Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 47 ANIMAL WELFARE AND HUMAN BENEFIT: RATIONALE EXPANSION AS STRATEGYIN THE ANTI-VIVISECTION CAMPAIGN Karl R. Kunkel, Southwest Missouri State University ABSTRACT Research in the construction of social problems examines claims-making activity as groups attempt to define conditions as problems. Previous research on domain expansion documents how established claims become the foundation for new sets of concerns. In the campaign for the rights of laboratory animals, groups attempting to construct these conditions as problems do not solely rely on cruelty rhetoric for moving the public and lawmakers to action. Realizing the culture does not provide inherent sympathy for these animals, groups attempt to link their concern to other rationales, threat to humans and waste of taxpayers' money, for supporting a desired outcome. INTRODUCTION as subjects in psychological research (Ulrich Vivisection, the use of live animals in re­ 1991 ). Consistent with the philosophy advo­ search, has been a major concern of the ani­ cated by many animal rights groups, animals mal rights movement since the campaign have the right not to be used as instruments for began in the late 1970s (Finsen, Finsen 1994; human benefit and, because they suffer and/ Jasper, Nelkin 1992). Two early examples of or die in this type of research, vivisection is a public protest illustrate this saliency. During problem that needs elimination. :=::;976, armed with the moral stance advocated Numerous organizations are concerned !!!!!'Jy Singer's (1975) Animal Liberation, Henry with defining the use of animals in research as :=;pira lead a group demonstrating against a a social problem. Examples of these organi­ =ong-running research program on cat sexu­ zations include People for the Ethical Treat­ iiillity at the American Museum of Natural His­ ment of Animals (PETA), Physicians Commit­ -:ory in Manhattan (Jasper, Poulsen 1993). tee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Psy­ ~his action was later followed by Spira's 1980 chologists for the Ethical Treatment of Ani­ =::irganized protest of animal testing in the mals (Psych ET A), Last Chance for Animals ~reduction of Revlon cosmetics (Jasper, Nelkin (LCA), the American Anti-Vivisection Society jjji1992). The campaign against vivisection was, (AAVS), and the National Anti-Vivisection Soci­ jjjjiand continues to be, at the center of the animal ety (NAVS). Their objective is to end cruel treat­ =rights movement. Estimates vary on the num­ ment of animals. These groups strive to -ber of animals used in research each year in change people's attitudes and habits so that the United States. The National Anti-Vivisec­ members of the public will put pressure on !!!tion Society (n.d.) claims the number is be­ both companies and governmental agencies - tween 17 and 22 million ("The Campaign for that either conduct or fund research on ani­ ::Life"). Other sources (American Anti-Vivisec­ mals, as well as policymakers who are asked iition Society n.d.) report numbers as high as to outlaw certain vivisection practices. PET A, = 100 million ("STOP Why We Oppose Vivisec­ in its journal Animal Times, provides lists of !!!tion"). companies that test products on animals and • The use of animals in research takes many asks members to boycott these companies. =terms, all of which are objectionable in the Animal rights groups concerned with vivisec­ :: eyes of animal rights sympathizers. Animals tion also lobby for legal restrictions on animal iiare used in product safety testing, including experimentation. For example, various local :::cosmetics and various household products. jurisdictions have outlawed the Draize eye =Animals are used in medical research includ­ test, where substances are placed in the eyes :=ing basic biological education, the study of of rabbits to test for toxicity, and the California :drug and alcohol addiction, observing the general assembly has considered such a =etiology of disease, developing surgical tech­ measure on the state level (Millsaps 1990). =niques, vaccinations, and drugs. Furthermore, PETA asks members to write legislators urg­ .-animals are subjects in a variety of research ing them to support legislation restricting or :;::;projects sponsored and performed by the U.S. outlawing vivisection. ~ilitary. Examples include radiation exposure This examination of claims-making rheto­ :;:::ind attempts to understand war injuries (e.g., ric concentrates on attempts to construct the iiiJead injuries) so that treatment can be devel­ use of animals in biomedical research as a ==,ped (Maggitti 1994 ). Animals are also used problem requiring change. This issue is of 48 Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology particular interest because vivisection propo­ Animals; Robert Sharpe (1988), The Crue1 nents believe research on animals is impor­ Deception: The Use of Animals in Medica/ tant for human health. It is widely claimed by Research; and Peter Singer (1975), Anima/ pro-vivisectionists that improved human health Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of and increased longevity is dependent on re­ Animals. Qualitative content analysis of the search involving animals. Some people have anti-vivisection rhetoric contained in these 1 trouble feeling sympathy for research animals books provided additional data for this case 1 when the perceived alternative is loss of hu­ study of anti-vivisection claims-making strat. man life and quality of life. Furthermore, most egy. animals used for medical research are ro­ dents making sympathy and mass public Cruelty Rhetoric action unlikely. Groups claiming biomedical The victim, a winsome little squirrel monkey, vivisection is a social problem solely because is shown swinging happily in his cage. Then, the practice is cruel to laboratory animals step by horrifying step, he becomes less and probably will not convince many people to less a sensate creature and more a speci­ support their cause. men. First, he is immobilized in a plexiglass An examination of rhetorical claims-mak­ yoke for anesthetizing. Then, still alive, cut ing by various anti-vivisection groups reveals open along the abdomen. Then beheaded. their strategy does not rely solely on the cruelty The skull is cracked away from the brain. The issue. Much of the rhetoric does stress the brain, eyes still attached, is frozen, bisected, suffering of animals in research labs; how­ and sliced like a ham. The slices are mounted. ever, rationale expansion can be seen in their A scientist peers at one slice under the micro­ strategy. Current rhetoric can be divided into scope. The monkey is now only an abstract two broad categories of claims: 1) the contin­ composition, a cluster of dots in a dull sea of ued issue of cruelty supplemented by recent protoplasm. "Beautiful,• says the scientist, development of alternatives to vivisection, and with rare emotion in his voice, "Just beautiful". 2) alleged lack of benefit from animal experi­ (AAVS n.d. STOP: Why We Oppose Vivisec­ mentation and the tremendous taxpayer cost tion) of such research. The initial and primary concern involves th, STUDYINGRHETORICALSTRATEGY AMONG suffering and death of animals in researc ANTI-VIVISECTION GROUPS laboratories. Pamphlets distributed by the, Data for this study were derived using a organizations reflect the notion of cruelty. Fe qualitative content analysis of claims-making example, monkeys are pictured locked i' activity and rhetorical devices used by indi­ small cages peering through the bars or ir. viduals and groups in the anti-vivisection move­ mobilized in laboratory equipment. Dogs ar,: ment. Data sources include newsletters, other cats are displayed in similar situations. It 1 mailings, and organizations' home pages on common to see leaflets, pamphlets, and oth, the World Wide Web, as well as observations written material containing pictures of livir; and interviews conducted at two animal rights monkeys, dogs, and cats with pieces of scie· conferences in June 1990 and November tific equipment embedded in their heads, mar 1991. These data provide insight to the rheto­ of which have wires connecting the animals: ric and strategies used by activists when ad­ machines recording biological functions. vancing the rights of animals. Data were col­ Animal experiments are graphically d lected from June 1990 through February 1996. scribed in leaflets, such as one distributed I During the course of analyzing rhetorical LCA entitled, "Facts About Vivisection." Th content of claims-making activities by anti­ rhetorical device contains the following se: vivisection groups, it became apparent that tion: these groups universally advocate, quote, and endorse particular books critical of vivisection Vivisection is inhumane. There are no laws and written by people said to be experts. guaranteeing protection from pain in research These monographs are claimed by anti-vivi­ laboratories. Anesthetics are not regularly section groups to be articulations of their posi­ used; dogs are debarked to eliminate their tion and arguments. Recommended books cries of agony. 100 million animals a year are include: Michael W. Fox (1990), Inhumane shot, electrocuted, irrigated, force-fed toxic Society: The American Way of Exploiting substances, burned, drowned, suffocated, Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 49 crushed, tortured, forced to cannibalize, EXPANSION OF CRUEL TY RHETORIC: starved, frozen, deprived of the company of ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMALS TESTING other animals,