shelters.

This Pound Seizure Law is currently being attacked by a number of

animal rights groups and local humane societies across the United States

(cf. HSUS, 1SAK, UFA). This was recently demonstrated at the Capital

Area Humane Society of Columbus, Ohio. Hany individuals supported the use of the unwanted animals for research purposes. However a faction of

the voting membership, many of whom belonged to the local group within

the chapter of MFA, were strongly opposed to these practices. Another point of contention between these factions was the appointment of Dr.

Harry Rozmariek, Director of the Animal Care Facility at the Ohio State 59 University to the Capital Area Humane Society's Board of Directors.

Arguments arose between the two factions of this local humane society. One party was adamantly determined to see that Dr. Rozmariek 99

would no longer serve on the board of directors. The other party

believed that Dr. Kozmariek's expertise in the care and handling of

animals would prove to be most beneficial to the society's care and

treatment of animals. The outcome of these differences was the removal

of Dr. Rozmariek, impeachment of the chairperson who had supported Dr.

Kozmariek's appointment as a board member, and the removal of a

veterinarian who had been with the Society for a great many years.

The opposition party stated that they did not want any

veterinarians on the board of directors because that would result in a

conflict of Interest. So the voting membership*— which had doubled

between the months of November 19SS and March 1986— passed a new

amendment which would prohibit veterinarians from becoming board

members. An explanation for this change in policy was provided by a

representative of the new faction. He claimed that any peraon who may

receive money for caring for animals should not be eligible to make

board decisions concerning animal welfare issues. In effect this new

faction within the humane society stipulated that any individual

professionally trained in the care and treatment of animals was no

longer qualified to make decisions concerning animals at their local humane society. This proposal was passed with a majority vote.

Some members of the humane society were totally taken aback by this decision. In the past, the Society had had a strong relationship with veterinarians. They felt that this new decision would antagonise many veterinarians who had always offered their time and services to the care and well-being of animals. But the decision had already been made.^ 100

The Capital Area Humane Society is not a trend setter within the animal rights movement. Local humane societies are becoming more radical in their philosophies and are spreading out their interests.

For instance, most local humane societies have always been interested in controlling pet overpopulation. How they are beginning to oppose Pound

Seizure Laws, animal experimentation, and a host of other animal rights

Issues.

These types of transformations within the movement are becoming more pervasive at grass root levels than ever before. Hany of the national groups like 1SAR, UAA, HFA, PBTA, and TSU have played a significant role in setting these changes into motion. From increasing media coverage of demonstrations and rallies to infiltrating animal rsearch facilities, the movement has launched itself into a new phase of growth. By refining their strategies and techniques they have succeeded in entering the political arena to express their moral, ethical, and legal concerns for animals. CHAPTER XI

STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES WITHIN THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Although different groups within the movement may not share the same concern over the same issues, they do share the desire to change existing laws relating to animal welfare. Emphasis on the necessity of revising, devising, and implementing new ruleB and regulations has glvend a new dimension to these groups. These objectives are being met by the sharing of assets and pooling of available resources throughout the movement. Since the movement has obtained increased support financially and in terms of membership, it has assumed a much more pervasive identity as a political movement.

Analogies are frequently drawn by leaders within the movement that the fight tor animal rights is a continuation of society's fight for human rights. This is similar to Henry Splra'6 view. Spira is founder of the Coalition to Abolish the Draize Rabbit Blinding Test and the LD

50. Like political movements of the past, members of the animal rights movement now accept it as part of their responsibility to fight for the rights of animals with whatever cools they have at hand.* They recognize the tremendous influence they have as a lobbying force and use this strategy to the fullest extent possible. Whether individual groups represent a single iSBue or multiple issues, all have addressed the necessity of demonstrating to the public their strength. Strength can

101 102

be neaBured In terns of supporters and donators to the movement. For

instance, Aninai Protection Institute (API) is a large organisation. It

Increased its membership in 1984 from 150,000 to 180,000 people. This 2 is a very large increase in just one year.

Primary concerns of API are seal and whale hunting off the coast of

Alaska. However, they are currently involved in a number of other

issues. In August, 1984, along with many other animal humane and rights

groups, API went to Washington, D.C. to testify for a bill againBt the

use of the steel-jaw trap (H.R. 1797). Although these groups were not

able to receive sufficient backing for their position, they became aware

of their effect and impact on Congressional views. Having gone to lobby

as a united force representing multiple organisations they represented 3 to Congress the strength and power that the movement is accruing.

Shortly after this Congressional session, API started efforts to unite

other animal rights groups on a number of other issues relating to

animal rights and environmental concerns. This is an excellent L demonstration of networking within the movement.

A related method that is currently being used by animal rights

groups is to send thousands of petitions to representatives and senators

requesting them to support animal rights positions. For example, in

April 1986, PETA mailed out a petition to Ohio residents on its mailing

list. This petition was to be signed by people who support H.*B. 296

that was before the Ohio Legislation. This bill opposes the Pound

Seizure law. These blank petitions were distributed to a large number of individuals along with a poster of a dog and a slogan that said,

"Before he dies, he'll wish he'd never been born." On the poster it 103 says Chat many research laboratories take the dogs from shelters before they can be rescued by their owners. Actually the Pound Seizure Law allows for a certain period of time before the animal becomes available for research use. Hut PETA's poster suggests that by signing the petition, one is Bomehow protecting their own pet from researchers.^

API uses this same strategy and consequently has obtained tens of thousands of signatures opposing seal hunts. They sent close to a quarter of a million seal petitions to Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau in 1984 to demonstrate their opposition to seal hunts. These examples of actions taken by API illustrate how refined and complex the movement's strategies are becoming.^ A closer look at some of their ocher techniques will demonstrate how successful various organizations have become in permeating many sectors of society with their beliefs.

A traditional method of expressing the movement's belief has been through the dissemination of free information— cf. pamphlets sent through the mail, dispersed by individuals standing on street corners, or distributed to students via the educational system. Many groups have continued this practice but have added films, books, tapes, newsletters, and seminar sessions to supplement pre-existing formats like pamphlets.

Using the above mentioned approaches, API began a project entitled

“Animals in Captivity." This is an educational kit developed for use in school settings. The package will contain various communicatlonal tools that can be U6ed in the classroom and an exercise where children will be asked to simulate zoo animals in cages.^

Ocher types of educational/informational media are being used by different groups, too. For instance, a television production by HSUS 104 called "Pet Action Line" (now called "Living with Animals") is currently g aired on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). This show is the "60

Minutes" of the Animal Rights Movement. "Living with Animals" presents

Information on animal research, hunting, cosmetic industries, factory farming, and a host of other topics from the viewpoint of an animal rights Individual. This show frequently features a celebrity who is involved in working for animal rights to host the show.

HSUS has s Ib o put together an educational package to be used in the classroom to refute materials called Project Wild which are provided by the Western Regional Environmental Education Council. This guide provided by HSUS's branch, the National Association for the Advancement of Humane Education (NAAHE) instructs the teacher to delete certain parts of Project Wild or present NAAHE's viewpoints rather than those of the Western Regional Environmental Council which suports wildlife management.^

HSUS offers a program to local humane societies that desire assistance in developing shelter management skills. This program offers advice on topics like how to deal with lost or unwanted pets and how to handle on the Job stress that may result from.working with animals.

HSUS aims to aid local humane societies that may need assistance in developing shelter management skills. These problems may range from how to handle unwanted pets and teach personnel how to remedy these situations, HSUS offers PETS— Professional Education and Training

Services. This program alms at Instilling humane societies with HSUS's

"humane ethic" which they hope will reflect itself in increased professionalism within locale humane societies. Increased 105 professionalism should, in HSUS's opinion, increase the public's acceptance and support of the organization. Following the seminar, the group has the chance to become HSUS accredited. As part of the accreditation, the group has to accept "HSUS Standards for an Effective

Animal-Sheltering and Control Facility.** This Includes opposition to

Pound Seizure Laws, mandatory spaying/neutering of all cats and dogs up for adoption, and keeping members aware of ongoing legal actions relating to animal-welfare issues.1^

By spreading their beliefs through educational systems, television, and numerous local humane societies throughout the USA, HSUS has been very effective in permeating large segments of the population.

Consequently these programs are becoming more widespread throughout the nation. This partly explains the increase in grass roots activists and activities that are currently being witnessed, cf. rallies, demonstrations, and civil disobedience actions.

HSUS offers a book called Advances in Animal Welfare Science,

1985/B6. This book is edited by Michael Fox and L.D. Mickley, employees of HSUS's Institute for the Study of Animal Problems. This is the second Buch volume put out by HSUS. In it are papers written by various individuals regarding factory farming, laboratory animals, ethics and attitudes towards animals. Most of the papers reflect HSUS's philosophical tenets and issues that are also presented in the numerous brochures that they have available.11 The various branches of HSUS offer an overwhelming amount of literature to their members at no cost or nominal fees (i.e., membership dues of $20.00) Much of the information provided represents the facts as seen by HSUS staff members. 106

HSUS has refined its communication techniques over the years.

Because HSUS is one of the largest national animal rights organizations. it has the capacity to finance and participate in a large number of diverse projects to spread their beliefs. It has proven itself to be very effective in these endeavors, too. For example. HSUS members

“participated in a motorcade beginning at the Capitol...to draw attention to the plight of the fifteen surviving monkeys. The motocade 12 and rally were organized by PETA." Horeover, John Hoyt, president of

HSUS stated that:

...the animal rights philosphy has served to help various organizations bridge their differences and unite on several fronts to form alliances and consortiums to attack more forcefully those who exploit and abuse animals...it has assisted us in making our activism more visible, more viable, and more effective.

Other organizations have also been successful in their efforts to disseminate their viewpoints to members within the movement and to society. One such group is United Action for Animals (UAA). UAA's primary point of interest concerns animal experimentation. This group 14 adamantly opposes all forms of animal research and seeks to halt it.

In an effort to propagate their beliefs, UAA distributes a newsletter which summarizes select animal research studies. The newsletter is also a means of informing group members about upcoming legislation which relates to animals. Frequently UAA puts out an “urgent” call to members to write letters to their congressemen, senators, and representatives either supporting or opposing the legislation at hand. These newsletters are very effective forums by which UAA can inform people how and when to vote and be heard. 107

By listing the addresses and phone numbers of individuals Involved in legislation, UAA can then instruct its supporters to write and call these individuals to express their opinions. In a single day, a congressman's office aay be swamped by thousands of calls from animal rights supporters. Frequently these calls are made by the same people over and over again. This tends to give the iapresslon that there are many more supporters/oppoBers to a bill than there may truly be. At that point, those in office may seek out the opposition's point of view and weigh the alternatives, though this does not always occur.

Invariably, these newsletters or informational bulletins contain requests for more money to support the cause. Oftentimes the request forms offer the individual a choice on how they would like to see their donations put to use— -whether it be towards demonstrations, lobbying ventures, or certain projects. However, since most of these national animal rights groups do not have services to provide for the direct welfare of animals, one does not have the option to donate to health and welfare animal services.^

Traditional welfare societies would typically put donations towards direct animal care services. Today these donations are used to lobby, bring legal suits, and finance demonstrations and rallies. Many organizations within the movement were established primarily for these purposes (i.e., SAPL, ALDF, MFA, PETA). The financial statuB of various groups within the mvoement will be discussed in more detail in a later chapter. 108

Three groups that have recently become very active In lobbying are

the Animal Political Action Committee (ANPAC), Society for Animal

Protective Legislation (SAPL), and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF).

These groups all stress the importance of pursuing legal aid in the fight for animal rights. Naturally these organizations require plenty of financial support to succeed. Sometimes they are funded by the more wealthy organizations and at other times' they request and receive donations by individuals.*^

These groups also acknowledge the necessity of fighting for animal rights using different methods. For instance, in April 1986 ALDF sent out the "1986 National Survey on Animal Rights." In an accompanying letter they had this to say about their organizations:

While many animal activists concentrate their energies on public education and the initiation of legislative reform, we believe that such efforts must be supplemented with necessary court actions. Through litigation, legal research and legal advice, ALDF provides a powerful tool in fighting against the growing abuse of animals.... Right now, we have an immediate need to raise a minimum of $120,000 to support oyy team of legal experts for the next six months.

Parc of ALDF's financial support has been provided by UAA. Both groups are staunch supporters of legislative animal reforms. In October

1984, ALDF, HSUS, and API worked together to file an injunction against elk hunting in Grand Teton National Park. They were unsuccessful in 18 their attempts. Environmental agencies were in support of the hunt on the grounds that many elks would die of starvation over the winter If they were not harvested. ALDF and the other groups have stated that they will file another injunction to stop the elk hunt in following 109 years, or for as long as chey receive financial backing for the - 19 project*

Another group that has played a prominent role in seeking legislative reforms for animal welfare Is SAPL. Since it was founded in

1955 it has been Involved in obtaining the following acts: Humane

Slaughter Act (1958), Wild Horse Act (1959), the Laboratory Animal

Welfare Act (1966), Endangered Species Act (1969). Amendments to numerous other acts were also obtained— most of which increased penalties for the mishandling and maltreatment of animals. Numerous laws, acts, and amendments have already been passed to protect animals.

Most of these acts have covered all types of animals from wild ones to domesticated ones. In addition, these acts also contained provisions for penalizing offenders.

This is the type of role ALDF attorneys would like to take. These attorneys for animal rights are called upon by variouB groups to bring legal action against those they believe are violating the law. On Sept.

12, 19U5, the California based group. Humane Enforcement and Legal

Protection, filed a complaint against the University of Southern

California (USC). The university was charged with violating California

State Penal Codes by not allowing monkeys enough room in their cages and/or enough play space. ALDF was asked to Join in on these efforts. 20 ALDF provided its services in this endeavor.

In the April 1986 issue of the Society AgalnBt Vivisection's (SAV) newsletter, an article mentions those individuals who have been instrumental in working toward shutting down animal research at USC.

This Includes Joyce Tischler, Executive Director of ALDF; Jerry Owens, 110

President of Humane Enforcement end Legal Protection; Dr. Gary L.

Franclone, an individual also involved with shutting down the University of Pennsylvania's Head Injury Lab; and members of SAV. SAV'a members had been instructed to keep calling USC because MUSC cannot keep 21 functioning very well with their phone lines tied up...." In order for these actions to be successful the group states that legal actions require a lot of support, work, and money to finance them.

These legal actions require a large commitment of time and effort on the part of the movement. Because of this, there is the hope that these actions will affect more Institutions in the future. For example, the legal complaint filed against USC is considered to be the first in a long series of similar complaints to be filed. In SAV's April 1986 newsletter these hopes are expressed as such:

A move is now afoot (to show) that every research facility in California is in violation of our State Penal Code. Our aim is to see that these facilities are thoroughly investigated and those responsible for the violations be punished to the full extent of the law.

SAV has been successful in obtaining the support of many animal rights groups for this venture. The campaign to stop animal research did not stop with the filing of a complaint against USC, either. On April 24,

1986, a demonstration called the National Civil Disobedience at

University Research Labs was held at eight California college campuses.

Prior to the demonstrations, participants were offered a training 23 session on civil disobedience on April 13.

Leaders within the movement have become quite knowledgeable in ways of staging demonstrations and rallies. 1SAR provides a brochure Ill entitled, "Guidelines for Aninal Rights Protests" prepared by Jayne 24 Meinhardt. This guide provides infornation on how, when, and where to conduct demonstrations that will elicit reactions from the public and the news madia*

Another technical source that is available to membera of the movement is a book called Love and Anger by Richard Morgan,

International Director of MFA. This book was published in 1980 by

Animal Rights Network and is self-described as "an organizing handbook for activists in the struggle for animal rights and in other progressive 25 political movements." This book provides the following types of

Information: how to form groups; how to relate to the news media, how to conduct "marches, rallies, pickets; obstruction, non-cooperation , and confrontation.**."; and a host of other activities that an animal rights activist may be involved in are also addressed in this 26 handbook.

This book covers a diversity of topics. It provides a multitude of suggestions on how people should work together in order to achieve their goals. Morgan says that:

Action, struggle for change, is the logical and proper goal of all organizing, and the aim of this book 1b to provide basic Information necessary to engage in this struggle, to move from feelings and ideas, understanding and analysis, to direct action.

These words clearly reflect the current status of many members of the animal rights movement. No longer are they content with philosophical arguments and debates concerning animals, many are ready and prepared to 28 take physical actions to achieve these ends. 112

Some of these actions include boycotts of products or events that are conceived to be anti-animal rights. HSUS urges its members to boycott fur products and certain foods like veal and eggs. Since they are opposed to leg-hold traps, fur farms, chickens kept in cages, and calves kept in stalls, they admonish their supporters to curtail 29 purchasing any of these products. If there is no demand for the product then the producers will cease producing.

Beauty Without Cruelty is another group chat endorses the above policy. This group encourages its supporters to boycott companies that support and require animal experimentation techniques to test their products. Beauty Without Cruelty provides a list of companies and products that they consider to be inhumane. They also have available a list of products which they consider to be "humane," i.e., are not being tested on animals anymore or were never tested on animals in the first place., 30

Many animals rights organizations are working together on boycotts nowadays. Some groups are conducting a united boycott against Japanese

Air Lines. This effort is to penalize the Japanese government (which has stocks in this airline company) for their endorsement of whale hunts and other fishing products. Croups involved in this boycott include 31 HSUS, API, PETA, and Greenpeace.

This joint venture is representative of the united network the movement 1b trying to achieve. Realization that political strength and power is determined by the numbers of supporters backing an activity has led groups to join forces. As long as these groups continue to work together, they know that their presence will be felt. In certain 113 activities, like boycotting, demonstrations, rallies, groups have a greater tendency to work together. Since these situations usually do not require much philosophical interaction they tend to reduce the incidence of confrontation between groups that is likely to occur at conferences or formal meetings.

Many organizations within the movement are interested in presenting a united front. API's February 1985 Summit in Phoenix, Arizona illustrated this growing desire to close ranks amongst the various groups. It is clear to these activist-organizers that no single group is sufficient or efficient enough to represent the animal rights movement in the United States. Thus attempts are made to hold conferences and rallies with as many organizations as possible. For example, on April 26, 1986, a National Mass Rally was held in Los

Angeles, California. This rally was primarily organized by MFA with the desire "to create a huge visible public presence of moral outrage at the torture and murder of millions of animals each year in 32 laboratories..."

In order to receive additional financial and public support, animal rights groups have tried to reach out to people via the media. The strategy of informing the media about upcoming conferences and rallies is one way of broadcasting the animal rlghtB movement to the public.

Another way is to solicit the support of actors, actresses, and other well-known public figures. One group which has been successful in obtaining celebrity support is the American Humane Association (AHA).

During the 1984-1985 year, Zsa Zsa Cabor, Ruth Buzzi, Pearl Bailey,

Burgess Meredith, and Dr. Joyce Brothers participated in either 114

television shows or radio commercials to encourage people to adopt 33 animals from pet shelters.

These advertisements were supported by AHA and the Ralston Purina

Company. AHA is a conservative animal welfare association that is also

actively Involved in protecting children. This group has received

strong financial support from its members and the general community,

even though it does not advocate animal rights.

In addition, AHA has upheld the traditional animal welfare

objectives of providing direct care services to animals. The greatest majority of AHA's expenses are towards animal and child protection services. This is in contrast with MFA, PETA, AFAAR, and numerous other

animal rights organizations which spend most of their money on mailing 34 lists, data processing, and printing of educational material.

A large number of these animal rights groups invest their money and

time in lobbying, as well. A partial list of organizations actively involved in lobbying are API, ASPCA, HSPCA, HSUS, TSU, ANPAC, ALDF,

1SAK, UAA, and SAPL. Not only do these groups send letters to congressmen and senators, but they go to Washington, D.C. to discuss

bills currently before the House and/or Senate. They present to state representatives their groups' beliefs regarding issues like the leg-hold trap, animal experimentation, whaling, seal hunts, and pound seizure laws.35

These groups are also Instrumental in informing their own members about upcoming bills. They provide lists of names, addresses, and phone numbers of representatives who play a role in supporting or opposing bills. Instructions are given to members on how to write these letters 115

and when to send them* Host of the time the organizations (via

newsletters) advise their supporters to make an appointment with their 36 representative and visit with them.

An example of this type of lobbying technique was provided In the

Fall 1985 Actlonllne newsletter of Friends of Animals. The writer

(unidentified) gives a brief explanation of the LD/5Q test. The author

states that the “test is not scientifically valid.*4 The writer goes on

and provides explicit instructions as to who should receive the letter,

i.e., Representative Doug Ualgren (PA) and two state senators.

Furthermore, readers of the newsletter are told what to write in these

letters "...write and ask that hearings be held and that membero of Dr.

Hubbard's committee (Hedlcal Research Modernization Committee) be

invited to testify...." To make sure that representatives have enough

input on the animal rights perspective, letter writers are asked to provide them with the names of two Friends of Animals' Washington 37 lobbyists.

This same newsletter also encouraged people to write letters to

Washington representatives on the following issues: fur seal treaty;

S.3U9— To Amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticlde

Act;" request that MRMC attend hearings by the Subcommittee on Labor,

Health, and Human Services, and Education— examining different types of

biomedical research; allow wild horses to roam; atop Project Wild, bar pound seizure laws; request use of federal excise taxes to fund an FOA program for spaying/neutering; and support S.1368 "To End Shipment of 38 Padded-Jaw or Steel-Jaw Leg-hold Traps." 116

Host of these letter-requesting articles do not furnish detailed explanations of theBe pending bills. Nor do they address the long-term

consequences of these bills. Those who write the letters must either

obtain their information from other sources or compose letters based on

the information provided by Actionline.

Whatever the case may be, congressmen receive thousands upon

thousands of these letters annually. These letters along with animal

rights lobbyists, demonstrations, rallies, television shows, advertisements, and legal suites, boycotts, and media coverage of break-

ins to research facilities Impinge upon all members of society. This overwhelming abundance of indoctrination has succeeded in permeating many facets of daily life. Individuals throughout the world are becoming more and more familiar with the terminology and goals of animal rights.

Focal points of rallies and demonstrations typically stress issues like wildlife management'and animal experimentation. The choice of these topics is of great importance to the animal rights movement. By presenting issues that most people are not engaged in or are unfamiliar with, animal rights advocates stand a better chance of winning people to their ranks. Rarely is it the case that demonstrations against eating meat or drinking milk are brought to the limelight. However, when one becomes more familiar with the tenets and principles of animal rights, they are faced with a host of other issues. For example, eating meat and using farm animals are considered to be deplorable and unethical events— analogous to animal experimentation. Therefore, people who eat 117

meat are considered to be just as immoral as animal experimenters are to 39 animal rights activists.

This point is dealt with by Richard Morgan in Love and Anger.

"...it is best to pick a clear, identifiable, divisible issue, ideally

one which lends itself to being presented with two sides, of which one 40 will appear the most moral or logical." Exactly what "more moral or

logical" is referring to is undefined. Naturally no single group or

individual should decide for another what is morally acceptable. So the

basis of deciding whether or not “moral" acts are Just depends on who is

doing what and to whom.

Animal rights advocates have not demonstrated and rallied against

all meat-eaters. Since a great majority of people are meat-eaters who

consider themselves to be moral, ethical, and good citizens of their

community, they might be offended by actions suggesting that their

behavior is immoral and unethical. Consequently, those within the movement rarely address this topic in public.

Even though over 2 billion animals were raised on farms for slaughter in 19b0 and only 10X of this number of animals was used in research laboratories (USUA) attention is drawn towards research rather 41 than food consumption. Nevertheless, animal rights advocates continue

to levy most of their accusations against research institutions, especially university animal research facilities, rather than agricultural or food-related institutions. CHAPTER Xll

ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION

Legislation regulating the care and use of animals in the United

StateB has been enacted at both state and federal levels. Prior to the

1960*8, the majority of laws relating to animals were established and enforced by individual states. The majority of these laws were anti-* cruelty laws prohibiting the infliction of pain or other mistreatments of an animal. The laws did not regulate animal experimentation.*

Following World War 11, there was a tremendous increase in the amount of biomedical research. Hence there was an Increase in the use of animals. Animals were usually obtained from pounds, animal shelters, or by people who collected strays and brought them to laboratories.

These actions were opposed by many different humanitarian and animal welfare societies at that time.**

It was during this era (1945-1960) that HSUS, AW1, SAPL, and API were established to counter the increasing use of animals from pounds and shelters for research purposes. The research community responded by lobbying for state legislation which would grant them legal accesB to unclaimed impounded animals. A successful campaign was launched by the

National Society for Medical Research (NSMR) to acquire this right.

118 119

Many state legislatures passed "pound seizure" laws. This entitled researchers to request that unclaimed animals that had been Impounded for a certain number of days be turned over for research purposes.

Otherwise, in the majority of cases these animals were quickly destroyed or "euthanized."

The use of impounded animals for research purposes has remained a source of contention for many years. For example in 1986, MFA, sent out a pamphlet called "Legislative Action Alert" to individuals on its mailing list. Cited in this pamphlet was H.8. 296. This bill dealt with current pound Beizure laws. If passed, it would have eliminated the use of any pound animal for experimental purposes in Ohio. All unclaimed animals would be “euthanized." The pamphlet provided the names of 14 Ohio State Representatives and suggested that interested parties communicate their support of this bill to their respective 3 Representative.

Numerous other animal rights organizations have become actively involved in repealing pound seizure laws. 1SAK has playd a major role in successful efforts to repeal the law in New York and Connecticut.

Currently, 1SAR is opposing Kansas S.8. 719 (1986). The bill, if enacted, would grant the Kansas University Medical Center $6 million to establish a facility for the care ot and research on animals. 1SAR opposes this bill on the grounds that it will ultimately support animal experimentation, eventhough the research that is proposed is for the it benefit of animals.

A similar situation has arisen with Ohio H.B. 233 (1986). If enacted this bill would give ten cents from each dog license purchase to 120 the Ohio State University lor research. However, the bill explicitly states:

The money received by the College of Veterinary Medicine of the Ohio State University under this division shall be applied for research and study of the diseases of dogs, particularly those tranBBittable to man, and for research of other diseases of dogs that by their nature will provide results applicable to the prevention and treatment of both human and canine illness.”

The movement's opposition to Kansas S.B. 719 and Ohio H.B. 233 bills, although they are specifically geared to support research for the well-being of animals, may seem paradoxical. But if one keeps in mind that the goal of the movement is to eliminate all varieties of animal experimentation, then the opposition to the bill by the movement becomes clear. ISAR, SAPL, AW1, and numerous other organizations are well aware that they cannot bring about this goal immediately. Hence they opted for the following strategies: 1) to prevent the passing of any new legislation which would provide additional financial support to research, 2) to repeal/amend any existing state or federal laws that do not impede the availability of animalB for the purpose of animal experimentation, 37 pass legislation which would prohibit the use of animals in certain types of animal experiments and procedures; and 4) to ban animal experimentation and advocate the use of alternative non­ animal models.

These actions are evident in state level politics today. Since

19BU the following states have all enacted laws to govern the use of animals by students in kindergarten through grade 12: California,

Connecticut, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, 121

Michigan, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. Animal rights groups did not iace much opposition to any of these bills.

However, the movement has encountered stronger opposition over pound seizure laws. Researchers in many states can now acquire animals from pounds for minimal fees. But in states where pound seizure laws have been repealed, the cost of purchasing animals through special animal companies supply has increased enormously the expen6iveness of biological research.

Approximately 13.5 million animals are destroyed in pounds and shelters annually. Less than 2X of this entire population are used by researchers. In states that have repealed pound seizure laws, dog breeding facilities have been set up to provide animals for research.

One reason that animal rights advocates give in support of repealing pound seizure laws is the belief that some people will turn their pets loose when they no longer want to keep them rather than turn them over to a shelter which may give the animals to researchers. However, that idea has no sound empirical support.**

In the view of many scientists, the primary reason why members of the movement are eager to repeal pound seizure laws is because it is certain to raiBe the cost of animal experimentation. If so, that would lead to a reduction in the number of animals used per experiment and would probably eliminate or greatly curtail the use of dogs and cats in biological research. Douglas Bowden conducted a survey on the types of animals used in neuroscience research (the study of nervous system function and anatomy) between the years 1973-1983. He found that the number of studies using rodents (mice and rats) increased from 43Z in 122

1973 to 7U2 in 1985. However, the overall number of studies on mammals remained the same— 802. The survey demonstrates that many researchers are no longer using cats and dogs as research models.^ Those results suggested that the rights movement is slowly but surely having an effect upon the work of scientists, and more through a pricing out of their studies than through forthright barriers against them.

Most organizations within the movement also seek legislative changes at the national level. For instance, in a brochure distributed by Animals in Politics (A1P), the group clearly states its goal as follows:

Only by building up local and national political strength with the unity of purpose of a 'single nationwide force can we hope to achieve significant changes in the legalized treatment of animals'.

Individual groups within the movement have become sophisticated in their attempts to become a united, political vanguard to lobby for animal rights. In April 1986, the second annual Summit fur the Animals was held. This conference was organized by API (a leading lobby force) and was attended by ASPCA, Fund for Animals, IPPL, PETA, MSPCA, 1FA,

FACT, AHA, NAAL, CPA, and VAR. Although this attendance list only mentions 13 out of the estimated AUQ animal welfare/rights organizations in the United States, these organizations are the most Influential of all the groups of the movement. A wide variety of topics was discussed ranging from legal suits brought againBt animal activists to opposition of psychology experiments. Yet one principal that all of these various groups agreed to was the necessity of lobbying for legislation against animal experimentation. 123

The groups are evidently tightening their ranks to engage in a broad program to fight for social and moral reforms regarding animals.

A1P distributed a comprehensive report entitled "1986— Animals in an

Election Year" in April 1966. This report noted that all members of the

House of Representatives and 33Z of all senators would be up for re- elections. AIP noted that many politicians are hesitant to deal with controversial issues during election years. Consequently* AIP urged itB members to evaluate the controverslality of various bills and then give primary emphasis (e.g., letter writing to representatives and senators) to those bills which were least controversial, and hence most likely to be passed for that year.

The report goes on to say:

To prepare the ground for the next legislative round, the present system must first be discredited over and over again.... The movement should not continue to rely on a few centralised groups to do the lab 'police work'.... Host likely the next phase in this struggle is exposure of indefensible experimentation.... Each such Incident chips away at the credibility of the research industry, explodes the myth of self-policing, and paves the way for further congressional action.

One target of these lobbying efforts was the Animal Welfare Act

(AWA) of 1966. As initially formulated the AWA regulated Interstate commerce as it applied to the sale and use of animals for experimental purposes. This law required that any handlers of animals (dealers, research laboratories, pet stores with wild animals for sale, xoos, circuses, and animal trainers) had to provide animals with humane care, treatment, and handling. These actions were to be administered by the

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 124

The USDA developed minimum standards for the care and housing of

all animals maintained by registered animal dealers. But AWA did not

concern itself with the type of animal experimentation being conducted.

In Part l,n— Definition of Terms in AWA an animal is said to be:

...any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or other warm-blooded animal, which is domesticated or which normally can be found in the wild state, and is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a ygt. Such terms excluded birds, ratB, and mice....

Amendments to the Act were made in 1970 and 1976. Initially the

Act only concerned itself with interstate commerce. In 1970 the Act was

amended to include intrastate activities. In addition, the term

research facility was expanded to cover all facilities which used warm­

blooded animals to the exclusion of schools and small-scale diagnostic

laboratories which did not employ cats or dogs. Further amendments were

made in 1976 which made animal fights, commerce and transportation in

such activities, a federal offense.

The U.S. Government Printing Office provided a detailed pamphlet on

the requirements that all animal dealers must abide by. These are the

same guidelines that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), a branch of the USDA, uses to evaluate the husbandry and care

conditions of an animal research facility.

Many different federal agencies monitor laboratory animal care and welfare. Different agencies try to function jointly in overseeing the

implementation of the AWA. For example in a memorandum cited in the

Federal Register on June 3, 1983 between the Department of Health and 125

Human Services, APHIS, and NIH it Is stated that the purpose of these agencies is to "set forth procedures of reciprocal cooperation which will assist each agency in meeting its responsibilities in promoting proper laboratory animal care and welfare."**

All research facilities must comply with the standards specified by the AWA. Compliance is then monitored by APHIS. Additional procedures guiding the care of laboratory animals are provided by the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), and Health and Human Services (HHS) under the auspices of the Good Laboratory Practice regulations (21 CFK Part 5b).

Research facilities are subject to periodic inspections by field inspectors. Any research facility which receives Public Health Service

(PHS) support (i.e., NIH support) is required to

...submit an acceptable assurance to NIH which commits the institution to actively promote compliance with 12 basic principles for humane care and use of laboratory animals, and with the recommendations set forth in the 'Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals'.

In a personal communication to the author, Arnett Hatchett, Chief

Staff Veterinarian of APHIS said that there were 1,184 research facilities (over 2500 total sites) registered with the USDA.*^

Unannounced inspections of these facilities were made on the average of

2.6 times per year. In cases where requirements were not met, the facility was asked to correct them immediately or within the set time frame— usually 30 days. Approximately 2000 such cases have been brought before administrative law judges in the last 10 years.

Many research administrations have voluntarily sought to Impose further regulations on their research facilities by applying for 126

accreditation by the American Association for the Accreditation of

Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). This nonprofit association was

organized in 1965 by scientists and professional societies of biomedical

research and testing. At present over 27 biomedical-related societies

are members and over 403 research facilities had received accreditation

by April 1, 1985.14

AAALAC applies more stringent criteria when assessing the

husbandry, care, and well-being of animals than that of the AWA. At

present, it would cost $500 million to bring all NIH supported

facilities up to par with AALAC standards.*’’ To receive AAALAC

accreditation, all animal facilities would have to be evaluated in

accordance to the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals".

AAALAC also exceeds "Good Laboratory Practices" regulations by imposing

rules for the protection of personnel and control of various environmental factors.

A memorandum distributed on November 2, 1982 by APHIS to area veterinarians and animal care specialists described new monitoring protocols related to research facilities. In this memorandum, USDA agents were to check to see if facilities were accredited by AAALAC or not. Even chough there are no legal requirements for belonging to

AAALAC, APHIS/USDA condones their accreditation. Furthermore, NIH takes

AAALAC accreditation into consideration when considering if their is sufficient proof that a research facility is abiding by NIH guidelines for the care and humane treatment of animals.

In addition to the above mentioned regulations and control of animal laboratory research practices, research facilities must abide by 127

the regulations of their respective institutions. For example, PHS

guidelines now require that each facility have an Institutional

Laboratory Animal Care and Use Committee (1LACUC). This committee is

composed of at least five members: including a veterinarian, practicing

scientist, a non-scientist, and an Individual in no way affiliated with

the institution. Every research activity involving animals has to be

assessed by these committee members. All researchers must submit

written protocols of their experiments and have their facilities

inspected annually.

Like all other regulating bodies, 1LACUC has its own guidelines

that must be observed by researchers. For example, these guidelines

monitor the nature of the study (e.g., painful and distressful studies

must be performed under anesthesia or animal sacrificed immediately).

Also, procedures used must be for benefit of human or animal health,

advancement of knowledge, and the good of society. Trained and

qualified personnel are necessary to carry out these procedures.

Additional requirements concerning upkeep of research facilities and

humane treatment protocols are also provided by ILACUC.

The foregoing analysis of animal welfare measurements governing

research facilities and ongoing projects demonstrates the fact that

numerous and diverse guidelines and regulations are imposed on animal

researchers. These regulatory systems are frequently interrelated, but nevertheless provide varying control and guidelines for the type of

research conducted and the husbandry practices Involved in the care of

animals. The AWA of 1966, amended in 1970 and 1976 and the PHS Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals provide the prototype for the 128 other regulatory bodies: AAALAC, ILACUC, and Good Laboratory Practices.

The aforementioned laws, regulations, and private agencies govern the use of animals in research. In the past, these regulations required researchers to report the number and type of research animals being used, nature of experiments, methods of analgesia, anesthesia, and euthanasia employed, and allow unannounced inspections of facilities by to the USDA. Since the USDA is the primary federal enforcement agency, one would expect them to be well-financed. However, this has not been the case. Since the inception of the AWA in 1966, the USDA/APH1S has felt that it never received the funding necessary to adequately regulate and enforce the Act. This Act is only one of 19 different animal health programs that is represented and administered by the USDA. The agency has repeatedly stated that more funding is essential if they are to function effectively.

In a May 16, 1985 report published by the U.S. General Accounting office on the Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Program, the

USDA requested that for fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985, funding be reduced or eliminated and the USDA/APH1S be no longer held responsible for enforcing the AWA. In addition, the USDA has suggested that

"states, industry groups, and humane societies take on more responsibility for enforcing animal welfare regulations.^

Additional funding and budget requirements for renovation and repair for existing animal research facilities have been suggested by many non-profit biomedical research organizations. In fiscal year 1978, a "National Survey of Laboratory Animal Facilities and Resources" was undertaken by the HHS. This survey reported “a current need of §350 129 million for replacement, remodeling, and addition of space.

Researchers have been and continue to voluntarily search for ways and means to maintain good and humane animal care facilities.

In a book distributed by the AW1, Comfortable Quarters for

Laboratory Animals, they provide this analysis of the AWA:

The Animal Welfare Act requires humane care and housing of warm-blooded animals designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is hoped that the following pages will assist institutions in providing the most comfortable and practical housing for their animals, thus increasing the likelihood of sound scientific results and complying with both the spirit and the letter of a law whose unanimous adoption by a vote of 85-0 in the U.S. Senate attests to the seriousness with which the nation views any unnecessary suffering on the part of animals whose lives are taken for the advancement of human welfare.(16)

The AWA is not the only law which governs the care, well-being, and humane treatment of non-human animals. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 was enacted to ensure that marine mammal populations are maintained at optimal sustainable levels. In addition, methods of capture and treatment of marine mammals are dealt with. Research facilities and other institutions interested in obtaining these animal must present formal, written requests and protocols in order to receive permission to capture the animals. A scientific advisory body was established to ensure that policies and actions of federal agencies meet the standards set in this act. Anyone illegally acting against this law is subject to civil and criminal penalties.

An interesting case involving dolphins arose in May 1977 at the

University of Hawaii's Institute of Marine Biology. Two individuals responsible for the care of two dolphins at this facility believed that 130

the dolphins were not being treated humanely* So they set the dolphins

free. The liberators signed a note stating that the animals had been

set free by the "Undersea Railroad." This term, of course, is an

analogy drawn on the Underground Railroad during the period of slavery.

Although there was an act to protect these animals from Inhumane

treatment (if that had been the case) the liberators did not present

their case in light of it. They took the position that dolphins were

"persons" and said that they (the liberators) had set the animals free 14 as a "choice of evils" defense.

During the trial, the judge ruled that dolphins are not persons.

As such, the "choice of evils" defense would not hold. The liberators

were found to have trespassed against the rights of the University of

Hawaii. It is unclear why these individuals hud not sought legal action

against this Institution on the grounds of the AWA and the Marine Mammal

Protection Act, if they knew that the husbandry (which they were

responsible for) was not in accordance with the law.

Another law which protects animals is the "Endangered Species Act"

passed in 1969, and amended in 1973 and 1978. This act regulates the

taking, trading, use of by-products of these animals, and protection of

the habitats of endangered species of plants and animals. Anyone found

guilty of the above is subject to civil and criminal penalties.

A law dealing specifically with the use of dogs by the Department

of Defense (DOD) was enacted in 1975. This act, the DOD Appropriation

Authorisation Act of 1975, placed a number of restrictions on the

testing of chemical and toxic subBtances. An amendment to this Act that was passed in fiscal year 1984 terminated the use of cats and dogs in 131 the wound laboratories of the DOD. But in 1979f the DOD was found to be testing chemical warfare agents on dogs. Congressional offices received more mail on this issue than they had on Watergate or at the time 20 President Truman fired General MacArthur.

All of these acts represent efforts on the part of the government to regulate the care and treatment of animals. Many more laws exist concerning the hunting, trapping, and farming of animals. Many of these laws prescribe methods of inspecting animal usage facilities and of bringing individuals who do not abide by them to trial. However, the animal rights movement does not consider the laws to be stringent enough. Since 1975, rights organizations have begun Intensive efforts either to amend existing laws or institute new laws governing the use of animals in research and other areas (cf. farming, hunting, and trapping).

A large number of bills that have been introduced to the House and

Senate since 1979 reflect the movement's desire to meet these ends.

During 1979, three different bills concerning animal experimentation were introduced into Congress. H.K. (House Rule) 282 was introduced and sponsored by Congressman Robert Dorian. This bill was a request which would authorize $12 million worth of research grants per year for the next five years for studies and establishing and validating alternatives to animals. A similar bill, H.R. 4805, sponsored by Congressman Fred

Richmond, requested that 30-50Z of all federal research funds be used to support studies involving alternatives to animal research. An additional bill was also submitted during the 96th Congress to establish a commission to study the use of alternatives and report their findings 132 to Congress (H.R. 4479 by Congressman Ted Weiss).

U.K. 4805, referred to as the Uesearch Modernisation Act, was the most ambitious (or ambiguous?) controversial bill at the time. This bill would redirect half of all the available research funds

(approximately $750 million) to alternative models and allow only one animal experiment of a kind to be conducted. Furthermore, H.R. 4805 supported the establishment of a National Center of Alternative

Research. This center would be endowed with sufficient authority to terminate any study using animals, if they believed that similar results could be obtained using alternative methods.

The bill received strong support from animal rights groups, especially by UAA. However, the biomedical research community strongly opposed it. Patricia Harris, then Secretary of the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), said that the department HEW opposed the bill. Thurman Crafton, Executive Director of National

Society for Medical Research (NSMR), stated that the bill would have a

"catastrophic impact on biomedical research." Although animal research was seen to have some negative aspects, forced implementation of alternativeon alternatives in biomedical research.

None of the bills introduced in the 96th Congress passed. H.R.

48U5 was reintroduced in the 97th Congress (1981-82) as H.R. 556, and once again failed. During this same Congress, H.R. 220 was Introduced by Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. The bill stated its purpose was "to promote development of methods of research experimentation and testing 133

that minimize the use of, and pain and suffering to live animals." H.R.

220 would stipulate that $60 million worth of grants would be provided

to public and nonprofit private Institutions that conducted research on

alternatives. Representative Ted Weiss reintroduced H.R. 4479 as H.R.

93U which was "to establish a commission to study alternative methods to

the use of live animals in laboratory research and testing."

An additional bill was introduced by Representative Doug Walgren

during the 97th Congress which would amend the AWA. H.R. 6245 sought to

impose stricter requirements on the care of all animals UBed in

federally supported research studies. Researchers would have to justify

any research which entailed pain or distress to the animals.

Furthermore, AWA would have to Include rats and mice in its definition

of animals. All research institutions would have to establish an in-

house animal studies committee to authorize ongoing research. Lastly,

all research institutions would have to receive AAALAC accreditation if

they wanted to receive federal money for research proposed. Funding

resources for research on alternatives would be allocated from pre­

existing research funds supporting animal research.

H.R. 6245 went through a number of revisions. Walgren requested

that the new version be referred to as H.R. 6928. This revised bill

included the following changes: marine mammal exhibits, zoos, and wildlife management activities did not require AAALAC accreditation;

Congress was to re-examine the legislation every 10 years and set

threshold limit6 on the number of animals used by an Institution before

accreditation was necessary; any research grant that was not initially

funded by NIH would not be given a second chance for funding; and 134

research conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) that involved national security and/or manned shuttle flights were exempt from accreditation.

With these changes instituted, H.K. 6928 was then sent to the

Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in August

1982. A month later Senator Robert Dole introduced S.2948, “The Humane

Care and Development of Substitutes for Animals in Research Act." This

bill was very similar to Walgren's revised bill, H.R. 6928. Certain requirements to examine the cost and benefits of these changes in laboratory legislation were made. Furthermore, a higher threshold

(number of animals per institution) was set before accreditation became necessary. The stipulations covering the Institution's animal care committee were also changed so that the non-scientist member on the committee had to have some research knowledge and would not disclose

“trade secrets of the research entity." The Dole bill took into consideration arguments that the biomedical community and lobby had against Walgren's bili.^*

Dole's bill was revised and renumbered as S.3630. Revisions included a waiving of accreditation requirements by the Secretary of

Health and Human Services if the costs were either too high or unobtainable by a given institution. Walgren's threshold limit on animals was authorized (100 rodents, 10 animals of any other mammalian species) and the non-Bcientist member did not have to have a research background, only promise not to disclose trade secrets. By the close of 22 1982, no agreement on S.3630 had been obtained. 135

Dole also introduced a new bill in the 96th Congress (1962/83)

named the "Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act" or S.657.

Instead of giving HHS authority to govern animal care policies, the USDA

would continue to function in its role as enforcer of the AWA with

further amendments.

S.657 was actually a watered-down version of S.2948 or S.3630.

There was no mention of alternatives to animal research or accreditation

issues. Its primary focus was on the upgrading of AWA requirements in

the humane care and handling of all animals in any federally supported,

funded, or controlled research institution. Investigations into the nature or validity of research programs was also out of the Jurisdiction of the USDA, Vestiges of H.K. 556 were evident in this new bill, however. Mentioned in this bill was the establishment of an

"information service in cooperation with the National Library of

Medicine." It was hoped that this would reduce the redundancy and 23 duplication of animal experimentation over the long run.

Walgren then reintroduced his bill as part of H.K. 1555 which dealt with NIH authorization called "The Health Research Extension Act of

1983." Changes from Walgren's previous bill, H.R. 693B, Included: increased NIH control and regulation of laboratory animal care and treatment reinforcement, increased study into and support of alternative research methods, coordinating actions with other federal agencies to carry out these plans, authorize funds for alternative research in FY

1984 for $3 million, $7 million in FY 1985, and $10 million in 1986.

This bill did not allow an evaluation of research protocols and maintained the necessity of an in-house animal care committee. 136

Researchers receiving federal funding had Co submit an assurance every year that they were abiding by all federal regulations and state why

they were using animals as part of their research design. This bill was

later reintroduced as H.R. 2350, the "Health Research Extension Act.”

Like the previous bill, it focused on increased laboratory inspection activities and the authorization of funds for the development of alternatives to animal research.

A recurring theme in Congressional bills began to appear. Most of the bills requested increased inspections and accreditation of research facilities, an Increase in funding for alternatives to animals in research, no increase and typically a decrease in funding for animal research and further regulations guiding the care and treatment of research animals. This is clearly exemplified in S.964 as introduced by

Senators Hatch and Kennedy in 19B3. Their bill entitled, "Animal

Welfare Research Study Act of 19B3,” requested that the Secretary of HHS along with NIH assess the status of federally-supported biomedical research using animals. This Investigation was to examine how effective accreditation programs were in protecting animals from inhumane treatment; how effective KHS's program of alternative research methods was; how effective HHS was in mandating compliance and correcting oversights by federally-supported institutions, and how effective HHS was in insuring the general welfare of research animals. This bill requested that the study be conducted by the National Academy of

Sciences. The results would be made available to the public and would be used to evaluate predicted success of further legislation governing biomedical research. This bill was later added on as an amendment to 137

S.773, another NIH reauthorization bill called "Biomedical Research,

Training, and Medical Library Assistance Amendment of 1983*"

Frequently, bills are added on to pending legislations to increase their 24 likelihood of their being passed* However, none of these bills were passed.

Most of the bills were then revised and reintroduced but still failed to pass. Many legislators felt that they did not have enough information concerning ongoing biomedical practices and alternatives to justify their support of such a bill, and so they did not. In order to obtain more information on this topic. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Committee on law and Human Resources, and Senator Alan

Cranston requested "a scientific evaluation of alternative methods to animal research, experimentation, and testing. This assessment, after 25 several years of data collection, was made available in February 1986.

Although this report did not side either for or against the aforementioned bills, it did detail some consequences of their action.

This report suggested two possibilities for the care and use of animals in research. One was to maintain the status quo which has the advantage of "flexibility and minimal bureaucratic structure." But they said that the present system has many inconsistent policies and no

"neutral enforcement authority." The second option would be to establish a uniform policy for minimum standards for all federal departments and agencies that use animals in research* This would entail the formation of another agency to supervise and enforce these acts. The report states that such action is currently being taken to protect human subjects. If this action does take place it will be 138

called "A Model Federal Policy for the Protection of Hunan Research

Subjects." 26 It will provide regulations to govern the use of any hunan

being in research conducted by or supported by federal departnents or

agencies. The OTA report appears to be in support of such measures

being instituted for animals, as well*

While the report was being conducted, further bills were Introduced

into Congress. H.R. 1145, "Information Dissemination and Research

Accountability Act," was introduced by Robert Torricelli in February

1985. The bill was identical to a bill introduced in 1984, H.R. 5098.

These bills requested federal funds to establish a National Center for

Research Accountability in the National Library of Medicine. This center would be held responsible for approving all research proposals

that were supported or conducted by federal departments or agencies.

This center would have "to promote the dissemination of biomedical information through modern methods of science and technology and to prevent the duplication of experiments on live animals, and for other 27 purposes." This center would need $40 million in funds. This bill w s b strongly supported by UAA and AIR. Congress later referred this bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Another bill that was introduced in April 1985 was H.R. 1877,

"Humane Product Testing Act." This bill requested chat the LD 50 test

(an animal test used to evaluate the toxicity of a substance) be phased out one year after the bill was enacted. Federal departments and agencies would be required to promote non-animal alternatives to the

LD50 test. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health and

Environment. In a report published by FOA, they state that Ur. Hubbard 139

of the Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRHC) requested this

bill. MRMC is funded by FOA.28

Headway in legislative lobbying ventures was to pay off in 1985. A

major victory for the movement was the enactment of the third amendment

to the AWA. This is referred to as the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L.

99-198). This bill was introduced by Congressman George E. Brown, Jr.

as H.R. 2653 and Senator Robert Dole as S.1233 in June 1985. A similar

form of H.R. 2653 had been Introduced in 1984— H.R. 5725. After many

revisions, the bills were passed as an amendment to the AWA of 1966 as

amended in 1970 and 1976.

This new amendment covers a variety of changes to the existing AWA.

The changes, effective December 1986, increase standards of care for

laboratory animals, increase enforcement of the AWA, mandate training

for laboratory personnel chat handle animals, and provide increased dissemination of information to reduce duplication of animal

experimentation.

Examining the revisions in more detail allows one to see that various previously proposed bills have been incorporated into P.L. 99-

198. First, the Department of HHS will assume responsibility of enforcing the AWA in conjunction with the USDA (cf. H.R. 2350). Any regulations chat the Secretary of Agriculture wishes to issue must be approved by the Secretary of HHS. Second, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to issue new guidelines that will promote the physical and psychological well-being of research animals (H.R. 6928). In addition, no animal can be used in more than "one major operative experiment from which it is allowed to recover, except in cases of scientific necessity 140 or by determination of the Secretary" (H.R. 552). Third, institutional animal care committees must be established that include at least one veterinarian and a member not affiliated with the facility to oversee and evaluate research proposals. This committee must also inspect animal facilities twice a year, while the USDA inspects these facilities annually at least. The facility is also required to report annually to the USDA that they are following the provisions of the act (H.R. 6245).

These provisions insure that all research institutions must be under the direct supervision of a local review committee. These actions were

Intended as safeguard measures to insure that oversights by the USDA and/or HHS would be taken care of by institutional animal care committees and then they would report to the USDA. Lastly, the USDA was directed by this amendment to establish within the National Agricultural

Library, an information service. This service would provide additional information obtained from the National Library of Medicine (H.R. 1145).

These services would be used as resources to enhance the training of all 29 research personnel involved in the care and treatment of animals.

A number of AUA provisions governing research were already in effect prior to this 3rd amendment. These include the following:

Any "research facility" (individual, organizations, or post secondary school) that uses or intends to use live animals in research, teBts, or experiments and that purchases or transports live animals in commerce or receives federal funds for the above actions falls must abide by the AUA (7 U.S.C.A 2132(e)).

All research facilities (as defined) must register with the Secretary of Agriculture (7 U.S.C.A. 2136). Dogs or cats must be purchased from persons holding valid licenses, unless specified otherwise by the act (7 U.S.C.A. 2137 & 213B).

A research facility is responsible for transgressions of the act by its employees or authorized agents (7 U.S.C.A* 2139).

Research facilities are required to make and retain records of all purchases of live cats and dogs with respect to sale, purchase, transportation, identification, and previous ownership (7 U.S.C.A. 2140).

Research tacilities must Identify (mark) all cats and dogs (7 U.S.C.A. 2141).

Any research facility involved in selling, purchasing, or handling of animals at auction sales must abide by humane standards as established by the Secretary (7 U.S.C.A. 2142).

Research facilities muBt comply with the minimum requirements for the husbandry, care, and treatment of research animals. Animals must be provided with adequate veterinary care, and given proper anesthesia, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs where appropriate. Secretary does not have the power to establish rules and guidelines for research design. But all research facilities must annually show that they are meeting federal requirements.

Research facilities cannot commercially transport or deliver animals without a certificate of inspection by a licensed veterinarian 10 days prior to handling, this is to insure that the animal is free of any illness to human or nonhuman animals (7 U.S.C.A. 2143(6)).

There is no actual minimum age for transportation of animals to research facilities (7 U.S.C.A. 2143).

Federal agencies that maintain laboratory animal facilities must comply with humane standards in commerce as they apply to non-governmental research facilities (7 U.S.C.A. 2144).

Research facilities must make their facilities available for inspection. Any animal found to be suffering and in noncompliance with AWA regulations 142

may be confiscated and destroyed by inspectors (7 U.S.C.A. 2147).

- Any research facility that is in violation of any part of the act may be subject to a $2500 penalty for each day of non-compliance. Failure to obey cease and desist orders may result in a penalty of $1500 for each day of failure to comply (7 U.S.C.A. 2149(6)).

- Each March, the Secretary of Agriculture haB to report to Congress its activities and findings concerning research facilities (7 U.S.C.A. 2155).

These provisions are executed by the Secretary of Agriculture and administered by the Administrator of APHIS. Inspectors, (Veterinary

Services Representatives), Investigate registered research facilities annually in the presence of an attending veterinarian or three-member 30 committee employed by the research facility.

APHIS monitors registered research facilities by making regular, unannounced inspections. Primary attention is focused on the availability of adequate veterinary care and tne use of acceptable humane guidelines to provide relief from pain and distress experienced by an animal. The types of inspections include recurring compliance checks to make sure research facilities are complying with the Act, inspections to investigate complaints or examine instances of noncompliance, and violation status searches to determine if a new facility should be licensed, and inspections to investigate apparent violations.

In 1982, 19,473 recurring compliance inspections were handled by

APHIS. That is, on the average, facilities were inspected 1.7 times a year. In a 1985 GAO report on the USUA, there was some concern that

APHIS, the USUA agency which administers AWA, has never received 143 sufficient funding to effectively inspect research facilities. In addition, mention was made that many inspectors had received either no training or unsatisfactory training on Inspection techniques and AWA provisions. These two factors were reported as grave deficiencies in the GAO report on USDA activities. Nevertheless, it did not result in 31 increased funding to the USDA to improve these conditions.

In summary, the Food Security Act of 1985, P.L. 99-198, amended the

AWA for the third time. But the actual enforcement of the act and its amendment were not strengthened by these changes. Research facilities and their administrators are legally responsible for implementing the provisions of AWA. In a majority of Instances the institution, itself, will be the primary overseer that these provisions are upheld. Any research facility which fails to meet the standards set by AWA and receiving federal funding is subject to have their funding source cut off. Another likelihood would be that they are criminally penalized for failing to comply.

Another law that was passed in 1985 was the Health Research

Extension Act of 1985, P.L. 99-198. This act was an amendment to the

Public Health Service Act. The act deals with the care and treatment of research animals that are involved in projects funded by the Public

Health Service (PHS). N1H is included as part of the PHS. Section 493 on this act directs the secretary of HHS under N1H direction to establish guidelines for the care of laboratory animals, u6e of pain relievers, and appropriate veterinary and nursing care. This means that research facilities funded by PHS sources must comply with certain 144 sections of the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

by Awardee Institutions.

Section 497 of this act requires the NIH Director to establish a plan for research and training in alternative methods to the use of live animals in research. This is the second law passed in 1985 dealing with alternatives. The Health Professions Educational Assistance Amendments of 1985 (P.L. 99-1291 states that veterinary students should be enrolled in programs that examine alternatives to the use of animals.

The Health Research Extension Act provides similar guidelines to those described -in Che third amendment to the AWA. Any institution receiving PHS support must establish an institutional care committee to examine research proposals and facilities. Any cases of reported poncompliance are subject to the NIH Director's authority to have funding suspended or revoked.

Many different federal departments and agencies share similar policies, guidelines, regulations, and inspections criteria. Hence, they have organized communications and interactions amongst themselves.

APHIS, NIH, and FDA share the following information with each other: list of registered research facilities which have been inspected and those which have not; facilities which have demonstrated serious noncompliance with federal policies; and aid one another in the training 32 and dissemination of pertinent information amongBt their employees.

Recently enacted legislation and federal interagency and departmental actions represent a general trend in regulating research.

Primary emphasis has been on increasing care and treatment of animals used in research. The latter condition refers to the implementation of 145

alternatives to animals in biomedical research. However, there is no

direct control over the types of experiments to be conducted or the

protocols used.

Some animal rights groups have evaluated the present situation and

either supported existing systems of enforcement or refuted their

effectiveness. For example, in Beyond the Laboratory Door the author(s)

conducted a survey of facilities that had.violated the AWA. In this

book AW1 states:

Certainly, not all scientists are immune to understanding the ethical problems of animal experimentation. Perhaps the same proportion of scientists as laymen are sensitive to these problems...Society roust leave to scientists the judgment of the scientific value of an experiment. But scientists are not uniquely qualified to evaluate the ethical acceptability of an experiment. That judgment belongs to society as a whole.

Although site reports were obtained from USDA/APH1S files, AWI did not make any negative statements against APHLS's ability to enforce the

AWA. The USDA/APH1S was further supported by HSUS. When President

Reagan's budget proposal for fiscal year 1986 proposed to eliminate funding for the AWA, HSUS opposed it. HSUS supported the USDA by stating:

The HSUS will continue to work to see that this vital funding i£ part of the USDA budget approved by the Senate.

Another group which is not directly opposed to the AWA is FOA. In

"Medical Research Priorities - A National Issue," Dr. Richmond Hubbard, chairman of the Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC) says that their organization's primary objective is to reduce direct federal 146 support of animal research:

To reduce the waste of animal life and to reduce the waste of federal tax dollars, the source of funding for most medical research in the nation*

The National Science Foundation has estimated that 702 of university and college research expenses are federally funded. Hence, many groups against animal research are more interested in seeing that these funds supporting animal research are withdrawn. However, what has not eluded many animal rights groups is the fact that these additional regulations and provisions that were passed in 1985 will drain part of the research funds. Research facilities are required to maintain strict husbandry practices and maintain laboratory conditions. This costs them money. (This issue will be examined in more detail later on.) Although many animal rights groups have repeatedly claimed that animal researchers are unregulated that is not the case.

Researchers are obligated by three different federal laws to provide for the care and.use of animals. The Animal Welfare Act as amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985 govern the care, transportation, purchase, sale, housing, handling, and treatment of all mammalian animals excluding rodents and birds. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is meant "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conservation of wild flora and fauna worldwide." The third federal law, the Marine Mammal Protection Act 147

of 1972, as amended in 1973 and 1976, places a moratorium on the capture

and use of certain marine mammals.

Additional regulations are placed upon animal researchers by the

Public Health Service (PHS). PHS has a policy on Humane Care and Use of

Laboratory animals by Awardee Institutions that was updated in 1985.

The PHS also endorses the U.S. government's "Principles for the

Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research,

and Education" (see Appendix D). These policy statements provide

further regulations that animal researchers must comply with. A major

report on the guidelines for the care and use of animals was recently

updated by HHS. This report was prepared by the Committee on Care and

Use of Laboratory Animals of the Institute Laboratory Animal Resources

Commission on Life Sciences and the National Research Council. The

report is published by NIH is referred to as the "Guide for the Care and

Use of Laboratory Animals." This guide provides detailed specifications

and rules to govern institutional policies; laboratory animal husbandry,

veterinary care, physical plant, and special considerations like 37 genetics, hazardous agents, and farm animals.

Animal researchers are subject to state laws governing the

acquisitions, care, and use of animals. Each state may have different

laws or provisions that research institutions must comply with in

conjunction with the federal laws. With the passing of the Health

Research Extension Act of 1985 (cf. 3rd amendment to the AWA),

researchers must abide by the regulations and provisions established within the institutions animal care/research committee. So far from

being unregulated, uninspected, and/or unsupervised, animal researchers

are subject to many rules and regulations. CHAPTER Xlll

BREAK-INS: ACTIONS BY MEMBERS

Campaigning, writing letters to Congressmen and lobbying, picketing, and demonstrations have not yet brought about the goal of the animal rights movement. Its participants have taken the stand that:

There is no ethical basis for elevating membership of one particular species into a morally crucial characteristic..*If we say that we will perform an experiment on monkeys but not on brain-damaged human orphans, we are giving preference to the humans just because they are members of our species, which is a violation of the principle of equal consideration of interests...species itself cannot make a difference.

The movement has tried many tactics and strategies to reach the public with thi6 "new ethics."

The most recent and dramatic tactics are illegal break-ins to animal research institutions, farms, chemical companies; destruction of private property; letter bombings; and threatening to blow people up.

These tactics are referred to as "direct action” by the organizations that perform them. The group which has received the most attention for their efforts is the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

ALF was formed in 1976 as an outgrowth of an English group, Band of

Mercy. Band of Mercy was formed to oppose hunting. The Band of Mercy has tried and succeeded in sabotaging hunts by damaging guns and vehicles. ALF differs from Band of Mercy in that it has broader goals

148 149 than those of the Band of Mercy. ALF seeks to end all perceived cases of “exploitation and persecution" of anitaals. There is no way of determining exactly how many individuals are affiliated with this organization and its alms. Ronnie Lee* a founder and spokesperson for

ALF, estimates that there are anywhere between 500 to 1,000 members.

Lee has been imprisoned twice— once for burning down a newly built animal research facility and once for illegally entering an animal 2 breeding facility and "liberating" thousands of mice.

In an Interview, Lee had this to say about his actions:

...1 looked at it (a vivisection laboratory) a few times with Cliff Goodman, and we decided to burn it down: $45,000 worth of damage was caused in two attacks...Cliff and 1 were eventually caught in August 1974 trying to break into laboratories near Bicester. We were each sentenced to three years' imprisonment...When we came out we met a lot of people who wanted to get involved in that sort of_ action, and about thirty of us formed the ALF....

At the present time ALF commits an illegal act almost everyday.

The first ALF activity was against the Charles River Laboratories in

England. Thousands of dollars worth of damage to the building and vehicles was done by the raiders. Since that time the ALF has spread to

Europe and the United States.

The first break-in staged by the ALF in the United States occurred at the University of Maryland's Animal Science Department in April,

1982. ALF raiders Btole 42 rabbits to protest a rabbit production course that was being offered by the University. Later that year the

ALF carried out three more illegal raids against animal research facilities. On Christmas day, 1982, nine ALF members located in the

Washington D.C. area entered Howard University's medical science ISO building and stole 28 cats that were involved in experiments on nerve transmission. At about the same time, other ALF members released two rats from their cages at the University of Florida's School of Hedicine.

Two days later, two ALF members dressed in research laboratory coats entered the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Bethesda, Maryland and stole a dog that was being used for heart research. On the following day, December 28, 1982, "urban guerrillas" illegally entered the

Psychology Department of the University of California at Berkeley and stole a cat and two kittens involved in experiments on how visual images are processed by the nervous system.

In England, a group called Camando 4 Paws broke into an animal provider facility and stole 52 dogs on February 2, 1982. In another instance, seven hundred London activists fought with police as they tried to tear down fences and release animals in an animal research center. Twenty-one arrests were made. In December of that year, three activi6 tB were caught digging up the grave of John Peel, a famous 19th century English fox hunter.** Only a year and a half after ALF's establishment. Science reported that in England

...the militants have conducted a campaign of violence and sabotage against laboratories and breeding plants. They have freed animals, damaged property, and even burglared the offices of their chief opponent, the Research Defence Society. A few days after the break-in the secretary of society was telephoned by a man who said, 'This is the Animal Liberation Front. ^We have your files. We think you're pretty sick.'

These actions have been given much publicity in England. Moreover, they may have provided the impetus for U.S.-based animal rights organizations to take similar steps. For example, on September 5, 1981, PETA 151

President Alex Pacheco entered the laboratory of Dr. Edward Taub at the

Institute of behavioral Research In Silver Springs, Maryland

...with the aid of an outside accomplice and walkie-talkies to warn of the possible approach of a laboratory staff member, Alex Pacheco took photographs that purported to.show unsanitary conditions at the laboratory.

This "direct action” by the founder of PETA has been referred to as a O "landmark case" in the struggle for animal rights. Dr.. Taub was conducting research on monkeys to obtain information that would enable people who have had strokes learn how to reuse their damaged limb.

Taub's experimental procedure is called somatosensory deafferentation which involves surgically severing the nerves carrying sensory information from the arm to the brain, as they enter the spinal cord.

Consequently, a person/animal with central nervous system damage, such as a stroke, no longer experiences physical sensations in the limb and considers the limb to be part of a "foreign" body.

The incidents leading to a police raid on Dr. Taub's laboratory were:

- Alex Pacheco requested to work in Dr. Taub's laboratory as a volunteer interested in laboratory experience.

- Pacheco worked in the laboratory for four months.

- Pacheco did not report to Dr. Taub or animal caretakers any deficiencies in the four month period he was there.

- Pacheco enters the laboratory at night with an accomplice and photographs "unsanitary" lab.

- Three weeks later Pacheco went to police and filed complaint which resulted in police raid on Nov. 23, 1986. The media had been alerted to be present during the search. 152

- Monkeys were confiscated from the laboratory by the police and members of PETA were given custody of the monkeys.

- A judge then demanded that the monkeys be returned to Dr. Taub or the perpetrators would face contempt of court. Jail, and fines. The monkeys were then returned. It was never determined who had taken the monkeys.

-Dr. Taub was prosecuted by Assistant State's (Maryland) Attorney Roger Galvin. *Galvin later stated that he was an 'antivlvlsectionlst, a vegetarian, and would not wear leather...He became, shortly thereafter, President of the Washington chapter of Attorneys for Animal Rights.'

- Of 119 counts filed against Dr. Taub 113 were dismissed during the first trial. He was convicted of failing to provide adequate veterinary care to six monkeys.

- In the second trial, Taub was cleared of five of the counts.

- Taub appealed the single conviction to the Court of Appeals of Maryland and it was overturned on August 10, 1983.

All charges were dropped against Ur. Taub almost two years after the

raid. The basis for the dismissal was the anticruelty statute of

Maryland, article 27, section 59 (which is similar to most anticruelty

statutes in other states):

...all animals shall be protected from intentional cruelty, but that no person shall be liable for criminal prosecution for normal human activities to which the infliction of pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable.

In the court's opinion filed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland,

No. 123, September Term, 1982, Judge J. Couch stated: 153

Thus Che Acc provides a comprehensive plan for Che proceccion of animals used in research facilicies, while ac Che same time recognizing Che validiCy of use of animals in research ( 2146 (1973 and 1976 Supp))...

Moreover, Che involved laboratory was subject to decailed regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture (9 C.F.R. 3.75-3.91 (1978) which set forth specifications for humane handling, care, treatment, transportation of nonhuman primates, and for veterinary care. With respect to the latter, again provision is made for a recognition and preservation of the validity of research purposes...Judgment reversed and case remanded to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County_with instructions to dismiss the Information. Costa to be paid by Montgomery County.

Although Dr. Taub was acquitted of all charges by a higher court,

NIH had already suspended and terminated his research grant for

$221,UUU. Taub also appealed this action, but NIH upheld its decision.

So even though Taub was exonerated by the state of Maryland, he could no

longer continue his research because NIH terminated his funding source

based on Taub's presumptive failure to comply with NIH animal care guidelines. Two University of Pennsylvania veterinarians who testified in behalf of Or. Taub have stated that:

The harshness with which NIH dealt with Taub depended in large measure on their belief that his monkeys had, indeed, suffered maltreatment at his hands. This opinion stemmed from the results of two zoo veterinarians flown in by PETA. These veterinarians interpreted the condition seen in some of the deafferent limbs as if they were present in physiologically normal limbs. Unfortunately, NIH officials did not Include someone with the expert opinion necessary to evaluate the condition of the monkeys' limbs on the review committee that voted to suspend Taub's grant in 1981. 154

NIH cook over custody on Che monkeys following Che termination of Taub's

grant.

Although NIH took over responsibility of the animals, they are

still the property of the Institute of Behavioral Research (IBR). IBR

attempted to release these rights to NIH in 1985. However, PETA has

tiled for custody of the 15 monkeys because "They say that frequent

visits with monkeys at NlH's Animal Center in Poolesville, Md., has

allowed them to establish bonding relationships with the animals".(1 2 )

On June 23, 1986, NIH sent the animals to the Delta Primate Center in

New Orleans until the court decides who should have custody of the

monkeys. So almost six years after the raid, courts are still trying to

resolve the problems that have ensued from the raid. Thousands of tax­

payers' dollars have been spent trying to resolve these issues. In a

letter distributed by PETA in March 1986 they urged their supporters to

donate funds because "...legal fees for this case have been 13 astronomical."

Pacheco's actions against Dr. Taub and the Institute of Behavioral

Research were extensively publicized by the media. Pacheco became a hero to some animal rights supporters. That same year, he and Ingrid

Newkirk were able to organize their own group--PETA. Since Pacheco established PETA, he has never been directly implicated in similar types of activities.

Nonetheless, other groups continued to break into laboratories.

For example, on January 14, 1983, ALF entered the Naval Medical Research

Institute in Bethesda, Maryland for the second time and removed three dogs that were to be used in research. In June, ALF members stole five 155

cats from Toronto Western Hospital Laboratory in Canada* Two months

later, two dog pounds located in Toronto, were damaged by ALF members.

They slashed tires and spray painted the slogans: Liberate Found

Animals; No Dogs for Research; and Smash Vivisection. Damage was

estimated at $6,000. During October, ALF members stole rabbits that

belonged to the University of Maryland. Researchers at the university

were developing ways to use rabbit meat as a protein source in

underdeveloped countries. The rabbits that were stolen were to be used

in a barbecue to demonstrate that rabbit meat was edible and pleasant­ ly tasting*

During December 1983, ALF vandalized seven fur shops in Florida.

In addition, they stole six rats from a John Hopkins University

Psychology Department laboratory that was conducting brain research. On

Christmas day, they broke into the University of California at Los

Angeles Medical Center and stole 12 dogs that were being used in

investigations sponsored by the American Heart Association. Five of the dogs had pacemakers and one had an infusion pump that was supposed to

have been removed the next day. Another antivivisection action, reported on March 20, 1983, was against the director of a Chicago medical

research facility. Antivivisectionists placed signs, a stuffed elephant, and a bomb near the home of the director. No group claimed responsibility for this act.*^

In England, during 1983, a group of 17 North Animal Liberation

League (NALL) activists illegally entered the Liverpool University

Psychology Department's experimentation director's office. Files were searched and slides were stolen. NALL also broke into the CIBA-Geigy 156 drug company in Manchester and photographed animals and stole documents and research materials concerning beagles. In June another animal liberation group called the Animal Rights Militia (ARM) claimed responsibility for mailing letter bombs to Prime Minister Margaret

Thatcher. One bomb exploded and injured members of her staff.

Additional bombs were intercepted in the mail the following day.^

On April 22, 1984, ALF members stole a dog being UBed in a study on infections of the gall bladder at the Veteran's Administration Medical

Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota. On April 24, 1984, 15 demonstrators were arrested at the Davis, California Primate Research Center. The demonstrations were being held in support of what was described as World

Day for Lab Animals. Some of the 10U demonstrators were burning effigies of three researchers who worked at the primate center. ALF activists also targeted the California State University in Sacramento, where 20 rats involved in a brain research study were stolen.^

The University of Pennsylvania reported two ALF break-ins. The first, on Memorial Day 1984, was at the School of Medicine's Head Injury

Clinical Research Center. ALF stole over 60 hours of research materials that had been recorded on videos and audiotapes. The investigators were working on proedures for treating head injuries that typically occur in automobile accidents. Five ALF members were involved with the break-in: a woman in her late 30's with a "language of elegance that hinted at a distinguished but buried past;" another woman who "was always excited about the prospect of going on new raids”— both women had trained in

England with ALF leaders before; a third woman who worked in the health field and had never been on a raid before and would only have a minor 157 role in this one; a male law student who would "have only a supporting role in the raid" and a man "approaching sixty...a survivor of Nazi 18 concentration camps."

Prior to the break-in the group worked together to figure out a way to get Into the laboratory and steal the tapes without getting caught.

An inside informer provided the group with access to the building.

During the raid, the two women who were experienced in illegal break-ins entered the laboratory and stole research papers, dumped boxes of paper, sprayed iodine in the disk drives of computers, and destroyed other 19 equipment during a period of 45 minutes. After leaving the building, they took the stolen videos and capes to PETA headquarters. The 60 hours of tapes were made into a 20 minute film called Unnecessary Fuss by the PETA members.

The break-in and subsequent film created a tremendous media interest. However, ALF was not satisfied with the university's response, which condemned the break-in. So they once again illegally entered a laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania. This time their target was the School of Veterinary Medicine. On July 26, 19H4, they illegally entered the school and stole three cats, two dogs, and eight laboratory pigeons. PETA was contacted by ALF to distribute information to the public and

...the animal rights publicity machines sprang into action...PETA brochures were quick to follow...an article written by PETA conjured up images of Rambo-like rescuers, driven to illegal means to save America's forgotten strays.

University officials were quick to deny the accusations of PETA and ALF.

The university demanded that the stolen material be returned, but PETA 158

did not comply. However, the USDA threatened to subpoena those who had

the tapes. PCTA finally gave the tapes to the Department of

Agriculture. 21 A federal grand jury in Philadelphia did subpoena nine

people who were involved in the incident. Pacheco and Newkirk, co-

founders and leaders of PETA, were called to testify but to no avail

since both of them took the Fifth Amendment.

Edward Kendell, the district attorney working on the case, had a

difficult time investigating the case he says because:

They weren't willing to take the consequences, to be arrested and prosecuted and make their case in court. They didn't have the confidence in their convictions. There's no question they broke the law, but they could have gotten up in court, and said, 'Yes, we broke the law, but this is why...'ALF wanted the best of both worlds, the group wanted to make its point, £t^t it did not want to suffer the consequences.

No one was charged because of lack of sufficient evidence. PETA

members did not know who had given them the tapes— only that the tapes

had been obtained by ALF members. Pacheco and others continued their efforts to shut down the Head Injury Center. Less than 100 PETA members

participated in a sit-in at NIH on July 15, 1985 protesting continued

funding of the research. Three days later, Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Human Health and Services, suspended NIH funding of the Head Injury 23 Center.

On October 4, 1985, an NIH report supported by HHS and the USDA stated that the animals used in the research did not receive sufficient

anesthesia; unsanitary procedures were used during some surgical

procedures; some laboratory technicians were not sufficiently trained in

certain procedures; and veterinarians were not sufficiently involved in 159 choosing appropriate anesthesia and drugs for the animals. In

September, USDA fined the University of Pennsylvania $4,000. The university paid the fines. Although they contested the allegations that insufficient and inappropriate anesthesia was involved, they did not 24 contest the other charges.

University officials addressed the issue by forming a University Ad

Hoc Committee to Investigate the allegations against Dr. Thomas A.

Gennarelli and Dr. Thomas W. Langf.itt, who were conducting the experiments. In a letter to them, university officials stated that both men had failed to comply with NIH, USDA, and university standards, regulations, and guidelines. Funding and research of the baboon section of the Head Injury Clinic laboratory were then terminated following appropriate investigations.

While Gennarelli and Langfitt were being penalized for their failure to comply with the laboratory regulations, other animal rights groups were continuing their “direct action" techniques. On August 27,

19B4, 26 animal rights activists from the group Animal Rights Direct

Coalition blocked off administrative offices at the University of

California at Berkeley and demanded that personnel changes be made in the Psychology Department and in Berkeley's Animal Care Committee. No 25 changes were made though.

Furthermore, animal rights activists were displeased with Director

Charles Cornelius and Assistant Director Andre Hendrick of the

California Primate Center. So ALF members placed “ticking bombs"-- clocks in boxes— beside their homes. IVo months later a bomb threat was made against the University of Nevada's School of Medicine. The 160

university had to be closed for three days while they searched for the

bomb. No bomb was found. 26

An animal rights activist was arrested for trespassing against an

Ohio State University dentistry lab on November 17, 1984. The activist

opposed the use of cats in studies examining electrical stimulation as a

means of inducing orthodonic tooth movement. The student was charged

with illegal trespassing.

In December, ALF illegally entered the City of Hope's Beckman

Research Institute and Medical Center at Duarte, California. Between

$400,000 and $500,000 worth of damage was reported. Moreover, 36 dogs

involved in cancer research, 11 cats used in studies on diaphragm muscles, 12 rabbits exposed to oral herpes, and 28 mice and 18 rats used for breeding purposes were stolen. The university reported that

potential findings from almost four years of research may have been lost 27 because of this break-in. Bruce and Carol Jodar, founders of

Consequence, an animal rights group, were arrested on charges of conspiracy to commit burglary and receiving stolen property. They had given 1U of the stolen rabbits to a young girl. The girl's mother then heard reports of the break-in and rabbits exposed to herpes and 28 contacted the police. The rabbits were then placed in the c u b tody of a Napa Valley Shelter where they were stolen once again by ALF members.

Following the break-in, NIH Director James B. Wyngaarden suspended

City of Hope's funding on July 29, 1985 for failure to comply with NIH guidelines. This reaction was in response to complaints filed by PETA and Fund for Animals after ALF's break-in at the City of Hope in

December. On May 2, 1986, NIH's Office for Protection from Research 161

Risk (OPKR) approved City of Hope's new animal welfare assurance 29 policy and the researchers were allowed to resume their studies. They were still faced with the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, their animals, and years of previous work.

While American animal activists were breaking into laboratories,

English animal activists were directing their attacks against individuals and the public. During January and February 1984, there was an average of one major violent action per week in England. These acts included: 6U protestors who tried to break down the fence to gain access into a research laboratory in Warwickshire, England; smearing the

Home Office Minister's house with paint and animal blood; damaging the home and car of a dog exporter; tampering with Mars candy bars because they opposed dental research funded by the company; tampering with turkeys during the ChristmaB season so that people would not buy turkeys; and contaminating shampoo by placing bleach in them to protest 30 the use of animals to test cosmetic products.

In August, some laboratories in the facilities at Royal College of

Surgeons was stormed by members of the Southeastern Animal Liberation

League, another animal liberation group in England. They videotaped the laboratory and stole research files. Later that month, unknown activists broke into the University of Western Ontario's laboratory and took photographs of a baboon known as B-43. 8-43 was being used in a research project studying cholesterol levels. Legal suits were filed against the primary investigator. Dr. Bernard Wolfe, and Dr. William

Kapley, the animal care facility veterinarian, were filed by Lifeforce, a Canadian-based animal rights organization. However, the case was 162 dismissed because of legal technicalities (e.g., failure to mention that

B-43 was a baboon). Peter Hamilton, Director of Lifeforce, then filed a private suit because “the Crown Attorney refused to prosecute the case 31 for the group." Lifeforce later dropped the suit and the charges of cruelty to B-43 were dropped.

The University did not counter6ue* However, the presiding judge, the Honorable John Menzies said, "I cannot leave this trial without mak’ing the observation.. .that on the evidence 1 have heard, the charges against these two prominent men in this community were groundless and 32 without any real foundation." Research with the baboon was completed by then and the University of Western Ontario's president, George

Pederson, stated that Wolfe and Kapley "have been fully vindicated and

' 33 their integrity and professionalism remain completely unblemished.”

Lifeforce had tried to discredit Drs. Wolfe and Rapley by proving that they had been cruel. They failed to do so. Their failures may have prompted ALF to enter the university three months later. In

January 1985, the group broke into research facilities at the University of Western Ontario's Medical School. This time they stole three cats and a monkey that supposedly had herpes B virus. They tried to steal 34 the baboon, B-43, but were not able to. Meanwhile, in London activists bombed the home of Sir John Vane, a Nobel Prize winning scientist, who is director of research at the Wellcome Foundation. In

May 1985, Ireland ALF members copied earlier actions taken in England and laced bottles of shampoo with bleach to protest the use of animals 35 in cosmetic research. During the sunnier of 1985, Central Animal Liberation League, a

British animal rights group, took 32 dogs from the University Park Farm of Oxford University. Also, during the summer, 16 (out of 300) activists who had illegally entered the Imperial Chemical Industries plant at Alderly Park, England were arrested and charged with burglary and vandalism. They were found guilty of destroying private property, illegal entry, and possession of stolen goods. All 16 were sentenced at the Knutsford Crown Court. Kobin Smith and David Callender, leaders in the raid, were sentenced to nine months imprisonment. Six monthB of the sentence were suspended for two years and each had to pay $1,000 in compensation. Fourteen other activists had to pay $900 each in compensation, $1400 in court costs, and do 1,400 hours of community service. Northern Animal Liberation League (NALL) representatives responded to these court actions by saying that they would increase their activities against Imperial Chemical Industries. In reports of other break-ins, four activists were convicted of conspiracy to commit arson at Leeds University. Penal sentences were imposed.

Illegal animal liberation actions also continued during 1985 in the

U.S.A. Dr. A.K. Hoosa, Chairman of the Department of Surgery at the

University of California at San Diego received death threats. His secretary was warned that if he (Moosa) gave his continuing education class on suturing/stapling techniques used in surgery he would be shot*

The caller said that he opposed the use of anesthetised dogs in research and said, "Tell him (Hoosa) if he doesn't stop the course, I'll put a 3b bullet through his head." In March 1985, ALF activists spray-painted slogans onto the home of the Director of the Los Angeles Department of 164

Animal Control and Care, and warned him to stop selling unclaimed pound animals to medical researchers.

In April, ALF illegally entered the University of California-

Riverslde and stole over 700 research anlitials from 20 laboratories.

Physical damage to the facility and loss Of animals totaled $683,000.

The largest numbers of animals were taken from psychology laboratories,

Sally Sperling, Professor of Psychology at the University, commented that:

These people also are cowards. They liberated only helpless animals— those that weren't likely to bite the hand that freed then— basically nonaggressive animals...Like other radicals with other causes, they also delude themselveB that any action.^6 justifiable in the name of their cause.

On August 1, N1H officials inspected the research facilities at the

University of California-Riverside in response to complaints submitted. by PETA that researchers were violating rules and guidelines for proper animal care. After completing a thorough investigation of PETA's allegations of noncompliance, N1H Director James Wyngaarden concluded that the University had complied fully with federal standards and "no 38 corrective action with respect to this program is necessary."

Although the researchers were then allowed to continue with their studies, most of their animals, equipment, and facilities had been taken or damaged by the burglars. Thus the break-in to the laboratories had served their intended purpose— to halt animal research. However, after

N1H concluded its investigation, most of the researchers began to carry out experiments again. Police are still trying to locate the individuals who broke into this university. 165

There was only one reported Incident of a break-in during 1986* An office at the University of Oregon-Eugene was broken into on October

26th. Over one hundred animals were stolen from two laboratories and 39 damage was estimated to be approximately $50,000. However, demonstrations and instances of civil disobedience became more frequent.

For instance, protests organized by Eliot Katz, leader of In Defense of

Animals, on April 19th led to 135 arrcstB of demonstrators blocking access to research laboratories. In July, 96 protestors were arrested for trespassing at the Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Last

Chance for Animals and SUPRESS members formed picket lines outside of thje medical center. Similar actions were carried out by PETA members at Nlli in August. Fourteen people were arrested for blocking entrances and exits to an HHS building. On September 25, 19B6, six activists chained themselves to doors of the medical science building at the

University of Callfornia-Irvine. The activists were arrested and later found guilty of failure to disperse.

Animal liberation activities in England during 1986 were violent.

On January 8 th, the Animal Rights Militia (ARM) placed explosive devices outside the homes of four people involved with animal research. The

British Army's bomb disposal team was called in to detonate the bombs after the animal rights group informed the media about their actions.

Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad officers are still searching for the activists. ALF did not condemn the group's action.(28).

In May, Dr. Andor Sebesteny, head of the Animal Welfare Unit of the

Imperial Cancer Research Fund in London, England, "narrowly escaped injury when he discovered a bag containing explosives planted under his 166

car." 4 1 Later that month, seven fire bombs were placed In a London

department store that sells fur coats. The Dally Express, a London

paper, stated that ALF was responsible for the actions.

Although numerous break-ins have occurred In the United States,

England, and Europe, there have been relatively few investigations and

arrests of perpetrators. This is due, in part, to the covert nature of

groups like ALF and Animal Rights Militia and the pledge of silence

taken by PETA members, but one can also wonder why the persons who were

caught have only rarely been punished for crimes that in most jurisdictions are statutory felonies. We can also wonder why

conservative groups within the movement seem to sanction the actions of militant groups by favorable mentions of break-ins in their newsletters.

Thus, the ALF tends to enjoy a "...heroic reputation" and is credited

/ O with "creating much needed leverage for the rest of the movement."

A member of ALF has said that even though they do destroy millions of dollars worth of equipment and facilities, they do not "commit crimes for personal gain, but to stop suffering...ALF's raids (arej not momentary forfeiture of the highest human values— goodness, generosity, and the like— but rather an embodiment of thera."^

A very different viewpoint has been taken by the Attorney General of California, John Van de Kamp. In the 1985 Annual Report on Organized

Crime in California, ALF was listed as an "active terrorist group." Van de Kamp also believes that the ALF "...will probably remain a threat to animal research institutions in California..."*^

Consequences of break-ins and other illegal actions on the research community have been quite clear. Whenever a break-in occurs, it 167

disrupts ongoing animal research. Either animals, data, equipment,

and/or premises are damaged or stolen, thus preventing the continuation

of the research project. These acts of vandalism and burglaries have

cost millions of dollars worth of damage. Yet there has so far been

only one case of restitution by the activists (cf. raid on the Imperial

Chemical Industries in England). As a consequence of past events, many

animal research administrators are now spending considerable amounts of

money on security systems to decrease the possibility of future break-

ins.

In addition, animal researchers are personally affected by the

raids on their laboratories. Projects that they have been working on

are either destroyed by the raiders or suspended until an assessment of

the raid and existing laboratory practices is made. The researcher then

becomes the focus of a great deal of public attention because animal

activists present their "findings" in highly dramatic ways that attract

media coverage. The allegations made against the researcher are assumed

to be true because of all the media coverage that typically occurB. The

researcher may be also judged guilty of animal cruelty by his academic

community before the facts are known. This sort of public exposure has

almost always hindered the researcher's chances of obtaining further

research grants until, in effect, it is too late for him or her to pick up the pieces. Furthermore, many animal researchers are becoming fearful of being physically attacked by activists, for many have been

threatened and some have found bombs outside of their homes.

These findings should be interpreted in light of the fact that less

chan IX of the population in the United States are even affiliated with 168

an animal welfare or rights group. Moreover♦ there are probably less

than 1 ,UU0 animal rights individuals who would willingly commit acts

like breaking and entering into animal laboratories. They may have

continued in their actions because they have not met with much

resistance from either the legal system or the victimized institutions

and researchers. If this situation does not change, then the

prediction oi Vicki Miller, National Coordinator lor the group AKK 11, which she said is a "hard core animal rights organization,” may become a

reality:

1 believe that this decade |1V80J will see the lirst acts of true violence. Some may be accidental— like a bystander killed in a bomb blast; some will be,deliberate— like a vivlsector shot in the street. CHAPTER XIV

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

The animal welfare/rights movement Is evidently well-financed, but how well is difficult to estimate because there are so many groups within it. In the New England area alone, there are over 200 organizations concerned with the well-being and rights of animals.^

However, the question can be approached through the careful assessment of some of the groups' financial systems. Such Information provides an indication of the movement's actual wealth and resources, although it necessarily underestimates the strength of the movement as a whole.

There is no one group that can be regarded as prototypical. Hence, the financial status of the following organizations have been studied:

ASPCA, FOA, Fund, HSUS, 1SAK, MFA, PETA, and UAA. This selection is a croBB-section that includes large, established groups; small, recently formed groups; and animal welfare and/or animal rights groups. A more complete listing of animal welfare/rights organizations' financial status is provided in Appendix E.

ASPCA is a private, non-profit organization that was founded in

1866. This group is one of the largest animal welfare groups with a member/contributor total of 123,000 people. ASPCA is one of the ten wealthiest animal welfare organizations in the United States. In its

1984 Annual Report-Charitable Organization form filed with the New York

169 170

2 State Office of Charities Registration (Form 990), the ASPCA listed

total support and revenue in excess of $8*5 million. Compared with its

income of 1982, ($7.7 million) ASPCA experienced a net income growth of almost $1 million within two years (i.e., over a ten percent increase in support and revenue). Approximately one third of ASPCA's 1983 funding was dependent upon direct public support ($2.8 million). These funds were, in part, obtained through the services of Oram Group, a professional fundraiser employed by ASPCA.

ASPCA operates a number of program services from which it also accrues additional revenue. These services include licensing fees for pets, special shelter fees, veterinary hospital services, an ambulance rescue service, and the Kennedy Airport Shelter. Revenue from these services totaled $5.4 million in 1984. Functional expenses for ASPCA's programs for this same period totaled $6.6 million. These expenses reflect money spent on hospital, licensing, and shelter costs for animals ($5.5 million)-and legal/legislative/educational programs

($745,UUU) to inform che public on the proper care and treatment of animals.

ASPCA's assets (savings, accounts receivable, investments, lands, buildings, and equipment minus depreciation) totaled $8.1 million for fiscal year 1984. By comparing total revenue and expenses for 1984, one notes that ASPCA experienced a yearly deficit of $300,000. However, the group's fund balance for that year was approximately $6 million.

In summary, ASPCA generates most of its funding through self­ managed program services for pets within the New York City area. Host of its expenses are spent on these same services. However, additional 171

ASPCA expenses are used to compensate its employees. For instance, John

Kullberg, President of ASPCA received $68,243 (1984) for his management of ASPCA. Harold Finkelstein, Assistant Treasurer, received $51,044 in compensation. Gordon Robinson, director of ASPCA's Bergh Memorial Animal

Hospital received $60,182. These employees of the ASPCA are working for a multi-million dollar organization which aims “...through legislation, education, veterinary care facilities, animal shelters... of providing effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the

United States."

The MSPCA is another old and wealthy welfare organization. MSPCA is a non-profit organization and is considered to be the richest group within the movement. In "Animal Welfare Organizations— A First Annual

Financial Report," the MSPCA is cited as having had a 1983 fund balance of over $43 million. David Claflin, Executive Director of MSPCA, received $77,120 for services rendered chat year. Martin Passaglia,

Executive Director of AHA, (educational affiliate of the MSPCA) was paid

$56,404.A

Although the MSPCA has been in existence since the 1880's it does not have as extensive a mailing list as the ASPCA does. Mailing lists contain the names of individuals who are known to be or likely to be supporters of animal welfare issues. MSPCA's mailing list includes approximately 50,000 people. In 1980, MSPCA received over $1.6 million in private contributions, $2 million in investment income and $3.7 million in realized capital gains.^ Current financial information was requested from the MSPCA, but none was received by the author. 172

The MSPCA is funded through private and public contributions, investments, bequests, and stocks and bonds. Additional revenue is obtained via the seven animal shelters, three animal hospitals, the

Nevin Farm for Horses, and Hillside Pet Cemetery which are affiliated with the MSPCA.

The MSPCA is a highly visible organization in Massachusetts. It plays an important role in maintaining pet/stray animal shelters and in providing reasonable, low-cost veterinary care for animals. But recently, this group has become the focus of much attention in the animal rights movement. This is due, in part, to the efforts of small, less well-endowed groups like MPA. In the MFA financial pamphlet cited above, the author(s)) state:

Most of the large, established organizations have become businesses which happen to be involved with animals, rather than functioning as what is needed: active ris^-taking, campaigning working groups for animals.

This statement was made in response to certain investment practices ot the MSPCA. For example, in 19B0, the MSPCA invested “nearly $2 million in cosmetics and pharmaceutical companies that test products on live animals*"^ These companies included Bristol Myers, Johnson &

Johnson, Abbott Labs, and Schering Plough Corporation.

In the MFA financial pamphlet, there is no specific mention of these MSPCA investment practices. This is unusual because the article focuses primarily on this type of investment issue. The MFA's silence regarding MSPCA1s practices may be due to a liaison between the two groups— MSPCA and MFA. Thus, in the 1983 Primate Center Rallies were organized by MFA's International Coordinator, Richard Morgan. Morgan 173 was successful in uniting the MSPCA, NEAVS, and AAVS (large, wealthy

organizations) with small, poorly-funded organizations like PETA, CEASE,

TSU, and itself. Since the 19B0's, many of the larger organizations

have provided financial support to the smaller groups. These funds are usually spent on rallies, demonstrations, and other media-oriented

activities.

The MSPCA is actively involved in other activities besides running animal shelters and supporting animal rights groups. In a personal communication with the author, Lynne Goodwin, Development Associate of

the MSPCA wrote that the organization's Legislative Affairs Department was actively involved at state and federal levels with officials seeking laws to benefit animals. An exact figure representing the amount of money spent on legal/lobbying efforts was not given, however. MSPCA, like ASPCA, focuses most of their financial efforts on providing direct care to animals. A relatively small proportion of their revenue is invested in legal/lobbying efforts.

Animal rights groups, such as MFA, PETA, and Animal Liberation, consider the MSPCA and ASPCA to be very conservative elements within the animal rights movement* In both of those groups, the majority of funds are spent on direct animal care services. The MSPCA and ASPCA have primarily maintained the same objectives and goals that originally led to their establishment and in that respect are different from the groups that stress animal rights.

The Humane Society of the United States can be viewed as a transition between the traditional animal welfare groups and the new animal rights groups. The HSUS is devoted to many of the same 174 principles and objectives as the ASPCA and MSPCA. However, HSUS is not

typically involved in providing direct animal care services. Instead it alms to be "the nation's leading advocate for animal protection" and to provlde”a challenge to the nation's conscience to affirm that the welfare and rights of animals and humankind are inseparably U intertwined.

HSUS maintains a general headquarters in Washington, D.C. and eight additional regional offices throughout the United States. These offices have many employees. Some of the group's most highly paid employees during fiscal year 1983 were John Hoyt, President, who received

$100,963; Paul Irwin, Treasurer, who received $72,417; and Michael Fox,

Scientific Director, who received $46,692 in 1982.^

HSUS had approximately $14 million and $18 million in revenue for fiscal years 1984 and 1983, respectively. Investments provided $2.5 million and $3 million. No listing of specific stocks and bonds holding were provided by the HSUS newsletters Humane Society News Summer 1985 and Summer 1986. ^ Revenue from dues, gifts, and bequests from over

14U,0UU HSUS members were almost double those obtained from investments for 1984 and 1985, specifically, $4.3 million and $6.7 million.

HSUS spends a considerable amount of money on membership development, general public information services, and education activities. These expenditures Involved such activities as working "for the enactment of state legislation dealing with dog fighting; humane euthanasia, trapping, exotic pet ownership; training for animal-control personnel; rabies and animal control; pets in housing; and spay-and- neuter program."** HSUS expended additional funds lobbying for federal 175

legislation banning the use of animals from pounds for biomedical

research. In 1985, HSUS' newsletters, Animal-Activists Alert "kept its

readership of more than 7,000 activists informed on 35 major issues, 15

federal bills, and 25 new state laws.” All of these legislative

activities were Bubsumed under the category "Expenditures for

Educational Activities and Services'* with yearly expenses of almost $2

million.^

In addition to the above mentioned expenses, HSUS invested

approximately $153,000 for litigation and legal services. These

services covered "...extensive work on model legislation, particularly

pound seizure, and counsel to local societies on Issues Including tax-

exempt status and the operation of spay/neuter and full-service 13 veterinary clinics.

HSUS provided substantial contributions to other animal

welfare/rights organizations in 1984 and 1985. Support was given to the

World Society for the Protection of Animals, the LD 50 Coalition Agenda

(an animal rights magazine), The Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Animal

Kights Network, and the National Coalition to Protect Our Pets. HSUS's

contributions and cooperation with other organizations represents a

common trend within the movement. Wealthier groups are providing 14 support to smaller, less affluent groups.

HSUS, ASPCA, and MSPCA are all relatively prosperous organizations

that typically have annual excess incomes over expenditures. In many other ways these groups resemble one another. For instance, news items published by these groups do not directly encourage militant, illegal actions taken by other groups, but they do provide coverage of these 176

events and future activities (demonstrations, rallies, strikes) that are

carried out by members of smaller animal rlghts-oriented groups. They

also provide these same groups with financial support. This benefits

the smaller groups, by presenting this information to members of the

welfare-oriented groups, ASPCA, KSPCA, and HSUS, and like groups, the

smaller, animal-rights oriented group receive increased public exposure.

Less affluent groups within the movement are aware of the fact that

they need money to further their cause. Since they have already sought

out financial support via joint mailing lists with other organizations

and by hiring the services of professional fundraisers, they are now

attempting to obtain financial resources from more affluent groups

within the movement. For example, Ahimsa Foundation aided CASH to

retain a law firm in its fight against New York State laws relating to

fish and game agencies. James Mason, copublisher of Animals' Agenda has also "pledged to help raise funds",15 while in 1984 and 1985 HSUS gave

$54,6UU and $59,750, respectively, as "gifts to other societies."16

MFA has been very straightforward in dealing with this matter. In its "Five Point Plan of Unity, Accountability, and Action tor Animals" xt presented the following dictates for all animal welfare/rights groups:

...To agree to and set as immediate policy the practices of sending to their mailing lists the literature and mailing pieces of other organizations, at cost.

...To, in each iBsue of every regular publication printed by any organization, devote a substantial portion of the available space.£o the activities of other animal organizations. 177

This cype of synergistic relationship would conpletely be of

benefit to the newer animal rights groups. Because of their limited

number of supporters and poor financial conditions, they assume they are

neither able to receive sufficient exposure nor carry out the

lobbying/legislative activities they desire. By depending upon the financial strength of larger welfare organizations, they increase their

chances of obtaining these goals. However, one must keep in mind that

the funds donated to these animal rights groups were for the most part from individuals who support welfare-oriented issues, and not I g necessarily animal rights.

A political approach to the issue of animal rights is clearly evident in a number of groups within the movement. For example, Fund for Animals, which was founded in 1967 and currently has over 200,000 members, expended over one-third of its program expenses on the distribution of education materials and legislative activities in 1984.

The remaining two-thirds of its program budget ($567,000) was uBed for

"animal protection." This involved operating a Texas ranch for abused animals and emergency rescues of animals. To support these activities,

Fund for Animals received nearly $1.5 million in direct private support in 1984. Fund balance for that year was approximately $1.2 million.

This group had a yearly excess income of approximately $100,000. No compensation of officers, directors, or trustees was made during 1984*

Cleveland Araory, President of Fund for Animals, offered his services free of charge.*^

Fund for Animals spent additional funds on other animal rights groups. It has close ties with these other organizations and frequently 178 endorses their activities. For instance, in its 1986 newsletter they write:

"The Fund for Animals and PETA have moved significantly closer in many directions in the past year...close cooperation of Fund £gd PETA coordinators all over the country...."

Although Fund for Animals has not stated that it funds illegal activities, it has endorsed those illegal actions that would halt or eliminate the use of animals in research in its newsletter. New York

Fund Coordinator, Lla Albo, has specifically supported the actions of

A.L.F. and PETA. Albo "applauds the illegal activities not only of ALF 21 but of related groupB such as PETA." Furthermore, the Fund has provided these smaller, animal rights groups with financial support that was initially intended (cf. donated, bequested) for self-use* 22

Another group which is similar to Fund for Animals 1b Friends of

Animals (FOA). Alice Herrington, President of FOA, is considered to be one of the most active animal rights advocates at the present time. 23

Herrington received approximately $45,000 in compensation for services rendered to FOA.

FOA i6 a non-profit animal rights organization with approximately 24 60,000 members. This organization received $1.1 million in direct public support (cf. gift, contributions, and grants) in 1984. An additional Bource of revenue ($1.4 million) was generated from FOA's spay clinics. During 1984, FOA spent over $1.8 million to cover expenses engendered by their spay clinic program. Furthermore, FOA spent $404,000 to disseminate information concerning animal research, 25 breeding controls/spay clinics, hunting, and leghold traps. 179

FOA has a "lobbying arm" In Washington D.C. called the Committee for Humane Legislation. However, in FOA's 1984 annual tax form 990 there is no listing as to how much money was spent on lobbying efforts.

Therefore, it is difficult to estimate how much financial backing was given to the lobbying force of this organization. In FOA's 1984 tax statement, note 7 states that "Included in Accounts and Accrued Expenses

Payable is an amount of $13,846 due to the Committee for Humane 26 Legislation, Inc." There is also mention that FOA shares office space and other expenses with this organization. Furthermore, both groups have some of the same Board of Directors members.

The Committee for Humane Legislation received almost $72,000 in

1984 from direct public support. Nearly $40,000 was spent on lobbying for animal protection and an additional $8,000 was spent on the distribution of public information concerning legislature for animal protection. The reported fund balance for this group was $95,000, although total support and revenue was only $76,000. One third of the money taken in by this group thus represented excess income that was not used. Compared to the revenues of the other groups cited above, the

Committee for Humane Legislation does not receive much funding from the public.

As previously mentioned, many other groups within the animal rights movement work together. A plausible explanation for their collaboration may be that many of the larger groups are themselves hesitant to undertake measures that may appear extreme to their own members/supporters. By financially subsidizing other groups which are involved in "activist” endeavors (cf. lobbying againBt animal research, factory farms, pound seizure, and liberating animals from research

institution), the larger, financlally-secure groups may be serving two purposes. The first benefit is that they themselves do not become directly involved in risky ventures like break-ins to liberate animals from research institutions or legal suits. These sorts of activities can cost a lot of money if the perpetrator(s) is/are caught and/or sued.

For example, FOA is currently being counter sued by the Connecticut

Trappers Association, Inc. (CTA). This Buit is mentioned in FOA's 1984

Financial Statement as a contingent liability. CTA is seeking damages

"based upon the allegation that FOA brought suit against them in 1981 without probable cause and with malice. The suit seeks $300,000 in 27 compensatory damages." If successful, CTA will be awarded compensation that almost equals the amount of money FOA annually spends on animal protection and distribution of public information. Since the time of the CTA countersuit, FOA has been reluctant to file suit against other organizations.

During 1981, FOA had also filed suit against O.S. Surgical

Corporation headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut. FOA alleged that

U.S. Surgical “had killed 974 dogs to demonstrate its surgical equipment." FOA asserted that improper care, handling, and use of dogs had occurred. U.S. Surgical countered FOA's complaint. Both parties went through federal and state courts for almost three years. In the end, FOA's attorney filed a motion to dismiss federal and state complaints. The outcome of all these actions was the loss of time, 28 money, and effort on the part of both sides. 181

FOA’s strong financial system inherently makes this group vulnerable to legal prosecution and retribution. Financially Insecure groups would not find themselves in such a predicament because they do not have sufficient funds to be confiscated in cases of restitution.

Accordingly, most large, financially secure groups are better off if they do not become Intrinsically involved in risky enterprises. Another reason wealthier animal rights groups subsidize the actions of smaller, activist groups may be due to their own heBltancy to engage in activist activities for fear that they may lose funding. For instance, FOA has traditionally emphasized and supported breeding control programs for cats and dogs, by far, FOA's largest source of revenue and expenditures can be attributed to its spay clinics program. Therefore, if FOA were to significantly alter its activities (i.e., become involved in laboratory break-ins, demonstrations against meat-eaters, or picket department stores/people that sell furs or leather) it could run the risk of losing many of its members who are primarily interested in subsidizing FOA's breeding program. Thus by maintaining a low profile, middle-of-the-road position the wealthy organizations are less likely to lose favor with their members* They can then maintain their primary source of revenue: membership dues, donations, and requests.

Organizations that are primarily engaged in political/legal actions tend not to receive the financial support of organizations that offer animal care services. United Action for Animals is a case in point.

This group "concentrates exclusively on exposing and protesting cruelty to animals used in research, against which it has waged an unrelenting and uncompromising campaign." 29 182

In 1984, UAA received $112,000 in direct public support.

Approximately $90,000 in additional revenue was accrued from Interests

on savings and temporary cash investment. Total support and revenue for

that year was approximately $201,000. Over $162,000 was spent to

''educate the public through publications, direct mail, and advertising

of applying alternative methods in medical research other than through 30 cruelty to animals and adoption of these alternative methods."

Further expenses were incurred when UAA granted the Animal Legal

Defense Fund $13,780. These funds were to be used "to undertake legal 31 actions in defense of animals..." UAA also spent $13,000 on lobbying

efforts. Additional funds were used to compensate employees of UAA.

MFA's 1984 Financial Keport on Animal Welfare Groups stated that "...the

largest single payment (other than annual)...was $126,145 paid by UAA to

its President, Eleanor Selling, in addition to her regular salary in 32 1983." Only $3,300 was spent on direct animal care services during

1984. In summary, UAA's major expenditures resulted from publication

distribution, and legal/lobbying efforts. These expenses accounted for over 752 of UAA's 1984 support and revenue.

Another animal rights group which specializes in distributing

literature and seeking legislation for animal rights is the

International Society for Animal Rights (ISAR). This group was

Incorporated in 1959 and currently has 22,000 members. ISAR d.s a very active group run by Helen Jones who is “opposed to all hunting, recreational or otherwise; to all scientific use of animals; factory farming; for production and all other forms of exploitation of animals."'*^ 163

ISAR's financial statements for 1964 reveal total revenue of

$158,000. Total operating expenses for that year were $283,000. Thus there was a yearly deficit of $124,000. However, ISAR ended up with a surplus fund balance of $366,000 in 1984.

ISAR represents an “organization of strict abolitionists whose 34 primary goal is ending the use of all animals in research." The uncompromising nature of ISAR's beliefs may account for the modest number of members and revenue that it generates. Regardless of ISAR's poor financial and membership status, it continues to be a very vocal and powerful force within the movement due to its collaboration and financial dependence on other groups. For instance ISAR has been very successful in obtaining grants from other animal welfare/rights groups to continue their legislative efforts. In 1986, Ahimsa Foundation awarded ISAR "a generous grant...to fund a new program called Project

Alert. The goals of Project Alert are to serve as a national clearinghouse for state legislation affecting animals and to help grassroots activists become more familiar with the workings of their 35 state legislatures." Another illustration of ISAR collaboration with other groups was demonstrated in the New York Anti-Fur Demonstration on

June 8 , 1986. ISAR united many groups (i.e., HSUS, ASPCA, Fund for

Animals, PETA) to form the Ad Hoc Committee Against Fur.

Since other groups frequently patronize ISAR and its activities,

ISAR can then use its own limited funds for other purposes. Almost 50Z of ISAR's total expenses for 1984 went to cover salaries and compensate its employees. Less than 20Z of its expenses went to public education services, and only 1UZ went to animal care and protection. 184

MFA 1b another group that is primarily concerned with animal rights issues. MFA was organized in 1981 and currently has over 80.000 members. Though MFA has a large number of members/supporters (almost double that of the MSPCA). its 1983 annual revenue was $326.000. MFA reported $33,000 in 'group' contributions. This represents monies that 37 were granted to MFA by other organizations.

MFA has "organized the largest grassroots network of animal activists throughout the world with hundreds of local, state, regional, and national Mobilization groups actively working to end the 1U suffering." Expenditures for 1964 reflect the goals of MFA. Almost

50% of all MFA's expenditures were related to the distribution of information to the public. The next largest expense (152 of budget) went to "Travel for Organizing and Outreach." No expenses to cover the 39 direct animal care services are cited.

MFA is very critical of large, wealthy organizations that fail to 40 be "active, risk-taking, campaigning working groups." Therefore, MFA invests its financial resources in such activities as lobbying, demonstrations, protests, and national mass rallies "to create a huge visible public presence of moral outrage at the torture and murder of millions of animals each year in laboratories. MFA financial expenditures reflect the group's goals:

The designation of and struggle for animal rightB is a very basic political effort...we work toward nothing less than the transformation of the world. 1

Many groups within the movement actively seek to provide health and welfare services for animals. MFA and other self-described animal 185

rights groups pursue different alms. They want to "transform" the

moral, philosophical, and political systems which govern society's

relationship with animals. To attain these ends they spare no expenses

in trying to reach the public with their message.

Groups which were established after 1960 tend to be less well-

financed than those formed before I960. Differences in financial

resources available to these groups may be attributable to the number of

members that belong to such groups. This seems unlikely because some

large groups receive very little funding while smaller groups receive

lots of funding, cf. MFA and MSPCA, respectively. Another reason that

groups established around the 1960's may not be as well-funded as older

groups may be due to their political nature. For instance, PETA, a

group established in 1981, "is the national animal rights organization

which serves on Capitol liill as a primary catalyst for innovative

legislation concerning use of animals in experimentation...voted number 42 one among 7,000 animal welfare organizations for its effectiveness."

No financial information was available for this group. They are

currently hiring a certified public accountant to examine their

financial records for the last six years. Therefore, it is impossible

to determine how much money this group has received and how they use

their funds. After numerous attempts to obtain PETA financial records

(none were filed with the goverment), the group supplied the author with 43 the letter that is provided in Appendix F <

The acceptance of political rights for animals and putting these principles into practice involves political action. These actions are

being subsidized by groups which are non-profit, tax-exempt 186 organizations under section SUl(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code* This would require that these groups do not seek to regulate institutions or organizations that use animals. But, as has been previously shown, most animal rights groups do oppose institutions which conduct animal

research , produce or sell meat foods, fur, and/or leather goods. So animal welfare/rights groups do indirectly seek to regulate/abolish

theBe establishments. Nevertheless, these organizations are still able

to maintain their tax-exempt, non-profit status.

Furthermore, many organizations within the movement can be considered to be for-profit organizations. These organizations have

been able to acquire additional properties; investments; and savings and

bonds with their surplus funds. It is difficult to perceive many of the cited organizations as strictly 'non-profit* organizations.

At present, there arc estimated to be over 400 animal welfare/rights groups within the United States. The great majority of these groups function as tax-exempt, non-profit organizations which receive financial support through donations, membership dues, bequests, and grants. Through the use of extensive mailing lists these groups can reach hundreds of thousands of individuals. With the funds that are obtained, these groups can then disseminate more literature that endorses their cause. Additional funds are used to pay for lobbying services that petition for animal rights. The main cause that these groups are fighting for is to establish legal rights for animals.

Therefore, the general trend in recent years has been for groups to spend proportionately more of their funds on legal/lobbying efforts to attain animal rights. 187

There are currently estimated to be " two million dues-paying members" oi animal rights/welfare groups.They account for less than

half of one percent of the population in the United States of America.

Yet, they have been and continue to be very active and successful in seeking legal actions that would greatly alter the lifestyle of all

individuals: reduce/eliminate animal research and make all people vegetarians.

by examining the financial frameworks of various organizations in

the movement, it is clear that their aimB and goals are shifting.

Initially organizations spent the majority of their expenses on programs that offered direct care to animals, i.e., spaying/neutering, veterinary care, shelters, and adoption programs. However, newly formed groups emphasize the Importance of seeking political rights for animals.

Consequently, the majority of their expenses involve legal/lobbying fees and dissemination of their philosophical/political beliefs to the public. Although no exact annual figure can be obtained to determine how much money is spent on animal rights, one must keep in mind the fact that the movement is financed by a small minority of the U.S. population. However, examining the number of legislative acts that these organizations have lobbied for (see chapter on Legislation for

Animal Rights) and been successful in obtaining indicates the existence of a potent lobbying force within the movement. Their success can most likely be attributed to the increased financial support given to lobbying efforts, rather than animal care services, by animal rights organizations. CHAPTER XV ANIMAL RESEARCH ALTERNATIVES

The use of animals in experiments for research and testing purposes is not a recent phenomenon. Erasistratus examined the body fluids of various animals during the third century B.C. in Alexandria. He had been preceded by Aristotle who was interested in comparing anatomical differences in animals and embryology.* These ’‘researchers" anteceded

Galen, a second century A.D. Greek physician, who studied and dissected animals to obtain information on body functions. In one of the

"earliest known illustrations of what has come to be called vivisection," Galen is Bhown dissecting a live pig while his associates look on.'*

Galen lived in Rome during an era when dissection of a living or dead human body was forbidden. However, Galen initially learned dissection techniques while studying at the Museum of Alexandria. His subjects then were human cadavers. Most of Galen's later studies involved the uBe of apes and pigs. From his research with humans and animals, Galen realised that arteries contained blood not just air as 3 had been supposed. Galen's anatomical and physiological observations on organs attained through animals and humans later provided an impetus for additional research.

18B 189

In the 16th century, Andreas Vesalius examined some of Galen'6 findings and tried to replicate them. By dissecting human cadavers and animals, Vesalius found that Galen had erred in his anatomical theories of animals. Meanwhile in England, William Harvey (1578-1657) was L studying heart and blood circulation. Rembrandt's famous painting of

1632, "The Anatomical Lecture of Professor Tulp," clearly demonstrates the revived interest in anatomical and physiological studies during the

Kennaisance.^

Interest in animal experimentation continued through the 1600's and

17U0's. By the 19th century, animal research was flourishing. ThiB success was due to workers such as Claude Bernard (1813-1878), Francois

Magendie (1783-1855), and Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). All three were

French experimentalists who conducted the great majority of their experiments on animals. Some of Bernard's contributions to physiology include: an understanding of the role of the pancreas in digestion; the discovery of vasomotor innervation; the effect of curare on neuromuscular transmission; the function of the liver in the storage of sugar; and theoretical concepts of the internal environment and organic unity. These findings are reported in his book The Principles of

Experimental Medicine.*1

Francois Magendie was Bernard's teacher. Through studies uBing puppies, Magendie was able to establish the fact that the dorsal roots of nerves entering the spinal cord carry sensory signals while the ventral roots convey motor signals. Magendie's findings were a source of antagonism to Charles Bell an English anatomist. In 1811, Bell had published a theoretical paper stating that ventral roots govern 190 voluntary behavior while dorsal roots are responsible for involuntary actions. Bell and his students were determined to prove that Magendie had taken his ideas from Bell. The conflict was never resolved.

However, these principles had already been discovered in the 3rd century

B.C by Herophilus who vivisected convicts while at the Museum of

Alexandria. Magendie was evidently unaware of these scientific discoveries and thus duplicated these experiments*

Louis Pasteur was another animal experimenter who had a profound effect upon the development of modern scientific medicine. Pasteur is famous for his vaccines against rabies and anthrax. His work with vaccines formed the foundation of bacteriology. In France, the Institute

Pasteur is a memorial to him, and its work continues to be a rich source of knowledge for present-day physicians.

Although these animal experimenters existed at different periods of time and studied diverse topics, they were criticized in one way or another for their work with animals. Galen had to work with pigs and apes because dissection of the human body was declared to be a crime by

Roman tribunes.^ Renaissance experimenters like Harvey and Vesalius were sharply criticized by religious leaders who opposed the dissection O of animals because "certain knowledge simply should not be obtained.’

In the 19th century the antagonism was primarily from members of antivivisection groups, as is nicely illustrated by the group's harrassment of Bernard. Many of his findings were based upon experiments with dogs chat were carried out prior to the development of useful anesthetics. Bernard's wife and daughter were among those who thought that he had no right to perform them, and the issue eventually led to Bernard's living separated from his wife. 191

The struggle between antlvivlsectionists and animal experimenters continues. Antivivi6ectionists oppose the use of animals in research.

Some believe that it is Inhumane and/or unnecessary to use animals because little is gained in terms of knowledge and health benefits.

Others currently oppose the use of animals because they believe that

"alternatives" are available or else could be discovered.

Biomedical research consists of activities which aim to provide fundamental biological knowledge about living body functions and to q understand diseases and means for their prevention and treatment. Such research is carried out in universities by members of departments of anatomy, anesthesiology, behavioral biology, biochemistry, biomedical engineering, biophysics, cardiology, cell biology, dentistry, developmental biology, endocrinology, entomology, epidemiology, genetics, gerontology, histology, immunology, metabolism, microbiology, molecular biology, neurology, nutrition, oncology, parasitology, pathology pharmacology, physiology, psychology, radiology, reproductive biology, surgery, teratology, toxicology, veterinary science, virology, and zoology.*0

These disciplines all use animals as one means of gathering information for applied or basic scientific purposes. Their proponents believe they have already obtained knowledge chat has been of inestimable value to the welfare of humans and animals alike. However, their values are not shared by those who think of vivisection as evil, and have expressed the depths of their beliefs by slashing a portrait of

Kene Descartes because, in the 1660's, the philosopher suggested that a living body is a complex machine.** 192

The }Jolarization between these two forces has prompted some people to search for "alternatives" to the use of animals in research. Russell and Burch, in The Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques, speak alternatives In terms of three R's: replacement, reduction, and refinement. Russell and Burch suggest that these are "ways in which inhumanity can be and is being diminished or removed,” 12 Replacement means to substitute a "non-sensing" organism for a "sentient" organism.

For example, instead of working with a dog, one should substitute a plant, a micro-organism, or an "insensitive" invertebrate. Reduction means "appropriate statistical designs and well-thought out experiments." Refinement is the search for techniques and methods that will minimize pain, stress, or harm for animalB, and includes anything from using analgesics for post-surgical pain relief to providing adequate husbandry services.

It is interesting to note that Claude Bernard had suggested the same three R's in the middle of the 19th century. For example, in the

Cahier Rouge, Bernard's notebook, he provides excellent examples of replacement:

...the muscle and nerve fibers of a fly are as large and as easy to see as those of a steer.... Investigate what the a^nt of movement might be in these lower organisms.

...the lower an organism, the more variety there is in the lesser unity, so that the tissues can, after a fashion, live independently. The higher an organism, the more variety there is in the greater unity, so that when anything is done to the organism this unity is disturbed. For this reason experiments ought to be carried out on lower animals as much as possible. 193

In relation to refinement techniques, Bernard began to use anesthesia on

his subjects undergoing surgery as soon as the effects of ether were

discovered. Also in relationship to reduction, Bernard mainly concerned

himself with studies in which the effects he observed were very large,

and could usually be demonstrated to a skeptic through the use of a

single animal.

In 1986, the Office of Technology Assessment adopted Russell and

Burch's definition of replacement, reduction and refinement in a Federal

Report on Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and

Education. The report is exceptionally thorough. It accepts the

notion, as most biomedical researchers do, that pain should be avoided

it it can be; that expensive studies should not be conducted if the same

information could be obtained through work with simple organisms; and

that well-designed experiments are highly recommended and desirable.

But it also concludes that there are many kinds of experiments which

still require the use of dogs, cats, monkeys, apes, and rodents. These

species are employed in animal behavior studies (how a given organism

copes with the surroundings it lives in). Whether these studies, which

are frequently combined with studies of the function of the brain and spinal cord, are worth the brouble and expense is rapidly becoming a major issue tor animal rights groups.

Animal rights supporters perceive much of biomedical research to be unjustified because the results obtained may not be immediately applicable to human problems. The search for biomedical laws and principles is referred to as basic research. This can be contrasted with applied research which is defined as studies based upon known laws 194 chat are to be assessed in particular kinds of situations.

Notably, Comroe and Dripps have analyzed over 4,000 biomedical studies to determine whether treatments for heart and lung diseases were the result ot basic or applied investigations. They concluded that:

...basic research, as we have defined it, pays off in terms of key discoveries,almost twice as handsomely another types of research and development.

These findings are supportive of the work of many basic biomedical scientists. Frequently scientists are criticized by persons who know relatively little about biology, yet they (animal rights advocates) believe themselves to be competent enough to evaluate the merits of biomedical researchers and their studies. For example, animal rightists believe that any biomedical research which fails to yield a discovery that is directly applicable for solving human problems is a waste of animals and money. But Comroe and Uripps' study clearly illustrates that basic research provides the building blocks for understanding diseases and finding their cures and treatments.

It often takes a long time for a scientific "discovery" to mature.

When it does, "alternatives" become obvious, and are adopted as

"replacements" for "whole animals." To illustrate, in 1929 M.H.

Friedman observed that if rabbits are Injected with the urine of a woman who is pregnant, the animal will form what is termed a corpus luteum in its ovary. Friedman's test for pregnancy was useful for humans, but was harmful for rabbits because they were killed in the process. In 1938, other workers showed that a hormone, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) appeared in a pregnant woman's urine. By 1947, an antibody to HCG was 195 developed by immunologists*^ Then in 1961), a test for what is termed inhibition of hemagglutination was developed. This test eliminated the need to use rabbits in human pregnancy tests. Thus, when researchers devised an "alternative" it was used to replace the rabbit. However, up until that point, the animal was the necessary link in developing an alternative test.

The hemagglutination test for pregnancy is described as an in vitro procedure. In vitro tests Involve the use of a living system other than an intact organism. These range from the use of human placentas in toxicological research to the use of embryonic rat brain tissue to study 1 u dopamine deficiency. These procedures employ materials obtained from animals that are killed painlessly so they are considered to be

“alternatives." The advantage to using in vitro techniques is that they can offer mure exact information concerning such things as drug concentrations in particular organs than studies in which an intact organism is treated with the same compound.

Although these discoveries provide information impurtant to the formation of basic biological laws, they are also preludes to experiments which require the use of whole organisms. For example, most of us would be interested to know how pain relievers work, but we are even more interested in knowing that they do work.

In recent years, animal rights advocates have suggested that we know enough about basic laws of physiology that animals can now be replaced with mathematical models of happenings within living bodies.

These computerized models would be compilations of equations that have been devised from our current understanding of physiological processes. 196

These models would be used "to test hypotheses and gain further Insight 19 into the operation of complex dynamic biological processes."

The assumption underlying the use of these computer/mathematical

models is that past investigations with animals have yielded a complete

understanding of all physiological functions. As a matter of fact, most

of this knowledge has been accumulated in recent years, only. This is

possible because at present there are more biologists alive than have

ever existed before. Limitations of the computer/mathematical modeling

"alternative" are clearly illustrated by our present inability to

predict when and how the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is

transmitted from individual to individual.

In summary, it seems clear enough that the formulation and

validation of these "replacement alternatives" that are now in use are

likely to continue to remain dependent on results from experiments with

animal subjects. Most of the alternatives that have been created were

not the result of directed efforts to search for alternatives (as animal

rights advocates suggest should be done), but were the offspring of work

by animal researchers. The OTA report summarized its findings on

replacement alternatives to animals in the following manner:

The outright replacement of animals with non­ animal methods is not at hand, and, because of the nature of biomedical and behavioral research, in many instances it is not likely to become feasible.

The second type of alternatives are referred to as reductions.

These reduction alternatives seek to reduce the number of animals used

in experiments. This approach is based upon the assumption that many animal experiments are not well-designed and waste animals. This then 197

leads animal rights advocates to believe that most studies are

replicative and redundant* There are surely instances where researchers

have either duplicated (repeated the work of someone else because they

were unaware that the study had been conducted previously) or replicated

(repeated the work of someone else to verify their findings) the work of

others* For instance, as previously mentioned, Magendie and Hell

duplicated discoveries made in the third century, B.C. because they were

unaware of them. Moreover, studies that are now in progress may be

duplicating the work of others* Those early studies may have been

forgotten or passed over because they were "ahead of their times."

Computers will play a significant role in eliminating this problem

of duplication. Computers, unlike people, have very long memories, thus

they will be able to store this information for future use. This will

be of great joy to researchers because no one wants to repeat the work

of others unless absolutely necessary.

OTA's recommendation that researchers design their studies better

implies that this has not been the case. However, editors of scientific

journals do not accept reports of improperly-designed experiments. In

addition, most researchers consider the "number of animals needed" to be

a critical factor in any study. Therefore, they design their

experiments to include only the necessary number required. The theory

of design of experiments was based on the work of Ronald Fisher, a geneticist who derived methods of extracting the maximal amount of

information from a given set of data. Hence, this "reduction alternative" was already in effect before rightists even thought of addressing the issue. 198

Another way scientists keep animal use to a minimum is by the use

of historical controls. In this situation, each new group of animals

that are tested in a study belong to an experimental group. Control

animals from an earlier study are used to compare results. For example,

Donald and Patricia Meyer, psychologists at the Ohio State University,

have been using this approach for many years. Historical control data

obtained from their earlier studies with rats are used to compare with

new data collected from animal experimental groups. Hence, experimental

animals are maintained in the same conditions as those employed for the

historical controls. Therefore, valid comparisons can be made, even 21 though new control groups are not used in every experiment.

The last group of alternatives are called "refinements." These

refinement techniques Include any means to reduce pain and stress in

animal experiments. Animal researchers will readily agree that experimental surgeries should be done on anesthetized subjects.

Moreover, and again without the prompting of animal rightists, animal

researchers are using non-invasive procedures whenever they possibly can. Not many years ago, the only way that a surgeon could determine whether or not a patient/animal had a brain tumor was to open the skull and look in. Now PETscans, CATscans, and NMKscans can do this. Whether these developments were worth the effort is something that each of us will have to decide tor ourselves.

Another “refinement" that has been suggested calls for the substitution of "lower" for "higher" animal species. For example, animal rights groups have put forth great efforts to eliminate the use of primates, dogs, and cats in research, but only rarely refer to 199 research that UBes rats and mice. This 1b interesting in light of the fact that 35X of all animal research is conducted on rats and mice. 22

Primates, dogs, cats, mice, and rats are warm-blooded species and all perceive pain. Hence, the animal rights advocates' emphasis on the use of "lower" organisms 1b inexplicable. Most citizens consider rats and mice to be vermin. Their presence in our homes usually leads us to purchase poisoned baits to eliminate them. There are many laws which protect laboratory animals, so those living in laboratories lead lives of luxury compared to those living in our homes.

After a comprehensive analysis of replacement, refinement, and reduction alternatives to animal use, the OTA Report concluded that:

Hard and fast distinctions between biomedical and behavioral research arc difficult to sustain. Nevertheless, it is apparent that there is even less potential for replacement of animals in behavioral than in biomedical research. In vitro techniques and non-living systems are not viable alternatives to the use ol animals in behavioral research.

This position is very different from the stance of the Medical

Research Modernization Committee (MRMC), a group supported by Friends of

Animals. In a position paper prepared by l)r. Richmond Hubbard, MRMC's chairman stated:

Human behavior is complex. Feople are influenced m varying ways and degrees by concepts such as God, Religion, Patriotism, Royalty, Social Status, and the institutions they grow up in, such as family, school, and government. Obviously animal research cannot take into account the influence of such concepts on human behavior. For this, and other reasons, behavioral research using animals has been a waste of time and money, and traditional animal labs, which have been 'set in concrete1 by practicing researchers^ are now outmoded and redundant procedures. 200

A similarity between these two viewpoints is the belief that behavior is complex. To understand behavior one has to study behavioral processes. To study behavioral processes one must have organisms which are capable of behaving. These organisms are either human or animal.

At present there does not exist any type of alternative which can truly replace a living organism. The use of available alternatives (as cited abovcj stipulates that a less than complete model be used to assess behavior. Uata collection will thus be less precise than if an organism had been used. If the data collection is not a precise representation of behavioral processes, then it is not an efficient or valid means of gathering information. Until valid alternatives to organisms are available animal researchers will have to conduct their research with animals or not conduct behavioral research at all. As Wolfgang Kohler, a psychologist with "insight" into behavior said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." CHAPTER XVI

ANIMAL BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

In 1984, members of Mobilization for Animals (MFA) protested

against behavioral research with animals at the annual meeting of the

American Psychological Association (APA) in Toronto. They distributed

leaflets which said, “the cools of the experimental psychologist are

mutilation, castration, agony, starvation, and insanity.* MFA was

evidently trying to shame persons who do employ experimental surgery,

punishments, withdrawal of food and water, or drugs that have psychotic-

like effects on animals. However, MFA's efforts were wasted because

researchers who conduct such studies are not likely to attend APA meetings. Those who uBe such procedures attend the Neuroscience meeting which is attended by thousands of people interested in behavioral

biology. Moreover, as was shown by Coile and Miller, none of the animal research articles in APA journals within the few years prior to

the MFA incident employed the procedures described by MFA.

Most psychologists who utilize animals do not use knives, drugs, strong electrical shocks, or excessive food/water withdrawals. Instead, they are more concerned with the activities of normal animals., For example, they ask about the kind of traits an animal is born with, and if those traits are alterable; with how an animal can be taught in an efficient manner; and whether it is capable of thinking. Though most

201 202

researchers presume that Che brain governs behavior, they leave.brain

research up Co anaComisCs and physiologists.

An animal behavlorlsc is similar co a parenc crying co underscand

his/her child. For example, boch mighc be inceresced in decermlning whac effeces television shows mighc have on che child's behavior or wondering if che child's nascy Cemper is InheriCed or noC. Ochers mighc wonder whecher or noc hugging Cheir son will make a sissy of him* Some

parencs mighc wane Co know if Mary's flunking math was due Co her own

failure or her Ceacher's inability Co teach.

There are no direct ways for animal behavioriscs co answer such questions. However, chey can be examined in pare ac least through studies on aggressive tendencies in animals, and how they act when there

is no close contact with the parent. Moreover, animal studies can teach us about the laws of learning— and most of what we know about laws of learning have come from animal research— and help us to decide whether

Mary or the teacher is incompetent. Animal research also can answer simpler questions like what a monkey sees and hears. These latter studies are more typical to the sciences of physiological optics and audiology, though.

Animal behaviorists study the sources of behaviors. Most people are noc interested enough in this question co lock cheir child in a closet and see whether or not they become aggressive or timid. However, animal behaviorists have done this to rats and mice, and they found that isolated rats and mice will threaten, and fight with other mice and rats 3 even though they never had an opportunity to learn those behaviors.

Moreover, mice and rats that are frequently handled and petted are less 203

A likely to act aggressively. This finding suggests a strategy that can

be used by parent's of bullies. The latter finding also shows that rats

reared with rats, and mice raised with mice, are less aggressive than

those reared in isolation. Once again the theme is "that a little love

can go a long way."**

Some may argue chat mice, rats, and children are not the same kind

of animals. That is why the work of Harry Harlow with monkeys is so

highly regarded by animal behaviorists. Before reviewing Harlow's work,

we shall note what MFA had to say about it:

There is not one single experiment which has ever been of benefit to mankind. It should be intuitively obvious chat the complexities of mental illness are in no way related to artificially-induced conditions in animals which are reared in a sterile environment... The experimental psychologist completely overlooks physical and mental differences between human disorders and symptoms induced in an animal, trying desperately to convince us that torturing an animal in a laboratory somehow correlates to the unique factors influencing human behavior.

Any group may have its own opinion, but that the late Professor Harlow was highly esteemed by scientists is shown by the fact that he served as

the president of the Midwestern and American Psychological Associations; was a member of the National Academy of Science and the American

Philosophical Society; and was the recipient of our country's National

Medal of Science. These accomplishments are achieved by very few

scientists.

In 1949, Harlow and his wife, Margaret Kuenne Harlow, began to

study the behavior of young rhesus monkeys who were separated from their

mothers soon after birth. They were interested in the question of 204 whether a baby's attraction to Its mother is learned because the mother feeds it. To sec If that was so, they designed an artificial, "soft cloth mother" and a "mother made of hardware cloth," that held a bottle of milk. Contrary to che expectations of most psychologists, the

Harlows found that the monkeys preferred a soft, milkless mother to a hard mother with milk. That is, monkeys will go to the hard wire mother only when they are hungry and then will go back to the soft, cuddly

"mother." Ubvlously, huggable mothers are powerful incentives for babies. However, these discoveries are only part of the story. As the babies grow older, they begin to explore their environments. This can be very fearful for baby monkeys and children, unless mother is nearby.

The Harlows showed that baby monkeys will explore their environments if the "soft mother" was present, but the monkeys did not feel secure in the presence of a "hard mother" and thus would not explore their surroundings. Also, they showed that baby monkeys will become attached to their towels and will take their "security blankets" with them everywhere they go.^

To describe the Harlow's laboratory as "sterile" is inaccurate. In much of cheir work, they employed a "play room" for monkeys that had swinging rings, ladders, and toyB there. The Harlows watched their monkeys play in the playroom and they discovered that girl monkeys and boy monkeys play different types of games. The boys tended to play rough and tumble, chase games, while the girls would sit quietly and play with their toys. Why? Other researchers have shown that these U differences have endocrinological bases. However, this is the work of others who are not specialists in animal behavior. Nonetheless, the 205

work of investigators such as the Harlows is of critical importance to

those interested m functions of the brain. For example, if we want to

know how our nervous systems can detect the words on this page, we oust

first know whether or not there is sufficient light available to see

with and how large the print must be. These last two problems are

behavioral problems, thus they are the starting points to studies

dealing with theories of vision.

At one time, psychobiologists believed that the study of perception

was Just about the only problem that could be resolved through an

interdisciplinary approach. However, within the last few years

researchers have been able to answer a number ot biological questions

through the use of interdisciplinary studieB. For example, we now have

a fairly clear understanding of central nervous circuits that are

concerned with unlearned behaviors: eating, drinking, and aggression. q These findings are the work of W.K. Hess and others. By electrically

stimulating the brains of animals, they were able to elicit "stereo­

typed" behaviors of eating, drinking, fighting, and threat responses in

cats. Although many animal rightists would consider the implanting of

electrodes into an animal's brain as cruel, the same surgical procedures

have been carried out with humans for medical purposes without complaints from the patients.

Brain lesions, which involve the production of injuries to a certain site, have confirmed and complemented Hess' discoveries.*^ In such investigations, the operations are performed while the animal is under anesthesia. The targets are structures at the based of the brain

in an area termed the limbic system. It has only been within the last 206

30 years, that investigators have begun to understand the role of the

limbic system in behavior. 'Actually these studies are in the domain of

investigators concerned with anatomy and physiology. Animal

behaviorists or, as they are also referred to as comparative

psychologists are interested in discovering the laws which govern the

actions of normal, individual organisms.** We know that these laws are modified as one grows older and this is regardless of whether one is observing a rat, monkey, or human. For instance, young animals and children need a mother to attach to, but they also need to break these

bonds as they mature. 12

Young, 10-day old rats have a strong need to attach/bond with their mothers. They will seek their mothers out and go to them even if they are punished by mild electric shocks for doing so. By the time they become a little older (cf. around 15 days old), they Btill want to go to

the mother. However, when they are punished for going to their mothers,

they will vacillate between approaching and retreating. As the rat grows older, it will retreat from its mother if it is punished when it tries to approach.*1*

These studies may appear to have no relevance to human behaviors, but an animal behaviorists would disagree with this conclusion. A mother rat that punishes her infant is actually a child abuser. In our society we are very much concerned with behaviors which prompt a parent 14 to beat a child, and how such behaviors can be stopped. However, we have wondered less about the question why an abused child returns to its abuser when it knows that it will be beaten again.*^ Baby rats and monkeys do the same thing. An animal behaviorist's answer to this 207 question is simply chat affectional bonds are very strong. Moreover, these bonds will remain strong during early life regardless of whether they are good or bad for the young child.

The formation and breaking of these bonds in children, rats, and monkeys have recently been shown to be dependent upon neural mechanisms at the base of the brain--the limbic system. A small Injury to one site within this region will prompt pairs of rats to spend all of their time in close contact with one another,^ if another rat is unavailable then the injured rat will approach a furry object.^ So the importance of a

"soft mother" to a young rhesus monkey is not only a characteristic of primates, it's important to rats, too. It is also unlikely that the breaking of these bonds as che animal/human grows older "just happens."

Instead the breaking of these bonds depends upon che development of brain circuits. If these circuits tail co develop or are destroyed, then the animal (human?) will not break its strong attachment to its mother. Thus one may end up with an animal/person who is "tied to mother's apron strings." 18

An injury to the converse mechanism will elicit separation and exploration behaviors in a rat. That is, it will ignore other rats and when placed in an unfamiliar environment will spend most of its time 19 exploring objects within the setting. If it encounters another animal it will ignore their presence-~treating the animal as if were a stick or stone. Finally, if both of these brain mechanisms are destroyed, the animal's behavior will return co normal. Then it will interact with 20 other rats in che same manner as a rat with an intact brain will. 208

Animal behaviorists who have Interests in learning have also taught

us many useful things. In their investigations, they have sometimes

concerned themselves with the effects of punishment. However, this does

not mean that they enjoy using punishments, which animal rightists

contend.Punishment is used by parents, teachers, dog trainers, and

employers. It will continue to be used by people until there is proof

that other methods can effectively accomplish the same purposes.

Through their studies on punishment with animals, animal

behaviorists have learned that delayed punishments are not useful ways of controlling animal behavior. It has been hard to convey this message

to families in which the father is the “enforcer" of punishments,

though. For example, Che mother who says, "Just wait 'til your father gets home!", is using an ineffective way to control a child's behavior.

By the time che father gets home, the child will be punished for something that he or she has already forgotten about. The child's punishment then is no longer associated with "bad behavior," but with the father. Therefore, if a parent believes in spanking, they should do it immediately after the undesired behavior ha6 occurred or not do it at all.i> 22

Animal behaviorists are also convinced that rewards are more effective than punishments. That is, their investigations have shown them chat punishments will not eliminate bad habits, although they will 23 suppress their response. The most effective way to train a dog, child, or friend is to use rewards immediately after they perform the desired response. Moreover, it doesn't really matter what kind of 24 reward is used as long as it is perceived to be a reward. 209

Nonetheless, animal behaviorists will admit that they have

conducted experiments which have hurt animals. For example, they have 25 studied the effects of strong, unavoidable shocks; of immersing

animals in tanks of water where they must swim until they are exhausted

and sink, and of sending animals into outer space in life-supporting

capsules. Although these types of studies are rarely undertaken, they

have yielded important information regarding environmentally-induced feelings of "helplessness” in humans of the effects of severe Btress 26 upon the body's primitive defensive mechanisms, and of things we must know if we are to send people into outer space.

Another area of behavioral research which has been criticized by animal rights activists is drug evaluation. However, thoBe who have

improved the living conditions of people through animal experiments need not offer apologies for their services. Those who criticize behavioral pharmacology (the study of drugs that may have therapeutic benefits for people), may have forgotten that prior to the 1950's one out of every 10 hospital beds was occupied by a mental patient. With the discovery of chlorpromazine (miltown), and diazepam (valium), many of those patients were able to leave the mental institutions and hospitals and lead relatively normal lives.^

Before the use of these drugs, psychiatrists could only try to talk to their patients about their problem, or wrap them up in wet sheets and 28 place them in tubs, or give them bromides. Hopefully those days are gone, because boimedical research has suggested that many mental diseases are brain diseases that can be treated in the same manner that we might treat high blood pressure or juvenile diabetes* These changes 210 in our treatment of mental illnesses are primarily the outcome of 20 studies with animals. Either the animal rightists are unaware of these discoveries or are misinformed when they claim that "it should be intuitively obvious that the complexities of mental illness in no way relate to artificially induced conditions in animals." 30

Tn summary, animal behavioral research is an aspect of science that has its own problems, methods, and explanatory concepts. It is often confused with other branches of knowledge because its procedures and findings are incorporated into interdisciplinary approaches to biological questions. Its practitioners have nothing whatsoever to hide from the scrutiny of rational human beings who are willing to accept the notion that people are not on par with other species. Of course, if that presumption is denied, it can no longer be asserted that the animals they use are used for the good of the animals. CHAPTER XVII

ANIMAL CARE IN LABORATORIES

A scientist who carries out animal research typically is working in a laboratory that is not open to the general public. If asked, he or she will give you many reasohs for the closed doors. One group of reasons would be that a person who is not familiar with what is going on could expose himself to a disease that he would rather not contract; another that animals can seem adorable, but nonetheless will often bite a stranger; another that theft of expensive equipment is at an all-time high; and finally, that some of the things that go on there are likely

to bother the causal passerby.

However, doors are not closed to everybody. An individual who can demonstrate an interest in, and also a competence to understand, a laboratory's work is unlikely to be turned away from any research institution in the United States. If that were not so, there could be no recruitment of a next generation of researchers. Moreover, there is no sign whatsoever of a dwindling of the number of students who are looking forward to careers in biological science.

However, many people prefer to view the closed doors as ipso facto evidence that bad things are going on beyond them. Even if they do not know what is going on, they want them to be stopped, and at once.

Although that goal has not yet been attained, animal rightists have made

211 212 much headway towards it through advocacies of increasingly expensive regulations of research laboratories. These regulations may seem very reasonable to a person who is noc familiar with research, but experienced animal researchers are aware of their drawbacks.

The first federal law dealing with the housing and treatment of research animals was the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Prior to then, the standards for researclt laboratories were set by professional societies.

To illustrate, in 1913 the Federation of American Societies for

Experimental biology adopted-a statement of A.J. Carlson, an eminent physiologist, which stated that:

We are lirmly opposed to cruelty to animals. We heartily support all humane efforts to prevent the wanton infliction of pain. The vast majority of experiments on animals need not be and, in fact, are not accompanied by any pain whatsoever. Under the regulations already in force, which reduce discomfort to the least possible amount and which require the decision of doubtful cases by the responsible laboratory director, che performance of rare experiments w^ich involve pain is, we believe, justifiable.

A person unfamiliar with the clout of such an organization mighc consider the statement co be unenforceable because it failed to state the punishments for miscreants. However, if a member of the Societies found that one of his/her students was mistreating animals, the student would be dismissed from the laboratory. This student would have a difficult time trying to find another laboratory to work in because other members of the profession would have been informed about the student's mistreatment of animals. This unwritten rule still holds today. 213

Another purpose of the Act, although it was not stated in the Act, was to give animal researchers a procedure for Improving their research

facilities. By contemporary standards, some of them were awful. Por

example, in the 196U's, Stanford University's animal research laboratory was a surplus barracks from the Second World War. Although there is no evidence that animals housed in it were any worse off than draftees,

persons engaged in animal research typically prefer tidy laboratories.

Since the Act specified how animal subjects should be kept, researchers were able to request grants for equipment and buildings to meet animal welfare requirements. Hence scientists were able to modernize their laboratories

The Animal Welfare Act has been amended three times since it was enacted. Bach amendment added regulations concerning the care and use of animals. Although the establishment of the Animal Welfare Act was supported by animal researchers, the amendments were primarily the work animal advocacy group

The establishment and enforcement of measures for appropriate acquisition, care, and use of laboratory animals has engendered much disagreement between members of the animal rights movement and animal researchers. Those who oppose animal research believe that current regulations are inefficient and ineffective and fail to protect animals in laboratory settings.^ This perspective is opposed by many animal researchers who believe that current regulations and mechanisms are sufficient to ensure appropriate animal care and use already exist.

These divergent viewpoints stem from the two groups' differing objectives. Animal rights advocates would like to end all instances of 214

animal experimental use, while animal researchers would like to continue

using animals with minimal interference from external parties. Neither

position explicitly details what these current policies, regulations,

and guidelines are, nor do they explain how or if these mechanisms serve

their purpose* Therefore, it is necessary to examine current animal

care systems that do exist and determine whether or not they are

effective.

Present regulatory mechanisms concerning the care and use of

laboratory animals can be assessed at four different levels: federal

and state laws; policies of the awardee institutions; regulation of the

investigator's institution; and the investigator. Although each of

these levels is autonomous, they function together to produce a complete

representation of the animal care and use system that currently exists

in the United States.

There are two federal laws which deal specifically with laboratory animal care practices. The first is the Animal Welfare Act of 1966

(AWA). Primary concerns of the AWA was amended in 1970, 1976, and 1965 relate to minimal standards of husbandry requirements for all research animals; the establishment of institutional animal care committees that report to the United States Department of Agriculture on facility compliance with USDA requirements.; to decrease the incidence of duplicative research by establishing a National Agricultural Library that would integrate its services with chose of the National Library of

Medicine.

Enforcement of the AWA is carried out by the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Services (APHIS), a branch of the USDA. Although the 215

USDA/APH1S suggests chat four Inspections per animal laboratory site a

year would be most effective, they have been unable to do so. In 1983, 3 they inspected each 6ite, on average, 1,7 times. Insufficient funding

of the USUA's Animal Welfare Program contributed to APHIS's inability to

inspect sites as frequently as desired.

The U5UA has issued regulations which specifically detail standards

that must be maintained in laboratory animal facilities. These

requirements apply to 1) facilities and operations (i.e., shelter and

space requirements, lighting, waste disposal, ventilation); 2) animal

health and husbandry (i.e., food, and water source, sanitation, and

veterinary care); 3) transportation (i.e., care of for animals that are

being moved from one location to another). APHIS Inspectors are

required to inspect all laboratory sices and ensure that these

facilities are abiding by the regulations. If a laboratory fails to

pass the Inspection, they are typically required to correct any of their deficiencies within 31) days. The inspector then must re-inspect any facilities which had major deficiencies to see if the corrections had

been made. - Failure to comply with the law results in a violation which is Chen prosecuted by administrative law judges. In most cases, the facilities make corrective changes before this latter stage is reached.

For example, in 1984, the USDA reported that 95X of its cases with major deficiencies or alleged violations were corrected within a reasonable l period of time (cf. 3U-60 days).

The 1985 amendment to the AWA added an additional means of assessing and enforcing animal welfare standards by introducing institutional animal committees. The AWA requires that there be at least three members on this committee. These committees must inspect all animal research areas biannually and immediately report any deficiencies to the USDA/APH1S. They also must file annual reports which declare whether or not the facility maintains USDA standards.

Additional requirements that facilities must abide by relate to the use of animals in research. The first requirement states that no animal may be subjected to more than one major operative experiment from which it is allowed to recover. This requirement can be overridden if the investigator proves that it is scientifically necessary or if the

Secretary of Agriculture provides approval. A veterinarian is required to establish and maintain effective programs to control disease and prevent pain in laboratory animals. The USDA requires chat ail animals that are subjected to painful states must receive an anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizer except in the experimental designs that are inconsistent with their use.

The second federal law which relates to laboratory animal care and use is the Health Research Extension Act of 19B5. This law is applicable to all animal facilities which are funded by the Public

Health Service (PHS). Thus any research facility that is funded by the

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration; Centers for

Disease Control; the Food and Drug Administration; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the National Institute of Health must comply with this act.

The Public Health Service Policy (see Appendix G) requires chat all facilities receiving PHS funds submit an Assurance that they will use the N1H Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals to develop and PLEASE NOTE:

This page not included with original material. Filmed as received.

University Microfilms International 218

police and/or local humane societies. State laws which are primarily

related to animal research are concerned with the use of pound animals

as research subjects. Nine states currently prohibit the release of

pound animals to research institutions.^ Animal rights groups are

currently working on efforts to increase the state's role in inspecting

and regulating animal research institutions, and trying to increase the

number of states law which prohibit release of pound animals to research

institutions.

Federal and state laws governing the care and use of animal6 provide a strong framework to ensure that animalB receive proper care and treatment. By issuing standards and inspecting animal facilities,

they are able to enforce their laws. Additional funding of the USDA's

Animal Welfare Program may prove beneficial in increasing the number of annual inspections per site* Animal researchers are aware of USDA

regulations and know they are subject to unnotified inspections of facilities to ensure compliance. In addition, researchers realize that

their failure to comply with these regulations will lead to penalties, thus the majority of researchers comply with the law. This regulatory level of animal care and use provides regulations, enforcement, and penalties for failure to comply with federal and state laws.

The second level of animal regulations is imposed on animal researchers by the awardee institution. In most cases this involves either N1H or the National Science Foundation (NSF). (This animal regulatory level will be analyzed in terms of N1H requirements of its award recipients.) As previously stated NIK is part of the Public

Health Service, so all awardees must comply with the Public Health 219

Research Extension Act of 1985. All investigators also must supply a

written assurance that they will adhere to the policies and standards

set forth in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Tills guide was prepared by the Committee on Care and Use of

Laboratory Animals of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources for

N1H. The guide was initially published in 1963 and has been revised

five times. The most recent revision was made in 1985. The purpose of

this guide is to provide information on common laboratory animals and

their needs. Therefore, the guide covers necessary institutional

policies, laboratory animal husbandry provisions, veterinary care,

physical facility requirements, and special considerations (cf. genetic

information, use of hazardous materials). These guidelines are to be

applied to all animals used in laboratories.

The committee that revised the guide researched many different

areas of animal research to develop appropriate standards for housing,

food and water sources, lighting, environment temperature, ventilation,

and sanitation requirements of animals. Their database was gathered by

and tor animal researchers as a means of enhancing their understanding of humane treatment for animals.

A significant part of the guide deals directly with veterinary

care. It addresses the necessity of providing “appropriate methods to prevent, control, diagnose, and treat diseases and injuries; and provides guidance to users regarding handling, immobilization, anesthesia, analgesia, and euthanasia."^ In general, the guide is an effective means to aid animal researchers in designing programs that afford laboratory animals proper care and use. 220

In addition to complying with standards addressed in the guide, NIH

and PHS award recipients must abide with the Principles for the Care and

Use of Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Education* These

principles include but are not limited to the following requirements:

1) the investigator should act in accordance with all other federal

laws; 2) procedures should involve the minimum number of animals

necessary and where applicable alternatives should be employed; 3)

animals should not be subjected to unnecessary pain and distress unless

the scientific practice dictates its necessity, in all other

circumstances the animal should either receive appropriate drugs to

relieve pain or be painlessly killed; 4) all animal researchers should

receive appropriate training in the care and use of animals*

These guidelines were formulated by scientific researchers. They

imposed these criteria upon themselves and have established monitoring systems to enforce compliance with the standards, guidelines, and principles set forth. ■ NIH's review committees frequently make site visits to its award recipients. If the researcher's facility and program fail to meet Nil! provisions, their funding will be terminated.

NIH's peer-review system also examines the researcher's experimental proposal before awarding funds. Peer-review committees are composed of scientists who have an understanding of animal research procedures and animal welfare principles. They select only (hose proposals which meet with the stringent requirements for the care and use of animals and employ acceptable research protocols. This is another method that i6 used to monitor and enforce responsible and valid animal research. A related mechanism to monitor and enforce responsible 221

animal care and use is the institutional animal care committees that are

required of any PHS award recipient.

N1H has a very complete system for regulating, monitoring, and

enforcing appropriate animal welfare issues. One drawback to this

system is the excessive amount of money that is required to maintain NIH

peer review committees and institutional animal care committees.

Furthermore, these activities require lots of paperwork and time on the

part of both the investigator and chose who must assess the merits and

justifiability of the study program under consideration.

These proposals hove to be assessed by the peer-review committees.

Any proposals that are not perceived to be scientifically meritorious,

described improper or inappropriate procedural techniques, or fail to meet standards for the humane treatment of animals are rejected. Those

that receive funding must continue to abide by NIH policies and

regulations. If NIH has cause to believe that an investigator is not complying with their policies they will investigate the charges.

NIII assessed this problem of misconduct in science* They conducted a review of all cases of alleged or suspected misconduct that was reported to NIH between October 1, 1980 and September 30, 1982.

Misconduct refers to the falsification or misrepresentation of data; failure to comply with animal and human welfare regulations; or any violation of the terms set forth in the award. Twenty-five cases of misconduct were substantiated in those two years. If one considers this number in relation to the AO,000 grants and contracts submitted during this time, the number of cases is small.^ However, the scientific community and NIH consider each instance of misconduct to be 222 unacceptable and try to eliminate the possibility of it recurring.

Cases of misconduct due to failure to abide by human and animal welfare policies are the responsibility of the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), a program of the Department of Health and

Human Services. OPRR will investigate any plausible report of misconduct. Sanctions against investigators may include termination of the award, debarring of the individual or institution from funding eligibility for a certain period of time, and in some cases filing civil O or criminal charges against the investigator. Any charge of misconduct is a serious matter. The investigator's credibility and future are challenged. Therefore, most researchers willingly comply with the policies, conditions, and regulations that accompany their award.

This regulatory system parallels the federal and state regulatory system in many ways. Both have specific standards that apply to animal welfare. Monitoring systems exist to ensure that investigators comply with these regulations. Those who fail to comply with these standards and guidelines are penalized at both levels. The awardee institution

(i.e., NIH) also assumes an additional role. . It evaluates the scientific merits of a research proposal and details the terms and conditions under which the proposal must be carried out. When these two systems are functioning at maximal level of efficiency, they offer comprehensive coverage of animal welfare policies.

Sometimes these systems are overwhelmed with the volume of work they must perform. So an additional system has been developed to aid in the monitoring of laboratory animal care and use. This system is 223

composed of institutional animal care committees. Currently PHS and the

USDA require that all laboratories that use research animals must maintain such a committee* As previously mentioned* this committee is

responsible for examining all animal research protocols. These

committees evaluate experimental procedures that relate to the well­

being and humane treatment of animals. They do not evaluate the . scientific merit of a proposal though.

This institutional regulatory system had already existed at many facilities prior to federal and PHS stipulations for them. For example,

Bennett Cohen, a veterinarian at the University of Michigan, reported that the university was using protocol reviews since 1978. He reported that one of the major problems with implementing this system and other regulatory systems was lack of adequate funding sources to meet their requirements:

Without adequate financial resources for facilities, staffing, training, and research related to humane use and care of animals, research programs cannot maintain adequate programs.... The burden is compounded by the apparent emphasis at present on regulatory approaches to perceived problems, to Che exclusion of expanding resources for the actual upgrading of facilities, staffing, and training and for the research that is needed.

Funds are needed to maintain standards of laboratory animal care and use at all levels. These funds are usually lacking because institutions do not have adequate resources and NIH has only a limited budget for facility improvement purposes. Therefore, many research institutions are either required to shut down completely or suspend certain projects until laboratory conditions meet animal welfare 224

standards. The elimination of animal research is one of the goals of

many animal rights/liberation organizations.

On the other hand, animal researchers want to conduct experiments

that are congruent with acceptable standards of animal welfare without

being hindered by excessive restrictions placed on them by external sources or limited financial reserves, Even if there was no Guide for

Care and Use of Animals or specified USDA standards for laboratory animal practices, most scientists would know that animals will live

better lives if they receive adequate food, water, housing conditions, and disease and pain control programs. Published information concerning

these issues were obtained by animal researchers. Since they work with animals, they become familiar with animal needs.

Animal researchers also are aware that their use of animals is a privilege and not a right that exclusively belongs to them. Faculty members who train students in appropriate techniques and procedures for the care and use of animals instill this philosophy in their students.

One would be hard pressed to locate animal researchers who believe they have the right to be unnecessarily cruel and inhumane to animals. Most investigators have spent many years working with animals. They know that they are responsible for their care and that the animals are the essential component of their research. This is another reason much importance is placed on raising and maintaining research animals under optimal conditions.

That researchers are familiar with the needs of animals is demonstrated by the fact that the majority of reference articles that were compiled for use in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory 225

Animals were written by animal researchers. If this information was considered to be irrelevant and valueless, researchers would probably not have investigated the matter.

Another way of establishing evidence that animal researchers are concerned with the health and well-being of research animals is to examine the principles of the organizations, associations, and societies which they are affiliated with. For example, the Society for

Neuroscience requires that "the investigator using research animals assumes responsibility for proper experimental design, including ethical as well as scientific aspects...and the fundamental principle of ethical animal research is that experimental animals must not be subjected to avoidable distress or discomfort."*0 The Foundation for Biomedical

Kesearch states a similar policy for animal care and use in research settings:

The biomedical research community advocates the best possible animal care and treatment. It takes this position not only for reasons of conscience, but also for reasons of science. It is not a controversial position,^here is no constituency for inhumane treatment.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research maintains an information clearinghouse called the Center for Information on Kesearch with Animals

Similar principles are stated by the American Fsychological

Association (APA) in Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use 226

of Animals. The APA emphasizes Che need for all animal researchers to:

...receive explicit instruction in experimental methodB and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species being studied.

Concern for the welfare of laboratory animals is not a recent issue

for animal researchers. As previously mentioned, the Federation of

American Societies for Experimental biology already had its own

guidelines and principles advocating humane treatment of animals in

1913.

Their statements represented the guiding principles of many different biomedical research organizations at that time and in the present. These policies regarding the humane care and treatment of animals were devised by animal researchers or those affiliated with animal research. The guidelines specifically require that research animals be created humanely, this is the outcome of their desires not

those of the animal rights movement. Scientists have self-imposed

these principles and guidelines on themselves to maintain appropriate and humane conditions for laboratory animals.

The investigator is the final and most responsible agent for administering appropriate animal care and use. There are federal and state laws, awardee institution regulations, and institutional guidelines which provide the basis for establishing and monitoring responsible animal care and use principles. Yet their fulfillment depends upon the individual. We live in a democratic society. People are required to abide by laws of the democracy. Those who fail to comply are punished. Animal researchers comprise a segment of this democracy, thus they must follow its laws or suffer the consequences. 227

So whether or not a crime is committed actually depends on the individual. The government, agencies, or direct action groups can not

"police" all of the people all of the time to ensure that the laws are being followed. But if individuals (investigators) are aware of these laws and societal mores and voluntarily comply with them, then no external sources of control need be exercised. Since animal researchers are aware of guidelines, standards, regulations, and laws regarding animal care and use, they should abide with them. Those who fail to do so should be penalized. This has been the case so far. There is no way to totally eliminate all wrong doings because human beings err.

However, it is also wrong to assume that Increasing surveillance and laws for laboratory animal care and use will increase ethical and humane treatment of these animals. CHAPTER XV111 THE COST OK ANIMAL RIGHTS

What do spotless, meticulous, modern laboratories; animal care

committees; laboratory Inspectors, and dogs have in common? They cost

money. And animal rights advocates know it. This information is

helping them to reach their goal*— the total elimination of all research with animals. There are two paths one catt take to attain this goal: 1)

to effectively lobby for and succeed in implementing laws which forbid

animal research; and 2) to make biomedical research so expensive that it

is almost impossible to continue doing it.

It is unlikely that animal rights activists could successfully

lobby for laws that would ban biomedical research since 8 out of 10

Americans believe that such research is necessary.^ Therefore, they have opted to use the second means to reach their goal— -to eliminate animal research by increasing its tinancial costs. So far they have been successful.

One way of raising laboratory costs is to increase the price paid for animals used in studies. This has been successfully accomplished through bans on the use of pound animals. For example, dogs that are obtained from pounds usually cost $5-$55. If those animals are no longer available for use the researcher either has to purchase purpose- bred animals or stop hi6 research. Purpose-bred dogs are reared for

228 229

laboratory use by licensed animal breeders and they cost anywhere from

$275-$600. This represents a 5002 mark-up in the price of a dog.

Consequently, if research on dogs is to continue the researcher

(ultimately the taxpayer) must pay these exorbitant prices. This is non-sensical because each year 10 million unclaimed animals are killed

in pounds and shelters. Moreover, the upkeep of these pound animals and those who run the facilities costs the taxpayer almost $5UU million a year

Researchers used 102,000 dogs in 1903. This represents 2X of the population of pound animals that are killed annually. Why researchers should have to pay higher prices for purpose-bred dogs, when such animals are available at much lower costs is inexplicable. But the effect of such practices on research is evident. For example, in

Massachusetts, the ban on pound animal use prevented researchers from continuing their studies on intestinal transplants. As l)r. Anthony P.

Monaco, chief of organ transplantation at the New England Deaconess

Hospital, stated:

Here we are, ready to translate all our preliminary work— done in rats— to the patients whose survival depends on transplantation.... But without adequate documentation in the dog model, we cannot proceed to the human.

Hence, patients that might have benefited from Buch transplants won't survive and neither will the pound animals.

However, these consequences are perceived to be victories by the animal rights activists. The day after the 19B3 Massachusetts ban on pound animal use was passed, the New England Anti-vivisection Society placed ads m the New York Times and the Boston Ulobe which showed a dog 2 30

with a helmet on with the caption, "We've won the battle, now help us L Win the war." Unfortunately, the battle against cancer, heart disease,

diabetes, and hemophilia (all require the use of dog models) has not yet

been won.

Primates are another group of animals that now have become

prohibitively expensive. In 1930, a rhesus monkey cost $25. Today a

monkey costs between $600 and $2,OOU. Thus to continue to do research

with primates— and they are useful for studies of diseases such as AIDS,

hardening of the arteries, and hepatitis B— one must have money in

nearly astronomical amounts. But even so rights activists continue

their war on these issues. For example, in 197B, Shirley McCreal,

chairwoman of the International Primate Protection League protested

agamsi an application submitted by a pharmaceutical company to the U.S.

Department oi Fish and Wildlife Services for primates.^ This company

requested monkeys for tests or the safety of their vaccine against

hepatitis B. This disease affects 1 million Americans annually.

Furthermore, over $3b5 million a year is spent on this liver disorder wlucn causes “fever, weakness, loss of appetite, headache, and muscle

pain.

McCreal was unsuccessful and the vaccine was tested with monkeys

and chimpanzees. In 1981, the Food and Drug Agency licensed the vaccine

for human use. In 1984, recombinant DNA technology was used to prepare

hepatitis B vaccine from yeast ceils. This vaccine was tested on

African green monkeys and found effective* Now the vaccine is available

at a relatively low cost and is "expected to have a worldwide impact on

the disease."^ However, the animals used in this endeavor cost at least

10 times more than they did in 1976. 231

In a comparison of primate use in 1973 and 1985, Douglas Bowder, a

primatologist and neuroscientist found that there was a 3X decrease in

primate use. Because primates share many of the same biological and

behavioral characteristics with humans they are:

indispensable research models for botli understanding basic biological mechanisms and the development and testing of new approaches to diagnosis and treatment.

Hence, their use has not been substantially reduced, even though their

cost has increased. But on the other hand, the number of cats and dogs

that are used in research has greatly decreased. In 1967, the Institute

for Laboratory Animal Resources, a part of the National Kesearch

Council, surveyed the number of dog6 used in research facilities and

estimated that 262,001) were being used. By 1983, the number of dogs u being used had dropped to 182,UU0.

As dog and cat use decreased, mice and rat use increased. By 1983,

rats and mice made up 85% of all laboratory animals. In addition, the

National Survey of Laboratory Animal Facilities and Resources reported a

bii% decrease in the total number of animals used in research.^

Although rats and mice have become the predominant species for research work, only barely more than half as many animals are now being used as

in the past.

Companies that supply research animals predicted these changes would occur and acted accordingly. For example, in an ad by Charles

River, a breeding laboratory that was established in the United States

that has since developed facilities in Europe, stated that

"requirements were becoming increasingly stringent.•.and researchers 232 worldwide were demanding animals of unprecedented quality."** Today the increased demand for mice and rats has been keeping their price at a I j fairly stable level of $4 per rat and $ 2 for mouBe.

However, investigators frequently paid much more than that for their animals. This waB due to the presence of the university's central facility for animal supplies. These central facilities acted as "middle men" between the animal supply company and the researcher and frequently charged the researcher excessive additional fees for their animals. For example at the Ohio State University, the central facility for animal supplies would sometimes charge the investigator $40 for a single pregnant rat. The investigator had no way of knowing how much the supply company had charged the university for the rat because their price was crossed out. That situation prompted many researchers to breed their own research animals. This took much time on the part of the investigators and their students, but it effectively eliminated the

"middle man."

After animals are purchased, researchers have to house them in their laboratories. But first of all, these laboratories must meet the regulations of the USDA, PHS, and frequently AAALAC. These regulations stipulate everything from cage dimensions to ventilation systems to litter use. If a facility falls to meet these requirements, it is shut down.

Although the regulations were recently revised in the Animal

Welfare Act of 1985 and the NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory

Animals, the agency was not in a position to help researchers meet these requirements. For example, only $10 million are available in 1987 to 233 improve general animal facilities. An additional $3.5 million has bean appropriated for use by primate centers. But NIH itself has astlmated that $1.3 billion would be needed for every laboratory in tha country to 13 meet its new standards. Those facilities which will not receive the required funds to upgrade their facilities will either have to shut down or ask for temporary variances. F.L. Trull, director of the National

Association for Biomedical Research believes chat

...research institutes may be reaching the point where ref^arch will be sacrificed for economic reasons.

Of course, if laboratories close down there is a decrease in animal research. One more battle will have been won by the animal rights activists.

The installation of security systems has been an additional financial burden to laboratories in this country. Break-ins to laboratories by animal liberation activists have Increased tremendously in the laBt few years. The amount of destruction that they have left behind them exceeds millions of dollars in stolen animals, ruined equipment, and data loss (see the past chapter on Break-Ins). These illegal actions have prompted many laboratories to take preventative security measures. Thus, Dr. William Gay, Director of NIH's Animal

Resource Program, said that some institutions have spent as much as

$100,000 to Improve their security systems.^ Moreover, the

Massachusetts Society for Medical Research has put together a “Crisis

Management Planning” guide that is available to biomedical researchers.

This guide provides detailed information on how to posBlbly prevent a

"crisis*4— an attack by an animal rights group— from occurring. In 234 addition, it offers suggestions on hew to handle affairs after a break- in or attack has occurred. It is ironic that animal rights groups which are seeking legal rights for animals have opted to use illegal means to attain their goals.

While researchers try to prevent activists from breaking down laboratory doors, they must open them up to animal care committees and

APHIS inspectors. These investigators must inspect the laboratories at least biannually and report their findings back to the USDA. In the past, APHIS inspectors have been unable to inspect laboratories as often as they would like to because of insufficient funds. In the 1987 federal budget there were Increased funds for the USDA/APHIS, but the surplus was to cover the cost of creating a National Agriculture

Library.*^ Even though the Animal Welfare Act as amended in 198S and

PHS policy now require all animal facilities to maintain animal care committees that inspect laboratories and review experimental protocols, they did not provide funds to do so. The individual Institution must cover expenses incurred by theae committees (i.e., record- and report- upkeeping, personnel expenses). In addition, the Act requires that all studies be submitted for animal care committee approval prior to conducting the experiment. Any changes suggested by the committee or the researcher requires that the proposal be resubmitted for approval.

The process, if adhered to, costs time and money and 1b devastating to creative researchers whose planning of studies is continuously guided by the findings of studies in progress.

Whether policy makers were aware of these problems prior to the time they made their decision is unclear. However, the required 235

Institutional animal care committees, Increased regulations of animal care protocols, increased cost of laboratory animals, and increased costs of security measures are absorbing public funds that could otherwise be used for research costs* The regulatory costs are not covered by Increasing grants to researchers. They must come out of the institution's resources. If the institution cannot meet these costs then research ends there.

At present, it appears that the situation is unlikely to improve very soon. In Science Indicators— the 1985 Report, it was stated that military research and development will be receiving added support, while other areas will receive decreased funding. In the latter areas (e.g., biomedical research) "the United States now ranks well behind West

Germany and Japan.This had already been predicted by the Office of

Technology Assessment in 1984, yet suggestions to prevent it from occurring went unheard:

A well-developed life science baBe, the availability of financing for high-risk ventures, and an entreprenurlal spirit have established the United States as a leader in the commercialisation of biotechnology. But if federal funding for basic life sciences continues to decline, the science base, which supports Innovation in biotechnology as well sb in other fields, may be eroded.

The biomedical research community could probably continue to function on smaller federal budgets if they were not required to pay for all the other indirect costs of research (i.e., record- and report- upkeeplng for inspections excessive costs of animals, security systems).

Research is expensive to conduct without the added cost of these indirect expenses. For example, in 1986, the price of a first-class 236 optical microscope required all the federal income taxes of five families with a taxable income of $30,000. A high speed computer required the federal Income taxes of about 20 families that have a net income of $25,000. A family that makes $20,000 can use its income tax to buy a rhesus monkey, or 100 rats, or 200 mice for a study, or pay for the casts of two inspections and the filing of reports for those inspections. Tax-payers will eventually have to decide if they want to pay for expenses that have nothing to do with research, and instead act as obstacles to scientific progress.

The effects of all these regulations on biomedical research output will not become completely evident for many years. However, undermining the existing system through increased financial burdens, decreased funding of direct research, and increased regulation of laboratories will surely produce negative long-lasting consequences. These consequences will then be measured by their effect on the health and well-being of humans. CHAPTER XIX CONCLUSION

The animal welfare movement has been in existence now for well over

100 years. In some respects the movement has not changed* For example* many of its members are still concerned about animal control measures and the humane treatment of animals. Nevertheless, in other aspects changes have occurred. These changes are in the Ideology and tactics of a certain segment within the movement-animal rightists/liberators.

Animal rightists/liberators are opposed to the ways society currently use animals. They are against the use of animals as a food source, for entertainment purposes, for clothing, and in biomedical research. This latter issue has attracted the most attention and efforts by animal rightists.

Two arguments have been used by rightists to support their position that animal experimentation should be halted. The first is Peter

Singer's argument againBt speclesism. Singer claims that it is morally unjustifiable to treat people differently from animals because

...to discriminate against beings solely on account of their species la a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible, in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race is Immoral and defensible.

This belief therefore disagrees with the moral principles that form the basis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If one accepts Singer's

237 238

treatise then, it is immoral to use animals for biomedical research unless one is willing Co substitute their use with human beings*

However, if one does not put animals on a par with human beings then

there is no justification for Singer's position.

Tom Regan presents a different argument to convince society that animal use in research is not acceptable* This argument is based on utilitarianism. Regan believes that researchers/society must weigh the consequences of their actions to determine if that outcome provides the greatest good/benefits for all. The assumption underlying this belief is that as long as we can prove that research is beneficial to the majority then it is justifiable.2

Using this principle, Regan decides that animal research is not acceptable because many animalB must die before medical advances are achieved. In essence, he believes that medical advances which save the lives of thousands of people are not acceptable if thousands of animals must be used to obtain these objectives. By accepting this belief, one is actually saying that animal lives can be equated with human lives.

This then becomes similar to Singer's view.

If one opts to support either one of these positions, then they must ipso facto support the termination of all biomedical research use with animals. What happens then? There will most likely be new cures or treatments for many diseases such as AIDS, multiple sclerosis,

Parkinson's disease, and no effective way of testing the safety of drugs before people use them.

Even though many rightist groups claim that there are alternatives available which are effective substitutes for animals, this is not true. 239

Alternatives are half-way measures that can not take the place of a whole, living organism. The Information obtained from the use of alternatives is either incomplete or very limited in nature.

Consequently, it would be ineffective and actually detrimental to the health of humans and animals to believe that alternatives are valid substitutes for living organisms.

Do people want cures for disease? Yes. In a number of surveys that have been conducted in recent years, the majority of people surveyed knew that animals had been used to obtain medical advances.

They also wanted biomedical researchers to continue using animals in their studies. In addition, 70% of those surveyed supported biomedical research, even when it might not lead directly to a cure or treatment 3 U for disease. *

The use of animals in research, on farms, in the wild, or as pets is a moral issue. Each person must decide if it is morally and ethically just to use an animal in a specific situation. How one arrives at a decision is a private matter. Nonetheless, one must take into account the future consequences of their decision. If one decides that the use of animals in research is unethical or immoral, then they should support efforts to prohibit animal research. However they must also be willing to accept the possibility that biomedical advances will be impeded. This means that people and animals suffering from currently untreatable diseases will have to continue suffering with little hope.^

Similar consequences must be dealt with when one considers the termination of ail farms that rear livestock, and chickens. If one were to decide that it is immoral and unethical to eat animals, then this 240 would entail the future elimination of farms. For theae few who might want to eat meat, they would either have to raise their own meat sources or pay high prices for meat products produced by small farms. Either way, the price of meat would become very expensive. These two instances of animal use— on the farm or in the laboratory— represent the major populations of animals currently used by Americans. Changes in present societal attitudes towards the disposition of animals in these circumstances will result in tremendous decrease in research and food output.

If most citizens want biomedical research to continue, what actions should be taken? Like most other endeavors, research requires money.

The government (via taxpayers, of course) has provided researchers with funding primarily through grants given to researchers from the National

Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. These funds are used to pay for equipment, facilities, researchers and animals.

Additional Indirect expenses have begun to consume a large part of these funds, though. Within the last few years, excessive regulations and restrictions have been Imposed upon biomedical researchers. These regulations require more inspections, more committees, and more paperwork. Their effect has been to increase coats and decrease research. This outcome is not congruent with the desires of most citizens.

However, it is amenable to the aims of animal rightists who have effectively lobbied for legislation which would prevent animal research.

They believe that researchers are not bound by laws to provide humane care and treatment of laboratory animals, so they want to heavily 241 regulate bioaedical research. Their ultimate goal has been, and continues to be, the abolition of aniaal research. However, because the vast majority of people continue to support animal research, rightists have been unsuccessful in their attempts to have aniaal research totally banned. Nonetheless, they have been very succesaful in moving towards this goal by using indirect means. By increasing the costB of animals, heavily regulating research, increasing the frequency of inspections, and requiring additional oversight committees, rightists have impeded research. They also have effectively wasted taxpayers' money* Each person must decide whether or not these actions are acceptable. If we want biomedical research, then we must take actions that will facilitate the acquisition of information, not prevent it. REFERENCES

Akers, K. (1986). Meat: Unravelling our social fabric. Vegetarian Voice. _12, 4.

Allen, M. (1974). Animal control. Nation's Cities Magazines. 17(24), 3.

American Anti-Vivisection Society (1929). President's address. Jenklntown, PA: Author.

American Anti-Vivisection Society (1983). One hundred years against cruelty. Jenkintovn, PA: Author.

American Anti-Vivisection Society (1983). The casebook of experiments with living animals. Jenklntown, PA: Author.

American Anti-Vivisection Society (19BS). Why we oppose vivisection Jenklntown, PA: Author.

American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (1985). The AAALAC process. AAALAC Report. 13, 21-15.

American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research (1975). The role of AFAAR. New York: Author.

American Humane Association (1986). Annual report 1985. Colorado: Author.

American Psychological Association (1985). Guidelines for ethical conduct in the care and use of animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1984). Annual report— charitable organizations. (Federal Form 990). New York: Author.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1985). The ASPCA. New York: Author.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1985). The ASPCA: A statement of purposes. New York: Author.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1985). What can you do? Boycott. New York: Author.

242 243

Aaerican Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1985)* ASPCA: American's first humane society. New York: Author.

Aaerican Society for the Restriction of Vivlaaction (1883). Charter of the Aaerican society for the restriction of vivisection. New York: Author.

Angeil, C. (1892). Autobiographical sketches and personal recollections. Boston: Aaerican Huoane Education Society.

Aniaal Legal Defense Fund (1986, April). 1986 National survey on animal rights. San Francisco: Author.

Aniaal Protection Institute (1984). 1984 Summary of activities. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et aeq., passed 1966; amended 1970, 1976, 1985).

Animal Welfare Institute (1979). Comfortable quarters for laboratory animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Animal Welfare Institute (1985). Beyond the laboratory door. Washington, U.C.: Author.

Animal Welfare Institute. Aims and programs of the Aniaal Welfare Institute. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Animals in Politics (1986). 1986 Animals in an election year. New York: Author

Aquinas, T. Summa theologia. (Vol. II, 64-65). Translated by the English Dominican Fathers.

Associated Press (1985, Harch). Judge questions lifeforce's motives. London Free Press.

Barnes, D. (1985). A matter of change. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Barnes, D. (1986). Tight money squeezes out aniaal models. Science. 232. 314.

Beauty Without Cruelty. (1985, Fall). The compassionate shopper. New York: Author.

Beelman, M. (1986, April). Animals' friend saes linit to human rights. Columbus Dispatch. 2. 244

Bernard, C. (I860). Cahler Rouge* In F. Grande, & H. Vlaacher (Eda.), Claude Bernard and experimental medicine. Cambridge, HA: Schencktaan Publishing Co.

Bide-A-Vee Hone Association <1982). Lives reborn. New York: Author.

Blair, B. (1980, August). Down on the factory farm--a question of aninal rights. The Detroit News

Bodnar, R., Kelly, D., Brutus, H., & Glusnan, H. (1978). Stress induced analgesia: Effects of naloxone following cold water swins. Bulletin of Psychononlc Society. 12, 125-128.

Bowker, G. (1949). Shaw on vivisection. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Brandt Jr., E. (1983). PHS perspectives on nisconduct in science. Public Health Reports. 98(2), 136-140.

Cant, G. (1953). Medical research nay save your life. New York: Public Affairs Connlttae.

Carlson, A. (1913). 1913 FASEB policy on aninal experimentation. Public Affairs. 43. 11.

Carson, E. (1983). The role of nathematlcal models in biomedical research. In P. Turner (Ed.), Animals in scientific research: An effective substitute for man? London: MacMillan.

Carson, G. (1972). Men, beasts, and gods. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Cave, G.C. (1986, Jan/Feb). If you don't buy'em, they won't kill'em. Whole Life New York, b.

Center for Information on Research Animals. (1986). Animal rights movement. Washington, U.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research.

Center for Information on Research Animals. (1986). Break-ins and violent activities. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research.

Center for Information on Research Animals. (1986). Figures on animal research. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research.

Center for Information on Research Animals. (1986). The use of pound animals in biomedical research and education. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research. 245

Church* R. (1963)* The varied effects of punishment on behavior. Psychological Review. 70(5). 369-402.

Coblentz, B. (1952). W.R. Hearst: A portrait in his own words. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cohen, B. (1984). Responsible use and care of animals at a research university. In National symposium on imperatives in research aninal use: Scientific needs and animal welfare. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cohen, N. (1974). Tsa*aer Ba*ale Hayin: The prevention of cruetly to animals. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers.

Coile, C., & Miller, N. (1984, June). How radical animal activists try to mislead humane people. American Psychologist. 700-701.

Coleman, S. (1924). Humane Society leaders in America. New York: American Humane Association.

Collier, C., Mast, J., Meyer, D., & Jacobs, C. (1979). Approach- avoidance conflict in preweanling rats— s developmental study. Animal Learning and Behavior. _7, 514-520.

Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting. CASH will attack the MSPCA. CASH Action Alert.

Comroe Jr., J. (1977). Retrospectroscope. California: Van Gehr Press.

Comroe Jr., J., & Dripps, R. (1976). Scientific basis for the support of biomedical research. Science. 192. 105-111.

Connelly, S. (1986). Our woman in New York— activist extraordinary. Ftinds for Animals. 18(2), 6 .

Couch, J. (1984, Sept.). Court of Appeals of Maryland. Term 1982. No. 123.

Council of Agricultural Science & Technology (1981). Scientific aspects of the welfare of food animals. CAST. 91. 1-54.

Cowie, V. (1981). A call for understanding. The Ohio Farmer, 2* 33-34.

Crux, M. (1987, Jan.). Personal communication to the author. Washington, D.C.: PETA.

Culllton, B. (1986). Congress boosts NIK budget 17.3Z. Science. 234. 808-809.------

Dasman, R. (1981). Wildlife Biology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 246

Decision Research Corporation. (1985). Public perceptions about the use of animals in biomedical research; A quantitative study. Lexington, MA: Teeple, Barker, & Sloane, Inc.

Department of Health, Education & Welfare (1979). Do we care about research animals? Washington, D.C.: NIH.

Doulin, T. (1986, Jan.). Humane Society in uproar about new board members. The Columbus Dispatch, 10.

Dowding, M. (1972). Fura and cosmetics: Too high a price to pay? In S. & R. Godlovitch (Eds), Animal, men, and morals. New York: Taplinger Co.

Elbl-Eibesfeldt, 1. (1970). Ethology: The biology of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Endangered Species Act (1973). Public Law 93-205.

Fairholme, E., & Pain, W. (1924). A century of work for animals. New York: E.P. Dutton 4 Co.

Farm Animal Reform Movement. To alleviate and eliminate animal abuse and other adversee impacts of animal agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Farm Animal Reform Movement. Are you really that hungry? Washington, D.C.: Author.

Farm Animal Reform Movement. FARM. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Federal Register, 48, (108), 25166.

Fisher, K. (1986, April). Animal activists appeal. APA Monitor. 13.

Foundation for Biomedical Research (1985, June). The use of animals in biomedical research and testing. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986). Caring for laboratory animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986). Overview of the animal rights movement. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986, Summer). California attorney general names Animal Liberation Front in report on organized crime. FBR Newsletter. 3.

Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986, Summer). N1H confirms UC- Riverside compliance with PHS policy. FBR Newsletter. ,3. 247

Foundation for Biomedical Research (1966, Fall). Activists gain control of Toronto Humane Society. FBR Newsletter,

Fox, M. (1985, Oct.). Personal communication to the author. Washington, D.C.: HSUS.

Fox, M., & Mickley, L. (1985). Advances in animal welfare science 1985/1986. Washington, D.C.: HSUS

Frederickson, D. (1978). The National Institutes of Health yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Public Health Reports, 93(6), 642-647.

French, R. (1975). Antivivisection and medical science in Victorian society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

FrlendB of Animals (1981). Factory farms. New Jersey: Author.

Friends of Animals (1985, Fall). H.R. 1877, to suppress the LD/50 test. Actlonline, <8 .

Friends of Animals (1985, Fall). The FOA-supported independent committee— Medical research modernization committee. Actlonline, J,.

Funds for Animals (1984). Annual report— charitable organizations (Federal form 990). New York: Author.

Funds for Animals (1986). At work, at home, abroad. Funds for Animals. ,18(2), 6 .

Gallup, G., & Suarez, S. (1985, Oct.). Alternatives to the use of animals in psychological research. American Psychologist. 1104-1111.

George, C*, & Main, H. (1979). Social interactions of young abused children: Approach, avoidance, and aggression. Child Development. 50, 306-308.

Godlovltch, S., 6 Godlovltch, R. (1972). Animals, men, and morals. New York: Tapllnger Co.

Goldlust, F. (1985). Personal communication to the author. Ohio: PETA.

Goldman, L. (1981). The medical science. In D. Sperllnger (Ed.), Animals in research. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Goodwin, L. (1985). Personal communication to the author. Boston: MSPCA.

Gore, C. (1984). The utility and morality of vivisection London: Author. 248

Grande, F., & Vlsscher, M. (1967). Claude Bernard and experimental medicine. Cambridge: Schenkman Publiahlng Co.

Cravitz, H. (1985). Working for animal rights. Animal's Agenda. 5(7). 4-5.

Greenpeace (1986). The world of greenpeace. Washington. D.C.: Author

Griffin, A., & Sechzer, J. (1983). Mandatory versus voluntary control of biomedical research. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 406. 187-200.

Hardy, C. (1986, March). Behind the ALF: New respect for the animal rights radicals. Whole Life. .

Harlow, H. (1959). Love in Infant monkeys. Scientific American, 20(6) 66-70.

Harlow, H., A Harlow, H. (1965). The affactlonal systems. In A Schrier, H. Harlow, & F. Stollnltx (Eds.), Behavior of non-human primates. New York: Academic Press.

Harris, M. (1985, Jan.). The animal rights brigade. New Society. 168.

Hawkins, R. (1985). The green movement— implications for animals. In M. Fox & L. Mlckley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare 1985/1986. Washington, D.C.: HSUS.

Hess, W., & Akert, K. (1955). Experimental data on the role of the hypothalamus in mechanisms of emotional behavior. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. 73. 127-129.

Hodges, G., Denenberg, V., & Zarrow, M. (1968). Mice reared with rats: EffectB of preweaning and postweaning social interactions upon adult behavior. Behavior. 30. 259-274.

Holden, C. (1986). Pivotal year for lab animal welfare. Science. 232. 150-151.

Hubbard, R. (1985, March). Medical research priorities— a national Issue. Friends of Animals Actioallne. _3.

Hubbard, R. (1985, March). Position paper: On thje use of animals to study. New York: Medical Research Modernisation Committee.

Humane Society of the United States (1984). Helping hands for animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Humane Society of the Ikilted States Unwanted animals. Washington, D.C. Author. 249

Humane Society of the United States (1985). HSUS give nod to AHA. Humane Society News, 30(4). 30.

Humane Society of the United States (1985). Financial statement of the HSUS. Humane Society News. 30(3). 20.

Humane Society of the United States (1985. Summer). WILD alternatives. Humane Society News. 30(3). 2.

Humane Society of the United States (1985). Response stays strongfor pet actlonline.

Humane Society of the United States Laboratory animals. Washington, D.G.: Author.

International Network for Religion and Animals. Introducing 1NRA. Washington, D.C.: Author.

International Society for Animal Rights (1986, July). ISAR Newsletter. _1

Jonason, K., & Enloe, L. (1971). Alterations in social behaviors following septal and amygdaloid lesions on social behaviors of rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Paychologly. 75, 286- 301.

Jonason, K., Enloe, L., Contrucd, J., & Meyer, P. (1973). Effects of simultaneous and successive septal and amygdaloid lesions on social behavior of rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 83, 54-61.

Jones, H. (1981). Animal rights— a view and comment. ISAR Newsletter. PA: ISAR.

Jones, H. (1986). Personal communication to the author. New York: United Action for Animals.

Kagan, C. (1985). Winning better legislation. Animals' Agenda. 5(7). 24-25. “

Kelly, J. (1985). Alternatives to averslve procedures in the psychology teaching setting. In M. Fox & L. Mickley (Ed.), Advances in animal welfare science 19B5/86. Washington, D.C.: Author.

King, F., & Yarbrough, C. (1986). Medical and behavioral benefits from primate research. In W. Gay (Ed.), Health benefits of animal research. Washington, D.C.: Foundation of biomedical research.

Knauff, 0. (1986). APHIS funds could be increased. Lab Animals, iS(18), 15.

Lafferty, M. (1985, Sept. 26). Labor bites big chunk from every food dollar, Columbus Dispatch. ^9. 250

Lansbury, C. (1985). The old brown dog, women. workers. and vivisection In Edwardian England. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Lefflngwell, A. (1914). An ethical problem or sidelights upon scientific experimentation on man and animals^ London: G. Ball & Sons, Ltd.

Leupp, R. (1986, January). Humane society is coaposed of quality, able, caring people. The Coluabus Dispatch, 6 .

Lind-af-Hageby, H. (1913), Dec.). Paper presented at the International Antivlvlsectlon and aniaal protection congress. Washington, D.C.

Lodrick, D. (1981). Sacred cows. sacred places. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Loew, F. (1982). Developments in the history of the use of animals in medical research. In W. Dodds & F. OrIans (Eds.), Scientific perspectives on aniaal welfare. New York: Academic Press.

Leupp, R. (1986, Jan.). Humane society is composed of quality, able, caring people. The Columbus Dispatch, £.

MacDonald, C. (1985, January). Animal rights activists show film of stolen animals. The Canadian Press.

Magittl, P. (1984). Morris Animal Foundation. Cats Magazine. 6-7.

March, B. (1984). Bioethlcal problems; Animal welfare, animal rights. Bloscience. 34(10). 615-620.

Martin, P. (1982). The animal rights movement in the U.S.: Its composition, funding sources, goals, strategies, and potential impact. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Mason, J. (1985). Brave new farmT In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc.

Mason, J. (1985). Animal rights network news. Animals' Agenda. 5(7). 23. “

Mason, W., & Lott, D. (1976). Ethology and comparative psychology. Annual Review of Psychology. 27, 129-154.

Massachusetts Society for Medical Research. The use of animals in medical research. Massachusetts: Author.

Massachusetts Society for Medical Research. (1985). MSPCA to inspect aniaal dealers. Animals, 118(6), 4. 251

Massachusetts Society £or Medical Research, MSPCA gain access to aninal dealers' facilities* The Course of Huaane Events. 3,

Massachusetts Society for Medical Research. AIDS. Massachusetts: Author*

Hatchett, A. (1986, April), Personal communication to the author. Washington, D.C.: USDA,

McCabe, K* (1986, August). Who will live and who will die? The Washingtonian. 112-118 & 153-157.

McCrea, R. (1910). The humane movement; A descriptive survey. New York: Columbia University Press.

Media-General Associated Press (1985, Oct). Testing on animals is needed poll says. The Ohio State University Lantern.

Meinhardt, J. (1986). Guidelines for animal rights protests. Clark Summit, PA: ISAR.

Meyer, U., & Meyer, P. (1977). Dynamics and bases of recoveries of functions after injuries to the cerebral cortex. Physiological Psychology, 5^, 133-165.

Midgely, H. (1985). Persons and non-persons. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc.

Mlers, M. (1985, July). Current NIB perspectives on misconduct in Bclence. American Psychologist. 40(7), 831-834.

Miller, N. (1983). Behavioral medicine: Symbiosis between laboratory and clinic. Annual Review of Psychology, 34. 1-31.

Mobilization for Animals (1984). Direct action program 1984. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Mobilization for Animals (1984). Animal Welfare Organization— A first annual financial report. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Mobilization for Animals (1984). Five point plan of unity. accountability, and action for animals. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Mobilization for Animals (1985). Annual report-charitable organizations. Financial statement. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Mobilization for Animals (1985). Dedicated to action to end aninal suffering. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Mobilisation for Animals (1985). HFA: World week. Columbus, Ohio: Author. 252

Mobilization for Animals Psychology experiments on animals: The examples of Harry Harlow. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

Morgan, R. (19B0). Love and anger: An ongoing handbook. Connecticut: Animal Rightu Network.

Morris, R., & Fox, M. (1978). On the fifth day: Animal rights and human ethics. Washington: Acropolis Books Ltd.

Morris, W. (1971). american heritage dictionary of the English language. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co.

Morrison, A., & Hand, P. (1984). The Taub case. Science. 225, 4665*

Morrison, H. (1981). Legislation and practice in the United States. In D. Sperlinger (Ed.), Animals in research. John Wiley & Sons.

Mortimer, F. Debunker of hunting myths: A profile of Luke Dommer. CASH Alert.

Naesa, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology- movement: A summary. Inquiry. 16, 95-100.

Niven, C. (1967). History of the humane movement. New York: Translantic Arts.

Norman, C. (1986). Science board study indicates U.S. science healthy. Science. 231-791.

Overcast, D., & Sales, B. (1985). Regulation of animal experimentation. Journal of the American Medical Association. 254(14). 1944-1949.

Pacheco, A. (1985). The silver spring monkeys. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc.

Pacheco, A. (1986). Letter distributed to PETA members. Washington, D.C.: PETA.

Patterson, D., & Ryder, R. (1979). Ethical aspects of man's relationship with animals. London: Centaur Press.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1985). The animal liberation front--on the front line— a radical choice. PETA News. 6. 9. ”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1985). The city of hope. PETA News. 5, 2.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1986). PETA. Washington, D.C.: Author. 253

Prosser, L. (1986, March). Stace House News Service. Boston: MsBsachussetts State House.

Bamsey, C. (1984, Nov.). Personal communication to the author.

Reed, D. (1985). PETS. Humane Society News.. 30(4), 9-11.

Reed, D. (1986, Summer). Solving animal rpoblems in your community. Humane Society News, 30(3). 14-16.

Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Regan, T. (1985). In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Research Strategies Corporation (1985). National family opinion research: Animals in research. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research.

Ritchie, G. (1975). Effects of limbic lesions on social attraction in rats. Dissertation: The Ohio State University.

Ritvo, H. (1984). Plus Ca change: Antivivisection then and now. Biosclence. 34, 627.

River, C. (1986). The international standard is on your side. Lab Animal. L5(l), 10.

Rowan, A. (1984). Of mice, models, and men: A critical evaluation of animal research. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1876). RSPCA report of 1876. London: RSPCA.

Russell, W., & Burch, R. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen & Co.

Ryder, R. (1975). Victims of Science. London: Davis Poynter.

Scanlon, P. (1983). Humana as hunting animals. In H. Miller, & W. Williams (Eds.), Ethics and animals. New Jersey: Humana Press.

Scharmann, W. (1985). Ethical aspects of animal experimentation. In M. Fox & L. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1985/86. Washington, D.C.: HSUS. — — — —

Scott, J. (1960). Aggression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sharp, R. (1980, August). Taking our medicine. The Guardian. London.

Shaw, B. (1927, August). Article by Shaw. Sunday Express. England. 254

Shaw, B. (1927, August). Article by Shaw. Sunday Express. England.

Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

Singh, D., & Meyer, D. (1968). Eating and drinking by rate with leBlons of the septum and ventromedial hypothalamus. JCPP, 65. 163-166.

Society Against Vivisection (1986). World week for laboratory animals. Costa Mesa, CA: Author.

Society Against Vivisection (1986). Petition to abolish animal experimentation in the state of California. SAV Newsletter, 4,.

Society for Animal Protection Legislation (1985). The work of SAPL. Washington. D.C.i Author.

Society for Neuroscience (1985). Membership Directory 1985. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Sperllnger, D. (1981). Animals in research. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Spira, H. (1986). Fighting to win. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Stark, D., & Shopsls, C. (1983). Developing alternative assay systems for toxicity. In the role of animals in biomedical research. Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 406. 90-95.

Stevens, C. (1984). Urgent need to strengthen the animal welfare act. In National Symposium on imperatives in research animal use; Scientific needs and animal welfare. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

Stewart, J. (1947). None so blind. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences. 21(1).

Sun, M. (1985). USDA fines Pennsylvania animal laboratory. Science. 229. 432.

Swarey, J. (1974). Chlorpromatlne in psychiatry: A study of therapeutic innovation. Cambridge. MA: Ml¥ Press.

Taub, E. (1984). The incident at the primate laboratory of Dr. Edward Taub. A talk.

Tendler, M. (1975). Medical ethics: A compendium of moral, ethical, and religious practices in medical practice. New York: Federation of Jewish philanthropies. 255

Trans-species Unlimited (1982). Editorial: ALF art vandal disgraces aniaal rights oovaoent. One world: TSU newsletter. State College, PA: Author.

Trans-apecies Unlimited Unlimited. Specieslet or trans-specieslst? State College, PA: Author.

Trans-species Unlimited Animal rights— what 'a it all about? State College, PA: Author.

Trull, P., & Kalllkow, N. (1984). Aniaal rights movmeent: A threat to biomedical research? Cancer Investigation. 216, 479-482.

Turner, P. (1983). Animals in scientific research: An effective substitute for men? London: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Uhlted Action for Animals (1983). Duplicative and redundant experiments on live animals. New York: Author.

United Action for Animals (1984). Laboratory animal welfare work volunteers or trainee combatants? New York: Author.

United Action for Animals (1985). Annual report— charitable organisations (Federal form 990). New York: Author.

U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office (1965). Report to the chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and related agencies. Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate. The Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Program. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives (1983). Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Improved standards for laboratory animals, Hearings on S. 657. Hearings on July 20, 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. (1985). Committee on Agriculture* Hearings on information dissemination and research accountability act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1985). Commercial biotechnology: An international analysis. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1986). Alternatives to animal use in research, testing, and education. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1980). National survey of animal facilities and resources (N1H Pub. No. 80-209O. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. 256

U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices (1985). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. (NIH Pub. No. 85-23). Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1985). Laboratory animal welfare: N1H guide for grants and contracts. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1983). Hearings on S. 964: Animal welfare research study act of 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wade, N. (1978). New vaccine may bring man and chimpanzee into tragic conflict. Science. 200. 1028-1030.

Wade, N. (1978). A new militancy in England. Science. 199. 279.

Walters, G., & Grusec, J. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.

Warbasse, J. (1910). The conquest of disease through animal experimentation. New York: D. Appelton & Co.

Weil, R. (1986, November). In human bondage. OMNI. 64-70.

Weiss, J. (1971). Effect of punishing the coping response (conflict) on stress pathology in rats. JCPP, 77(1), 14-21.

Wellborn, R. (1985). Is man's Infliction of suffering on animals immoral. In H. Fox & L. Mlckley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1985/86. Washington, D.C.: Humane Society of the United States.

Wlndeatt, P. (1985). They clearly now see the link: Militant voices. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Young, W., Goy, R., & Phoenix, C. (1964). Hormones and sexual behavior. Science, 143. 212. REFERENCE NOTES Chapter 1

Introduction

1. Taub, E. (1985). The incident at the primate laboratory of Dr. Edward Taub (excerpt from a talk).

2. Sperling, S. (1985, August). 1 was violated. American Psychological Association Monitor. 5.

3. Center for Information on Research Animals (1986). The animal rights movement. Washington, D.C.:Foundation for Biomedical Research.

4. Windeatt, P. (1985). They clearly now see the link: Militant voices. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc.

5. Medical research modernization commitee. Responding to the media (pamphlet). New York: Author.

6. American Antivivisection Society (1983). The casebook of experiments with living animals. Pennsylvania: AAVS, 5.

7. People for the ethical treatment of animalB. Civil disobedience: Breaking the law for animal rights. PETA News. _6, 7-8.

8. Sperling, S. (1985), 5.

9. Taub, E. (1985), 2

10. Taub, E. (1985), 2

11. Mobilization for Animals (1984). Direct action program 1984. Columbu6, Oh: Author.

12. Coile, C», A Miller, N. (1984, June). How radical animal activists try to mislead humane people. American Psychologist, 39, 700-701.

13. Patterson, D., & Ryder, R. (1979). Ethical aspects of man*B relationship with animals. London: Centaur Press.

257 258

14. People for Che ethical treatment of animals. University of California at Riverside: Largest rescue in history. PETA News, 6 1-2. “

• 15. People for the ethical treatment of animals. Animal activists protest opening of lamb slaughter house. PETA. ^ 8-15.

16. Blair. B. (1980. August). Down on the factory farm...a question of animal rights. The Detroit News.

17. Trans-species unlimited. Specieslsts or trans-speciesist? Pennsylvania: Author.

18. Trans-species unlimited. • What can 1 do for animals. Pennsylvania Author.

19. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books. 259

Chapter 2

Animals in Ancient Times

1. Morris, W. (1971). American heritage dictionary of the English language. New York: American Heritage Publishing Company.

2. Lodrick, D. (1981). Sacred cows, sacred places. Berkeley University of California Press.

3. Lodrick, D. (1981), 87.

4. Cohen, N. (1976). Tsa'ar ba1 ale hayim: The prevention of cruelty to animals. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers.

5. Cohen (1976), 60.

6 . Carson, C. (1972). Men, beasts, and Cod. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 15.

7. Aquinas, T. Summa theologia (vol. II, 64-65). Translated by English Dominican Fathers.

8 . Tendler, M. (1975). Medical ethics: A compendium of moral, ethical, and religious practices in medical practices. New York: Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, Inc.

9. Tendler (1975), 38.

10. Godlovltch, S., & Godlovltch, R. (1972). Animals, men, and morals: An enquiry into the maltreatment oT~ nonhumans. New York: Taplinger Publishing Co.

11. Patterson, D., 6 Ryder, R. (1979). Ethical aspects of man's relationship with. London: Centaur Press, 20.

12. Warbasae, J. (1910). The conquest of disease through animal experimentation. New York: Appelton & Co.

13. Warbasse (1910), 49.

14. Warbasse (1910, 49.

15. Mobilisation for Animals (1984). Direct action program 1984. Columbus, OH: Author

16. Coiie, C., & Hiller, N. (1984, June). How radical animal activists try to mislead humane people. American Psychologist, 39. 700-701.

17. Godlovltch & Goldovitch (1972), 2. 260

Chapter 3

The Else of Aninal Welfare Movenent in England

1. Colenan, S. (1924). Humane society leaders in America. New York: Aaerican Humane Association, 19.

2. Coleman (1924), 22.

3. Niven, C. (1967). History of the humane movement. New York: Transatlantic Arts, 58.

4. Coleman (1924), 22.

5. Coleman (1924), 28.

6 . Colenan (1924), 30.

7. Niven (1967), 69.

8 . Niven (1967), 98.

9. Niven (1967), 81.

10. Niven (1967), 8 8 .

11. Fairholme, E., & Paine, W. (1924). A century of work for animals. New York; E.P. Dutton 6 Co.

12. Fairholme, & Paine . (1924), 195.

13. Fairholme, & Paine (1924), 279. 261

Chapter 4

The Antivlvleection Movement in England

1* French, R. (1975). Antivlvlsectlon and medical science in Victorian society. Princeton: Uhiversity Press of Princeton, 8 6 .

2. French (1975), 224.

3. French (1975), 225.

4. Massachusetts Society for Medical Research. The uee of animals in medical research. Massachusetts: Author. "

5. Gore, G. (1884). The utility and morality of vivisection. London: Author.

6 . Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1876). Royal Commission Report of 1876. London: Author.

7. Lansbury, C. (1985). The old brown dog: Women, workers, and vivisection in Edwardian England. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

8 . Grande, F., & Visscher, M. (1967). Claude Bernard and experimental medicine. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Co.

9. Kitvo, 11. (1984). Plus Ca change: Antivlvlsectlon then and now. Bioscience. 34, 627.

10. Rltvo (1984), 628.

11. Harris, M. (1985, Jan.). The animal rights brigade. New Society, 168.

12. Harris (1985), 170.

13. Harris (1985), 168.

14. Harris (1985), 168.

15. March, 8 . (1984). Bloethical problems: Animal welfare, aniaal rights. Bioscience. 34, 615-620. 262

Chapter 5

The Rise of the Aniaal Welfare Hoveoent in America

1. Colenan, S. (1924), Humane Society leaders in America, New York Aaerican Humane Society.

2. Fairholme, G., & Pain, W, (1924). A century of work for animals. New York: B.P. Dutton, 29.

3. Coleman (1924), 46.

4. Coleman (1924), 38.

5. Fairholme & Pain (1924), 230.

6 * HcCrea, R. (1910). The humane novenent. New York: Columbia University Press.

7. Coleman (1924), 70.

8 . Coleman (1924), 71.

9. McCrea (1910), 12.

10. Coleman (1924), 102.

11. McCrea (1910), 24.

12. McCrea (1910), 272.

13. Angell, G. (1892). Autobiographical sketches andpersonal recollections. Boston: Aaerican Humane Society.

14. Coleman (1924), 180.

15. American Antivivisection Society (1983). 1883-1983: 100 years against cruelty. Pennsylvania: Author.

16. McCrea (1910), 8 .

17. McCrea (1910), 126.

18. American Antivieectlon Society (198S). Why we oppose vivisection. Pennsylvania: Author.

19. McCrea (1910), 127.

20. Harris, M. (1985). The animal rightsbrigade. New Society. 71. 168-171. 263

21 . Coleman (1924). 259. 22. Martin. P. (1982). The animal rights movement in the United States: Its composition, funding sources, goals, strategies, and potential Impact on research. Boston: Harvard University Press.

23. Bide-A-Wee Home Association (1982). Lives reborn. New York; Author. '

24. Bide-A-Wee Home Association (1982), 2. 264

Chapter 6

The Antivivlsection Movement in America

1. Leffingvell, A. (1914)* An ethical problem or sidelights upon acientlfic experimentation on man and animals. London: G. Bell & Sons, Ltd.

2. Taber, S. (1905). Shall vivisection be restricted? Chicago Record Herald. , 12.

3. Leffingvell (1914), 3.

4. Lind-Af-Hageby, M. (1913, December). Paper presented at the International Antivivlsection and Animal Protection Congress held in Washington, D.C.

5. Leffingvell (1914), 10.

6 . American Society for the Restriction of Vivisection (1883). Charter of the American Society for the Restriction of Vivisection.

7. American Antivivlsection Society (1929). President's Address.

8 . Kagan, C. (1985). Winning better legislation. Animals' Agenda, v(7>, 24-25. ------

9. American Antivivlsection Society (1983). 100 yearsagainst cruelty. Jenkintown, PA: Author.

10. American Antivivlsection Society (1983), 3.

11. American Antivivlsection Society (1983), 5.

12. Ritvo, H. (1984). Plus Ca change: Antivivlsection then and now. Bioscience, 34(10). 626-633.

13. Shaw, B. (1927, August).Article written by Bernard Shaw and printed in the Sunday Express: England.

14. Bowker, G. (1949). Shaw on Vivisection. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 64.

15. Coblentz, E. (1952). W.R. Hearst:A portrait of his own words. New York: Simon 6 Schuster.

16. Coblentz (1952), 237.

17. Stewart,J. (1947). None so blind. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences. 21, 1. 265

18. Stewart (1947), 3.

19. Stewart (1947), 5.

20. Conroe, Jr., J. (1977). Retroapectroscope. California: Von Gehr Press.

21. Cant, C. (1953). Medical research may save your life. New York: Public Affairs Comalttee.

22. Cant (1953), 2.

23. Fredrickson, D. (1978). The National Institutes of Health yesterday, today, and tommorow. Public Heaalth Reports, 93(6), 642-647.

24. Ritvo (1984), 629-630.

25. American Antivivlsection Society (1985). Why we oppose vivisection. Pennsylvania: Author.

26. American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research (1975), The role of the American fund for alternatives to animal research. New York: Author.

27. American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research (1975), 2.

28. Sharpe, R. (1980, August). Taking our medicine. The Guardian, London.

29. Rowan, A. (1984). Of mice, models, and men: A critical evaluation of animal research. Albany: State University of New York Press.

30. Animal Welfare Institute. Aims and programs of the Animal Welfare Institute. Washington, D.C.: Author.

31. Humane Society of the United States (1984). Helping hands for animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

32. Humane Society of the United States (1985, Summer). Getting their attention: The action alert team targets legislators and chalks up successes. The Humane Society NewB. 30(3), 6-7. 266

Chapter 7

Froa AnInal Welfare to Aniaal Rights

1. Goodwin, L. (1985). Personal communication to the author from Lynn Goodwin, Development Association, Development Associate of the NSPCA.

2. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1985). MSPCA to Inspect animal deakers. Animals, 118(6), 4.

3. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1985). The ASPCA today: A statement of purposes. New York: Author

4. Mobilization for Animals (1984). Aniaal Welfare organizations: A first annual financial report. Columbus, OH: Author.

5. Harris, M. (1985). the animal rights brigade. New Society, 71, 168-171.

6 . Windeatt, P. (1985). They clearly now see the link: Militant voices. In P. Singer (ed.). In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, 179-193.

7. Martin, P. (1982). The animal rlghtB movement in the U.S. Its composition, funding sources, goals, strategies, and potential Impact on research. Boston: Harvard University PreBS.

8 . Martin (1982), 6 .

9. Mason, J. (1985). Animal rights newtork news. Animals' Agenda, v(7).

10. Hobilization for Animals (1984). A five-point plan of unity, accountablity, and action for animals. Columbus, Ohio: Author.

11. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1985, December). The Course of Humane Events, 3^ Boston: Author.

12. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. What can you do? Boycott. New York: Author.

13. ASPCA. America's first humane society. New York: Author.

14. Personal communication to the author from Lynne Goodwine, Development Associate of the MSPCA on December 13, 1985.

15. Animal Welfare Institute. Aims and programs of the Animal Welfare Institute. Washington, D.C.: Author. 267

16. ASPCA (1985), 1.

17. ASPCA (1985). A history of caring. New York: Author.

18. MSPCA (1985). HSPCA gains access to animal dealers' facilities. The course of humane events. 3U

19. MFA (1985). Worldweek for wildlife. Columbus, OH: Author.

20. Hartln (1982), 4.

21. MFA (1984), I.

22. MFA (1984), 1.

23. Humane Society of the United States (1981). Animal rights. Washington, D.C.: Author.

24. HSUS (1981), 1.

25. Morris, K., & Fox, M. (1978). On the fifth day: Animal rights and human ethics. Washington, D.C.: Acropolis Books, Ltd.

26. International Networkfor Religion and Animals. Introducing 1NRA. Washington, D.C.: Author.

27. HSUS (1984), 1.

28. HSUS (1984), 1.

29. Hoyt, J. (1986). The benefits and consequences of aniaal rights. The Humane Society News. 31, 3.

30. HSUS (1981), 1.

31. HSUS (1981), 1

32. HSUS (1981), 1.

33. Regan, T. (1983). The case foranimal riRhtB. Berkeley: University of California Press.

34. Regan (1983), 267.

35. Regan (1963), 305.

36. Regan (1983), 300.

37. HSUS (1981), 1. 268

38. Fox, M. (1983). Farm aniaal welfare and the human diet. Washington, D.C.: HSUS.

39. HSUS (1983). HSUS annual report. The Humane Society News. 30(3). 17. ------

40. Kegan (1983), 278.

41* Ryder, R. (1973). Victims of science. London: Davls-Poynter.

42. American Antivivisection Society (1983). The casebook of experiments with living animals. Jenkintown, PA: Author 269

Chapter 8

Animal Rights Organization

1* Friends of Animals. Friends of animals. New York: Author.

2. Medical Research Modernization Committee. Projects using nonhuman mammals to study human behavior. New York: Friends of Animals.

3. Friends of Animals (1985, Fall). The FOA-supported Independent committee: Medical Research Modernization Committee. Actlonline. 1 .

4. FOA (1985), 1.

5. Friends of Animals (1981). Factory farming. New York: Author.

6 . Gravitz, M. (1985). Working for animal rights. The animals' agenda. ^,(7), 4-5.

7. Gravitz (1985), 5.

8 . Gravitz (1985), 4.

9. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

10. Patterson, D., & Ryder, R. (1979). Ethical aspects of man’s relationship with animals. London: Centaur Press.

11. Society for Animal Protection Legislation (1985). The work of the Society for Animal Protection Legislation. Washington, D.C.: Author.

12. Singer (1975), 229.

13. Trans-Species Unlimited. Animals' rights— what*s it all about? State College, PA: Author.

14. TSU* Animals' rights, 2.

15. Trans-Species Unlimited. Specieslst ortrans-speclesist. State College, PA: Author.

16. Trans-Species Unlimited. Enlist now for animal rights. Pennsylvania: Author.

17. Cave, G. (1986, Jan/Feb). If you don't buy 'em, they won't kill 'em. Whole Life— New York, 6 .

18. TSU. Specieslst or transpecieslst?, 1. 270

19. Beauty Without Cruelty (1985, Fall). Welcome! Become a member of Beauty without Cruelty. The compassionate shopper. New York: Author.

20. TSU. Speciest is trans-speclesist, 1.

21. American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research. The role of AFAAK. New York.

22. Fund for Animals. At work...at home abroad. Fund for Animals, _18(2), 6 .

23. Personal communication to the author from Michael Fox. 271

Chapter 9

From Animal Rights to Animal Liberation

1. Windeatt, P. (1985). They clearly now see the link--militant voices. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc. ——— — — — —

2. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

3. Windeatt (1985), 191.

4. Harris, M. (1985). The animal rights brigade. New Society, 21(1153), 168-171.

5. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1985). University of California at Riverside: Exposed PETA News, ji, 1.

6 . People for the Ethical Treatment of AnlmalB (1985). On the front line: A radical choice. PETA News, 6 , 9-10.

7. PETA (1985), 1.

8 . Goldlust, F. (1985). Personal communication to the author from Fran Goldlust, Chairperson of PETA-Ohlo.

9. Pacheco, A. (1985). The silver spring monkeys. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc.

10. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Animal rights— why should it concern me? Washington, D.C.: Author.

11. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1985). Breaking the law for animal rights. PETA News. _6 , 7-8.

12. PETA. Animal rights. 1.

13. Mobilization for Animals (1985). Dedicated to action to end animal Buffering. Columbus, OH: Author.

14. Morgan, K. (1980). Love and anger: An organizing handbook. Connecticut: Animal Rights Network.

15. Mobilization for Animals (1984). Animal welfare organization: A first annual financial report. Columbus, OH: Author.

16. MFA (1985)

17. MFA (1984), 5. 272

18. Windeatt (1985), 191.

19. PETA (1985), 6 .

20. PETA (1985), 1. 273

Chapter 10

Major Issues Within the Aniaal Rights Movement

1. Farm Animal Reform Movement. To alleviate and eliminate animal abuse and other adverse impacts of animal agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Author.

2. Burger King Company (1986). Telephone conversation with office manager.

3. Personal communication to the author from Ginnle Bee Balrguardy, board member of International Network for Religion and Animals.

4. International Network for Religion and Animals. Introducing INRA. Washington, D.C.: Author.

5. Personal communication to the author by Michael Fox in October 1985.

6 . Spira, H. (1985). Fighting to win. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.

7. Spira (1985), 197.

8 . Welborn, K. (1985). Is man's infliction of suffering on animals immoral? In M. Fox & L. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in aniaal welfare science. 1985/86. Washington, 1).C.: Humane Society of the United States.

9. Regan, T. (1986). The case for aniaal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals.

10. United Action for Animals. Laboratory aniaal welfare work volunteers or trained combatants? A No Frills Report. New York: Author.

11. American Anti-Vivisection Society (1985). Why we oppose vivisection. Jenkintown, PA: Author.

12. Society Against Vivisection (1986). Petition to abolish animal experimentation in the state of California. Society Against Vivisection. 4.

13. Society Against Vivisection (1986), 4.

14. Scharmann, W. (1985). Ethical aspects of aniaal experimentation. In M. Fox & L. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1985/86. Washington, U.C.: Humane Society of the Uhited States. 274

15. Carson, C. (1972). Men, beasts. and Rods. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

16. Massachusetts Society for Medical Research (1985). AIDS. Massachusetts: Author.

17. Kelly, J. (1985). Alternatives to aversive procedures with aninals in the psychology teaching setting. In M. Fox & L. Mickley (£ds.). Advances in animal welfare Bclence 1985/86. Washington D.C.: Humane Society of the United States.

18. Hubbard, K. (1985). Medical research priorities. Actionline. New York: Friends of Animals.

19. Hubbard (1985), 3.

20. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare. (1979). Do we care about research animals?. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Health,

21. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1986). Alternatives to animal use in research, testing, and education. Washington, D.C.: U.S.G.P.O.

22. Jones, H. (1981). Animal rights: A view and comment. ISAR. Pennsylvania: International Society for Animal Rights.

23. Humane Society of the United States (1985). Laboratory animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

24. Animal Welfare Institute (1985). Beyond the laboratory door. Washington, D.C.: Author.

25. Magitti, P. (1984). Morris Animal Foundation. Cats Hagarine, 6 -

26. Ramsey, C. (1985, November). Personal communication to the author.

27. Barnes, D. (1985). A matter of change. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Bs b II Blackwell Inc.

28. Akers, K. (1986). Meat: Unravelling our social fabric. Vegetarian Voice. 12(4). 1.

29. Fox, M. (1983). Farm animal welfare and human diet. Washington, D.C.: Humane Society of the United States.

30. binger, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon books. 275

31. Mason, J. (1985). Brave new faro? In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.

32. Mason (1985). 106-107.

33. Faro Animal Reform Movement. Are you really that hungry? Washington, D.C.: Author.

34. Farm Animal Reform Movement. Vegetarianism like it Is. Washington, D.C.: Author.

35. Farm Animal Reform Movement. FARM. Washington, D.C.: Author.

36. Council of Agricultural Science and Technology (1981). Scientific aspects of the welfare of food animals. CAST. 91. 1-54.

37. FARM, 1.

38. Cowie, V.C. (1981). A call for understanding. The Ohio Farmer. 9, 33-34.

39. Lafferty, M. (1985, Sept. 26). Labor bites big chunk fromevery food dollar. Columbus Dispatch. 9.

40. Beauty Without Cruelty. Postcard: If you don't wantmillions of animals tortured and killed in leg-hold traps, don't buy a fur coat. New York: Author.

41. Beelman, M. (1986, April 18). Animals' friend sees limit to human rights. Columbus Dispatch.

42. Dowding, M. (1972). Furs and cosmetics: Too high a price to pay? In S. & R. Goldlovltch (Eds.), Animals, men, and morsels. New York: Taplinger, Co.

43. Mortimer, F. Debunker of hunting myths: A profile of Luke Dommer. Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting Action Alert.

44. Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting. CASH will attack the MSPCA. CASH Action Report.

45. Scanlon, P. (1983). Humans as hunting animals. In H. Miller & W. Williams (Eds.), Ethics and animals. New Jersey: Humana Press.

46. Personal communication to the author from Doug Pifer, Resource specialist for the National Rifle Association on 3/12/86.

47. Dasman, R. (1981). Wildlife biology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 276

48. Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long range ecology movement— a summary. Inquiry, 16, 95-100.

49. Greenpeace (1986). The world of greenpeace. Washington, D.C.: Author.

50. Hawkins, R. (1985). The green movement— implications for animals. In H. Fo* & L. Mickeley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare, 1985/86. Washington, D.C.: Humane Society of the United States.

51. Hawkins (1985), 278.

52. Allen, H. (1974). Animal control. Nation's Cities Magazines. 2(24), 3. ------

53. Humane Society of the Uhlted States. Unwanted animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

54. Allen (1974), 3.

55. Humane Society of the United States. Unwanted animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

56. Keed, D. (1985). PETS. Humane Society News. 30(4), 9-11.

57. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

58. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

59. Doulin, T. (1986, Jan.). Humane society in uproar about new board members. The ColumbuB Dispatch. 10.

60. Leupp, R. (1986, Jan). Humane society is composed of quality, able, caring people. The Columbus Dispatch, 6 . 277

Chapter 11

Strategies and Techniques within the Aniaal Rights Movement

1. Spira, H. (1986). Fighting to win. In P. Singer (Ed.) In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.

2. Animal Protection Institute (1984). 1984 summary of activities. Sacramento, CA: Author.

3. Aniaal Protection Institute (1984), 2.

4. Animal Protection Institute (1984), 1.

5. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1986). Protect our petB from research. Washington, D.C.: Author.

6 . Animal Protection Institute (1984), 6 .

7. Animal Protection Institute (1984), 14.

8 . Humane Society of the Unitad States(1985, Summer).Response Btays strong for pet action line. Humane Society News. 30(3), 2.

9. Humane Society of the United States (1985, Summer). WILD alternatives. Humane Society News, 30(3), 2.

10* Reed, D. (1986, Summer). Solving animal problems in your community. Humane Society News, 30(3), 14-16.

11. Fox, M., & Mickley, L. (1985). Advances in animal welfare 1985/86. Washington, D.C.: HSUS.

12. Humane Society of the United State6 (1986). Ride for freedom. Humane Society News. 31(3), 3.

13. Hoyt, J. (1986). The benefits and consequences of animal rights. Humane Society News. 31(3). 1.

14. United Action for Animals (1983). Duplicative and redundant experiments on live animals. New York: Author.

15. Friends of Animals (1985, Feb. 3). Actionline

16. Aniaal Legal Defense Fund (1986). ALDF, I.

17. Animal Legal Defense Fund (1986, April). 1986 national survey on animal rights. San Francisco, CA: Author.

18. Animal Protection Institute (1984), 9. 278

19. Aninai Protection Institute (1984), 9>

20. Society Against Vivisection (1986). World week for laboratory animals. Costa MeBa, CA: Author.

21. Society Against Vivisection (1986), 2.

22. Society Against Vivisection (1986), 3.

23. Society Against Vivisection (1986), 3.

24. Melnhardt, J. (1986). Guidelines for animal rlRhts protests. Clark Summit, PA: International Society for Animal Rights.

25. Horgan, R. (1980). Love and anger: An organizing handbook. Connecticut: Animal Rights Network.

26. Horgan (1980), 2.

27. Morgan (1980), 2.

28. Connelly, S. (1986). Our woman in New York - Activist extraordinary. Funds for Animals. 18(2). 5.

29. Fox, M. (1983). Farm animal welfare and the human diet. Washington, D.C.: Humane Society of the United States, 14.

30. Beauty Without Cruelty (1985, Fall). The compassionate shopper. New York: Author.

31. Animal Protection Institute (1984), 8 .

32. Mobilization for Animals (19B5). MFA: World week. Columbus, OH: Author.

33. American Humane Association (1986). Annual Report 1985. Colorado: Author.

34. American Humane Association (1986), 10-11.

35. Animal Protection Institute (1984), 2-3.

36. Mobilization for Animals (1986). Legislative action alert. Columbus, Ohio, Author.

37. Friends of Animals (1985). H.R. 1877: To express the LD/50 test. Actionline. 8 .

38. Friends of Animals (1985), 8 . 279

39. Harris, M. (1985). The aniaal rlghtB brigade. New Society, 21(1153), 168-171. * 40. Horgan (1980), 48.

41. Singer, P. (1975). Aniaal liberation. New York: Avon Books. 280

Chapter 12

Aniaal Welfare Legislation

1. McCrea, R. (1910). The humane movement: A descriptive survey. New York: Columbia Press, 219*

2. Morrison, H. (1981). Legislation and practice in the United States. In D. Sperlinger (Ed.), Animals in research. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

3. Mobilization for Animals (1986). Legislative action alert. Columbus, OH: Author.

4. International Society for Animal Rights (1986, Hay). Project alert update. ISAR Report. _3.

5. Mobilization for Animals (1986), 1.

6. Trull, F., & Kallikow, N. (1984). Aniaal rights movmeent: A threat to biomedical research. Cancer Investigation. 216, 479-482.

7. Holden, C. (1986). Pivotal year for lab animal welfare. Science, 232, 150-151.

8. AnimalB in Politics (1986). 1986-Animals in an election year. New York: Author.

9. Animals in Politics (1986), 1.

10. Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C., 2131, et seq; passed 1966; amended 1970, 1976, 1985.

11. Federal Register. 48, 108, 25166.

12. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Services, National Institute of Health (1985). Laboratory animal welfare: NIH Guide for Grants & Contracts. Bethesda, HD: National Inst, of Health.

13. Hatchett, A. (1986, April). Personal communication to the author from Arnett Hatchett, Chief Staff Veterinarian of the USDA.

14. American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Aniaal Care (1985). The AALAC accreditation process. AAALAC Report. 13,

15. Overcast, D., & Sales, B. (1985). Regulation of animal experimentation. Journal of the American Hedlcal Association. 254, 14, 1944-1949. 281

16* U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office (1985). Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate: The Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Program. MD: General Accounting OPfice.

17. U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services (1980). National Survey of Laboratory Animal Facilities and Resources (NIH Pub. No. 80-2091). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

18. Animal Welfare Institute (1979). Comfortable quarters for laboratory animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

19. Hidgely, M. (1985). Persons and non-persons. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.

20. Morrison (1981), 2.

21. Griffin, A., & Sechzer, J. (1983). Mandatory vs. voluntary regulation of biomedical research. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences. 406. 187-200.

22. Griffin & Sechzer (1983), 198.

23. U.S. CongreBS, House of Reoresentatlves, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (1983). Improved standards for laboratory animals. Hearings on S.657, Hearings: July 20, 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

24. U.S. Congress Senate (1983). Hearings on S.964: Animal welfare research study act of 1983. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

25. U.S. CongreBS, Office of Technology Assessment (1986). Alternatives to animal use in research, testing, and education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

26. U.S. Congress (1986), 299.

27. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture (1985). Hearings on Information dissemination and research accountability act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

28. Friends of Animals (1985, Fall). H.R. 1877, to suppress the LD/50 test. Actionllne, 8.

29. U.S. Congress (1986), 281.

30. U.S. Congress (1986), 283. 282

31. U.S. Congress (1986), 10

32. U.S. Congress (1986), 295.

33. Animal Welfare Institute (1985). Beyond the laboratory door.. Washington, D.C.: Author.

34. Humane Society of the United States (1985). HSUS gives nod to AWA. Humane Society News. 30(4), 30.

35. Hubbard, R. (1985, March). Medical research priorities— a national issue. Friends of Animals Actlonllne. 3.

36. Endangered Species Act 1973 (Public Law93-205).

37. U.S. Department of Health & HumanServices (1985). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. (NIH Pub No. 85-23). Betheada, MD: National Institute of Health. 283

Chapter 13

Break-Ins

1. Singer, P. (1975). Aniaal liberation. New Yor: Avon Books.

2. PETA News. The aniaal liberation front— on the front line: A radical choice. 6, 9.

3. Windeatt, P. (198S). They clearly now see the link: Militant voices. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of anlaals. New York: Basil Blackwell inc.

A. Center for lnfomration on Research on Animals (1986). Animal rights movement. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research.

5. C1RA (1986), A.

6. Wade, N. (1978). A new militancy in England. Science, 199, 279.

7. Taub, E. (198A). The incident at the primate laboratory of Dr. Taub*

8. Pacheco, A. (1986). Letter distributed to PETA members and other interested parties by Alex Pacheco.

9. Taub, E. (198A), 8.

10. Couch, J. (1982, September). Court of Appeals of Maryland. Term 1982, No. 123.

11. Morrison, A., & Hand, P. (198A). The Taub case. Science, 225, A665.

12. Fisher, K. (1986, April). Animal activists appeal. APA Monitor, 13.

13. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1986). PETA letter. Washington, D.C.: Author*

1A. C1KA (1986), 6.

15. CIRA (1986), 8.

16. Center for Information on Research on Animals (1986). Break-ins and violent activities in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research,.

17. C1KA (1986), 15. 284

18. Well, R. (1986, November). Inhuman bondage. Omni, 66.

19. Well (1986), 128.

20. Culliton, B. (1985). HHS halts animal experiments. Science, 229, 447.

21. Well (1986), 130.

22. Sun, M. (1985). USDA fines Pennsylvania animal laboratory. Science. 229. 423.

23. Scientists Center for Animal Welfare (1985). HHS secretary suspends funding of PA brain trauma experiments. SCAW Newsletter. 1(3), 1,

24. Sun (1985), 423

25. CIRA (1986), 14.

26. C1KA (1986), 6.

27. Holden, C. (1986). Centers targeted by activists. Science. 149.

28. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1985). The City of Hope. PETA News 5t 2.

29* Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986, Summer). NIH funds reinstated at City of Hope. Foundation for biomedical research newsletter. 3.

30. Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986). Overview of the animal rights movement. Washington, O.C.: Author.

31. Associate Press (1985, March). Judge questions Lifeforce's motives. London Free Press. 1.

32. Associate Press (1985), 1.

33. MacDonald, C. (1985, Jan). Animal rights activists show film of stolen animals. The Canadian Press.

34. Prosser, L. (1986, Mar). State House News Service. Boston: Massachusetts State House, 1.

35. Prosser (1986), 1.

36. Center for Information on Research with Animals (1986), 12.

37. Sperling, S. (1985, August). I was violated. APA Monitor. 5. 285

38. Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986, Summer). NIH confirms UC-Rlverslde Compliance with PHS policy. Foundation for Biomedical Research Newsletter. JL

39. Center for Information on Research with Animals (1966), 1.

AO. FBR Newsletter (1986, Spring), 3.

41. CIRA (1986). Break-ins and violent activities, 3

42. Hardy, C. (1986, Harch). Behind the ALF: New respect for the animal rights radicals. Whole Life. 6.

43. PETA (1986), 9.

44. California Attorney General names Aniaal Liberation Front in report on organized crime. FBR Newsletter. 3.

45. Windeatt 91985), 191.

46. Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986, Fall). Activists gain control of Toronto Humane Society. FBR Newsletter. 3. 286

Chapter 14

Financial Analysis of the Aniaal Rights Movement

1. Martin, P. (1982). The animal rights movement in the U.S.; Its composition, funding sources, goals, strategies, and potential Impact on research. Boston: Harvard University Press.

2. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1984). Annual report— charitable organization (Federal Form 990). New York: Author

3. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (198S). The ASPCA. New York: Author.

4. Mobilization for Animals (1984). Animal welfare organizations— A first annual financial report. Columbus, OH: Author.

5. Martin (1982), 6.

6. Mobilization for Animals (1984), 3.

7. Martin (1982), 2.

8. Humane Society of the United States (1984). Helping hands for animals. Washington, D.C.: Author.

9. Mobilization for Animals (1984), S.

10. HSUS (1986) & (1985). Financial statement of the HSUS. Humane Society News.

11. HSUS (1986). Financial statement of the HSUS. Humane Society News, 17.

12. HSUS (1986), 17.

13. HSUS (1986), 20.

14. HSUS (1986), 20

15. CASH (1986). Action Report. 1.

16. HSUS (1985 & 1986), 18.

17. Mobilization for Animals (1984). Five point plan of unity accountability and action for animals. Columbus, OH: Author.

18. HSUS (1985 & 1986), 18. 287

19. Fund for Animals (1884). Annual report - charitable organisation (Federal form 990). New York: Author.

20. Fund for Animals (1986). At work, at home, abroad. Fund for Animals. 18(2), 6.

21. Connelly, S. (1986). Our woman in N.Y.— -activist extraordinary. Fund for Animals, 18(2), 6.

22. Fund for Animals (1984). Annual report— Charitable organizations (Federal Form 990). New York: Author.

23. Martin (1982), 6.

24. Friends of Animals (1981). Factory farms. New Jersey: Author

25. Friends of Animals (1984). Annual report— charitable organizations (Federal form 990). New York: Author.

26. Friends of Animals (1984), Note 7.

27. Friends of Animals (1984), Note 10.

28. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1986). Alternatives to animal use in research testing, and education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

29. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

30. United Action for Animals (1985). Annual report— Charitable organizations. (Federal form 990). New York: Author.

31. United Action for Animals (1984). Laboratory animal welfare work volunteers or trainee combatants? New York: Author.

32. Mobilization for Animals (1984), 4.

33. Jones, H. (1986). Personal communication to the author from Helen Jones, President of United Action for Animals.

34. Martin (1982), 19.

35. International Society for Animal Rights (1986, March). ISAR Newsletter, 1.

36. International Society for Animal Rights (1986, July). ISAR Newsletter. 1.

37. Mobilization for Animals (1984), 4. 288

38* Mobilization for Animals (1985) Dedicated to action to end animal Buffering. Columbust Oh: Author

39. Mobilization for Animals (1985). Financial statement. Columbus, OM: Author.

40. Mobilization for Animals (1984), 1.

41. Mobilization for Animals (1985), 2.

42. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (1986). PETA. Washington, D.C.: Author.

43. Cruz, M. (1987, Jan). Personal communication to the author from Midge Cruz, Financial Manager of PETA.

44. Martin (1982), 2.

45. Connelly (1986), 6. 289

Chapter IS

Animal Research Alternatives

1* Rowan, A. (1984). Of nice, models, and men: A critical evaluation of animal research. Albany: State University of New York Press.

2. Loew, P. (1982). Developments in the hiBtory of the use of animals in medical research. In W. Dodds & F. Orlans (Eds.), Scientific perspectives on animal welfare. New York: Academic Press.

3. Rowan (1984), 42.

4. Goldman, L. (1981). The medical sciences. In D. Sperlinger (Ed.), Animals in research. New York: John Wiley & sons.

5. Loew (1984), 3.

6. Grande, F. (1967). Introduction to the symposium. In F. Grande & M. Visscher (Eds.), Claude Bernard and experimental medicine. Cambridge, MD: Schenckman Publishing Co.

7. Rowan (1984), 43.

8. Loew (1982), 3.

9* Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986, March). The use of animals in biomedical research and testing. Washington, D.C.: Author.

10. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1986). Alternatives to animal use in research, testing, and education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

11. Trans-Species Unlimited (1982). Editorial: ALF art vandal disgraces animal rights movement. One World: TSU Newsletter.

12. Russell, W., & Burch, R. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Metheun & Co. Ltd.

13. Bernard, C. (1860). Cahier Rouge: Translated by the Bibliotheque Nationale (1963). In F. Grande & M. Visscher (Eds.), Claude Bernard and experimental medicine. Cambridge, MD: Schenckman Publishing Co.

14. Bernard (1860), 188.

15. U.S. Congress (1986), 113-114. 290

16. Conroe, J., & Dripp, R. (1976). Scienclfic basis for the support of biomedical science. Science, 192, 105-111.

17. Stark, [)., & Shops it*, C. (1983). Developing alternative assay systems for toxicity. In The role of animals in biomedical research; Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 406, 92.

18. U.S. Congress (1986), 120-123.

19. Carson, E. (1983). The role of mathematical models in biomedical research. In P. Turner (Ed.), Animals in scientific research; An affective substitute for nan? London: MacMillan Press Ltd.

2U. U.S. Congress (1986), 138.

21. Meyer, U., & Meyer, P. (1977). Dynamics and bases of recoveries of functions after injuries to the cerebral cortex. Physiological Psychology. 5^, 133-165.

22. U.S. Congress (1986), 64.

23. U.S. Congress (1986), 139.

24. Hubbard, K. Position paper: On the use of animals to study. Medical Research Modernization Committee. 291

Chapter 16

Animal Behavioral Research

1. Mobilization for Animals (1984, February). Direct action program. Columbus, OH: Author

2. Coile, C., & Miller, N. (1984, June). How radical animal activists try to mislead humane people. American Psychologists, 700-701.

3. Elbl-Eibesfeldt, 1. (1970). Ethology— The biology of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

4. Scott, J. (1960). Aggression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

5. Hodges, C., Denenberg, V., & Zarrow, M. (1968). Mice reared with rats: Effects of preweaning and postweaning social interactions upon adult behavior. Behavior. 30, 259-274.

6. Mobilization for Animals. (1984). Psychology experiments on animals: The example of Harry Harlow. Columbus, OH: Author.

7. Harlow, H. (1959). Love in infant monkeys. Scientific American, 200(6 ), 68.

8. Young, W., Coy, R., & Phoenix, C. (1964). Hormones and sexual behavior. Science. 143, 212.

9. Hess, U., & Akert, K. (1955). Experimental data on the role of the hypothalamus in mechanisms of emotional behavior. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. 73, 127-129.

10. Singh, D., & Meyer, D. (1968). Eating and drinking— by rats with lesions of the septum and the ventromedial hypothalamus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 65. 163-166.

11. Mason, W., & Lott, D. (1976). Ethology and comparative psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 129-154.

12. Harlow, H., & Harlow, M. (1965). The affectional systems. In A. Schrier, H.H. Harlow, & F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of non-human primates. New York: Academic Press.

13. Collier, C., Mast, J., Meyer, D., & Jacobs, C. (1979). Approach- avoidance conflict In preweanling rats— a developmental study. Animal Learning and Behavior, _7, 514-520.

14. Bowlby, J. (1980). Separation. New York: Basic Books. 292

15. George, C., & Mein, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abused children: Approach, avoidance, and aggression. Child Development. 50. 306-308.

16. Jonason, K., & Enloe, L. (1971). Alterations in social behavior following septal and amygdaloid lesions in the rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 75. 286-301.

17. Ritchie, G. (1975). Effects of limbic lesions on social attraction in rats. Dissertation: The Ohio State University.

18. Meyer, D., Ruth, R*, & Lavond, D. (1978). The septal coheslveness effect: Its robustness and main determinants. Physiology and Behavior, 2±(6), 1027-1029.

19. Jonason, K., Enloe, L., Contrucci, J., & Meyer, P. (1973). Effects of simultaneous and successive septal and amygdaloid lesions on social behavior of ratB. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 83. 54-61.

20. Jonason et al. (1973), 60.

21. MFA (1984), 1.

22. Church, R. (1963). The varied effects of punishment on behavior. Psychological Review. 70(5), 369-402.

23. Walters, G., & Grusee, J. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.

24. Panksepp, J., & Trowill, J. (1970). Positive incentive contrasts with rewarding electrical stimulation of the brain. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 70(3), 358-363.

25. Weiss, J. (1971). Effect of punishing the coping response (conflict) on stress pathology in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 77, 14-21.

26. Bodnar, R., Kelly, D., Brutus, M., & Glusman, M. (1978). Stress induced analgesia: Effects of naloxone following cold water swims. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 12. 125-126.

27. Swazey, J. (1974). Chlorpromazlne in psychiatry: A study of therapeutic innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

28. Swazey (1974), 63.

29. Miller, N. (1983). Behavioral medicine: Symbiosis between laboratory and clinic. Annual Review of Psychology. 34, 1-31.

30. Mobilization for Animals. Psychology experiments on animals: The example of Harry Harlow. Columbus, OH: Author. 293

Chapter 17

Animal Care in Laboratories

1. Carlson, A.J. (1913). 1913 FASEB policy on animal experimentation. Public Affairs, 43. 11.

2. Stevens, C. (1984). Urgent need to strengthen the animal welfare act. In National symposium of imperatives in research animal use; Scientific needs and animal welfare. National Institutes ot Haalth Office for Protection from Research Risks, N1H Pub. No. 85-2746, 179-181.

3. U.S. General Accounting Office (1985). Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate. Washington, D.C.

4. U.S. General Accounting Office (1985), 32.

5. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1986). Alternatives to animal use in research, testing, and education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1985). Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Health.

7. Brandt, Jr, E.N. (1983). PHS perspectives on misconduct in science. Public Health Reports, 98(2). 136-140

8. Miers, M. (1985, July). Current N1H perspectives on misconduct in science. American Psychologist. 40(7), 831-834.

9. Cohen, B. (1984) Responsible use and care of animals at a research university. National symposium on imperatives in research animal use; Scientific needs and animal welfare. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

10. Society for Neuroscience (1985). Membership directory 1985. Washington, D.C.: Society for Neuroscience.

11. Foundation for Biomedical Research (1986). Caring for laboratory animals. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research.

12. American Psychological Association (1985). Guidelines for the ethical conduct in the care and use of animals. Washington, D.C.; APA. 294

Chapter 18

The Cost of Animal Rights

1. Media General-Associated Press (19B5, October). Testing on animals is needed poll says. Ohio State University Lantern.

2. Center for Information on Research Animals (1986). The use of pound animals in biomedical research and education. Washington, D.C.: foundation for Biomedical Research.

3. McCabe, K. (1986, August). Who will live and who will die? The Washingtonian. 112-118 & 153-157.

4. McCabe (1986), 11.

5. Wade, N. (1978). New vaccine may bring man and chimpanzee into tragic conflict. Science, 200. 1028-1030.

6. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1986). Alternatives to animal use in research, testing, and education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

7. U.S. Congress (1986), 91.

8. King, F., & Yarbrough, C. Medical and behavioral benefits from primate research. In W. Gay (Ed.), Health benefits of animal research. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research.

9. U.S. Congress (1986), 55.

10. Center for Information on Research AnimalB (1986). Figures on animal research. Washington, D.C.: Author.

11. River, C. (1986). The International standard is on your side. Lab Animal. 15(1), 10.

12. U.S. Congress (198b), 57.

13. Culliton, B. (1986). Congress boosts NIH budget 17.3Z. Science. 2.(34), 808-809.

14. Holden, C. (1986). Pivotal year for lab animal welfare. Science. 232. 150-151.

15. Holden (1986), 150.

16. Knauff, D. (1986). APHIS funds could be increased. Lab Animal, 15(18), 15. 295

17. Norman, C. (1986). Science board study indicates U.S. science healthy. Science, 231. 791.

18. U.S. Congress, office of Technology Assessment (1985). Commercial biotechnology; An international analysis. Washington, D*C* * U.S. Government Printing Office. 296

Chapter 19

Conclusion

1* Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

2. Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.

3. Decision Research Corporation (1985, February). Public perceptions about the use of animals in biomedical research: A quantitative study. Lexington, MA: Temple Barker, & Sioane, Inc.

4. Research Strategies Corporation (1985). National family opinion research: Animals in research. Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Biomedical Research.

5. Feeney, D. (1985). Human rights and animal welfare. Talk presented at the 1985 American Psychological Association. Appendix A Letter sent to various animal welfare/rights organizations

297 298

Cairo All 2650 Neil Ave. Columbus, Ohio A3202 (614) 263-9714

October 22, 1985

1 have just recently heard about your organization. I am very interested in obtaining some information about your activities, objectives, and purpose. If possible could you provide me with the following information:

How many members do you have? Where do you receive your funding from? What other organizations are you affiliated with? If you are a tax-exempt organization can you provide your financial reportB? What are your basic stands in regards to recreational hunting, the use of animals in scientific research, factory farming, and animal rights?

Any additional information that you may have in the form of articles, pamphlets, brochures, etc. would also be of great help to me. Since there are so many different animal welfare/rights groups, I am trying to sort out the differences and similarities between these groups. Your help will be greatly appreciated and 1 would like to thank you in advance for your co-operation.

Sincerely,

Ms. Cairo All APPENDIX B

LIST OF ACRONYMS

299 300

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AAALAC - American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care

AAVS — American Anti-Vivlsectln Society

AFAAK - American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research

AHA - American Humane Association

AIP - Animals in Politics

AL - Animal Liberation

ALDF - Animal Legal Defense Fund

ALF - Animal Liberation' Front

ANPAC - Animal Political Action Committee

APA - American Psychological Association

APHIS - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services

API - Animal Protection Institute

AKL - Animal Rescue League

ASPCA - American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

AWA - Animal Welfare Act

AW I - Animal Welfare Institute

BCA - Buddhists Concerned for Animals

BKBC - Burger King Boycott Coalition

BWC - Beauty Without Cruelty

CASH - Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting

CEASE - Coalition to End Animal Suffering in Experiments

CTA - Connecticut Trappers Association

OOD - U.S. Department of Defense

FACT — Food Animals Concern Trust 301

FARM - Farm Animal Reform Movement

FBR - Foundation for Biomedical Research

FDA - Food and Drug Administration

FFA - Fund for Animals

FOA - Friends of Animals

GAO - U.S. Government Accounting Office

HAKE - Humans Against Rabbit Exploitation

H.B. - House Bill

HEW - U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

HHS - U.S. Department of Health and Humane Services

H.K. - House Rule

HSUS - Humane Society of the United States

1AAPEA - International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals

IFA - International Fund for AnimalB

ILACUC - Institutional Laboratory Animal Care and Use Committee

INKA - International Network for Religion and Animals

1PPL - International Primate Protection League

ISAP - Institute for the Study of Animal Problems/part of HSUS

1SAK - International Society for Animal Rights

ISRAK - International Society for Religion and Animal Rights

MFA - Mobilization for Animals

MKMC - Medical Research Modernization Committee/related with FoA

HSPCA - Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

NAAHE - National Association for the Advancement of Humane Education

NAAL - National Alliance for Animal Legislation NAUR - National Association for Biomedical Research

NEAVS - New England Anti-Vivisection Society

N1H - National Institute of Health

NSMR - National Society for Hedical Research

OTA - Office of Technology and Assessment - Congress

PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

PHS - U.S. Department of Public Health Services

P*L. - Public Law

SAPL - Society for Animal Protective Legislation

SAV - Society Against Vivisection

S.B. - Senate Bill

TSU - Trans-Specie6 Unlimited

UAA - United Action for Animals

UH - United Humanitarians

USC - University of California

USUA - United States Department of Agriculture

VAR - Veterinarians for Animals APPENDIX C

INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

303 304

Cleveland Armory - President of Fund for Animals - Vice-president of Beauty Without Cruelty

George Cave - President of Trans-species Unlimited - Coordinator for Farm Animal Reform Movement - Director of the Society for the Study of Ethics & Animals - Advisor for Animal Political Action Committee

William Cave - President of the American Anti-Vivisection Society - Vice-president of Beauty Without Cruelty

Muriel Lady Dowding - Vice-president of Beauty Without Cruelty - Board member of American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research

Michael Fox - Director of the Institute for the Study of Animal Problems, HSUS - President of the International Network for Religion and Animals

John Hoyt - President of the Humane Society for Protection of Animals

Helen Jones - President of the International Society of Animal Rights - Vice-president of Beauty Without Cruelty

Shirley McGreal - Chairwoman of the International Primate Protection League - Member of the National Advisory Board of the Animal Protection Institute

Henry Splra - Coordinator of the Coalition to Stop Draize Rabbit Blinding Tests - Coordinator of the Coalition to Abolish the LD50 Test - Member of the National Advisory Board of the Animal Protective Institute 305

Ethel Thurston Chairwoman of Beauty Without Cruelty Board member of American Fund for Alternatives

Joyce Tischler Executive Director of Animal Legal Defense Fund Member of the National Advisory Board of the Animal Protection Institute

Cretchen Wyler Vice-president of Beauty Without Cruelty Vice-chairperson for Fund for Animals Board member of the American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research

d Information was obtained from brochures, newsletters, and other published materials distributed by the above cited organizations* APPENDIX D

MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

306 APPQOIX D

Organization Founded Membership Oppose Tactics/Strategies/Programs

ALF 1976 500 Research, cccmercial fanning, BreaX-ins hunts, rodeos, any form of Int'l animal use/misuse

CEASE 1979 100 Research Demonstrate, pickett, educate, protests, civil MA disobedience

TSU 1981 7 Research, ocmnercial fanning Demonstrate, boycott, hunting, wildlife management civil disobedience, lobby FA trapping

PEEA 1981 120,00D Research, nrmnercial farming Lobby, demonstrate, civil animals in institutionalized disobedience D.C. settings

MFA 1981 80,000 Research, animals in institu­ Lobby, demonstrate, OH tionalized settings, trapping educate

1SAR 1959 22,000 Research, oncmprninl farming, Lobby, demonstrate FA animal exploitation

IAA 1967 15,000 Research Lobby, educate NY

FOA 1957 125,000 Research, cxmnercial fanning, Lobby, demonstrate, NY trapping, hunting boycott 307 Organization Founded Membership Oppose Tacti cs/Strateg i es/Programs

AID? 1978 150 Research, oocmercial farming, Legal actions CA hunting

FARM 1981 5000 Cccrmrcial farming Demonstrate, boycott, D.C. lobby

BH3C 1972 500 Use of animals in cosmetic Lobby, advertise, NY and fashion industries boycott, educate

AAVS 1883 10,000 Research Lobby, demonstrate, PA educate

CASH 1976 10,000 Sport hunting Lobby, demonstrate, picket NY legal actions

FUND 1967 200,000 Research, ooranercial farming Lobby, demonstrate, pet trapping, rodeos, wildlife control programs NY management3!

IPPL 1974 2,000 Capture of primates or their Lobby, protest, educate SC use in institutionalized settings

AFAAR 1977 5,000 Research Fund research on NY alternatives to animal use

SAPL 1955 ? Research, trapping Lobby D.C.

HSUS 1954 300,000 Research, aonmercial farming, Lobby, educate 308 D.C. hunting, wildlife management3

AMI 1951 STAFF:10 Research, wildlife management3 Educate D.C. Organization Founded Membership Oppose Thctics/Strategies/Programs

API 1968 200,000 Wildlife management/use3 Educate, demonstrate CA. research

IFAW 1969 500,000 Wildlife management/use3 Educate MA

ASPCA 1866 40,000 Pets for research use, Pet care centers, educate, occmsrcial farming, wildlife lobby NY managements

HSPCA 1886 50,000 Pets for research use, ocnnercial Pet care centers, educate, KA fanning, wildlife management3 lobby

Wildlife management in this sense moans human intervention with the survival of endangered species or the killing or maiming of animals is their natural habitat. 309 APPENDIX E

ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS* FINANCIAL INFORMATION

310 311

Appendix E

Animal Rights Organizations' Financial Information far 1984

Expenditures Fund (In thousands S) Balance at Fund Support fc Direct Indirect Beginning Balance Revenue Animal Animal of at Organization (in thousands) Total Care Care Year end of year

AAVS* — 362 HA 362 ——

AFAARb 39 46 NA 46 50 126

APIC 2959 2888 NA 2888 355 426

ASPCA* 8607 6907 6338 2569 6089 5788

AWId — 666 HA 866 — —

BWOC*1 10 10 HA 10 16 16 a a P 76 50 HA 50 70 95 fUAb 2744 2453 1847 606 2060 2351

FUND** 1497 1396 567 829 1090 1191 HSUS* 12,705 4906 HA 4906 — 8460

IFAV^ 4312 4149 272 3877 — 1856

ISARf 158 283 11 272 491 515

MFA9 276 272 NA 272 5 9

MSPCAh — — — — — 43,7690

UAAb 201 190 2 168 1429 1441 312

Notes for Appendix £

- All figures reflect thousands of dollar

- Indirect animal care services represent funds spent on legal/lobby efforts, meetings, mailing costs, operating costs, etc.

- No available financial information could be obtained for PETA

- NA: not applicable because the specified organization does not maintain/provide animal care services like spaying, neutering, adoption services, rescue services, etc. a Information provided by AAVS. No other financial information was presented. b Data obtained from the organization's Annual Report— charitable organization (federal form 990) on file with the New York State Department, Office of Charities Registration, 162 Washington Ave., Albany, New York 12331. c API: Report on examination of financial statement, California: Author. d AWI: 33rd Annual Report, 1 July 1983 - June 1984. Washington, D.C.: Author. e HSUS: Human Society News, 30, 3, 18-19. f ISAR: Financial statements, December 31, 1984. Pennsylvania: Author. g MFA: Statement of revenues expenditures and changes in fund balance, Year ended May 31, 1984. Columbus, OH: Author. h MFA; Animal welfare organizations, a first annual report. Columbus, OH: Author. APPENDIX F

LETTER FROM PETA

313 314

I People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals t’ FC Box J25b Washington DC20015 202*726-0156

January 14. 1987

Dear Friend of PETAt

Thank you for your Interest in PETA and for your request for financial information. 'PETA has had such substantial growth* during its short five year history* that ve felt it would be prudent at this tine to hire a Certified Public Accounting flrn to do a complete audit of our financial records for the last four years. This differs fron the financial statements reviewed’ by a CPA firm that we have had in the past. The auditing firm of Verkouteren Auerbach Olson t Company located in Silver Spring* Maryland has been hired and is expected to complete their audit by February/March 1987. As soon as the audit is completed* we will send you the most recent audited financial statements. Also* at that time we will update all of our filings with the better business bureau* various charity reporting service bureaus and the individual States which require financial information. In the interim* these agencies have been contacted and are aware that the information they have requested will be available upon completion of the audit. Thank you again for your interest in PETA' and for your patience and understanding. Sincerely*

Hidge Crux Financial Manager