Animals do have rights. Rights may be defined as something that is morally and ethically proper-a human construction but I interpret rights for animals as the will to live. Animals have a will to survive, a desire to avoid pain and suffering and a desire to live in their natural environment. The animals we experiment on don't have mechanisms to fight back and stick up for their will to live. Since we are entrenched in a human world full of human constructs, we don't believe other species have the rights which we define. Because we define and control these rights, we have purposely left other species out of the debate to pursue a science of domination and destruction.
Francisco Franco's opinions voiced in last week's Review reflect the Cartesian and Baconian science we practice today. These founders of modern science believed that scientific knowledge has the power to "conquer and subdue" nature. This philosophy believes that man is the master and possessor of nature. The core assumption is that humans are at the top of the "evolutionary ladder." We consider ourselves the most highly evolved of all species and the most intelligent of all species. We think of evolution as having direction and purpose and we believe that purpose to be the evolution of man.
The advent of religion made humans distinct from other species of animals. We no longer thought of ourselves as animals but as something separate and special. This separation from our animal counterparts has encouraged the belief that humans have free domain over the earth. It is this separation that has created a scientific, agricultural, industrial and cultural ideology which perceives nature to be full of "resources" to be exploited by humans.
The philosophy of Bacon and Descartes is relevant to this discussion on how we treat animals because their ideology set the foundation for modern science. It is Descartes who believed that animals were automata or machines. Descartes believed animals to be devoid of pleasure and pain and compared them to be governed by the same principles as a clock. Although we have become more "humane" about animal treatment in the last 350 years, the underlying assumption that animals have no rights because they are an animal-not human, remains. We are unable to see ourselves as animals because this would require us to change the way we interact with the earth and the way we pursue science.
Placing ourselves at the top of the "evolutionary ladder" allowed our humanistic ideology to become ingrained in our culture. This ideology has made us blind to alternative ways in approaching animal experimentation. We don't think to question how we think because we are locked into a method which has been practiced for the last three centuries.
It is difficult to break free from a pattern of thinking which isn't discussed except by a small minority who are characterized as "radicals." It is difficult to gain support for alternative methods when the scientific world is blind to the ideologies which dictate our interaction with the natural world.
Carol Adams at the forum last week was asking us to step back and look critically at how we think. The humanist perspective views humans as separate from nature and the ecological perspective views humans as part of nature. Adams explained the dualisms that are prevalent in scientific thinking: the separation of mind/body, rational/emotion, and human/animal. I question the direction of a science that creates these dualism's and a science that encourages separation instead of connection. I question if a science based upon a holistic perspective could be the science we teach and practice in the twenty- first century - a science where humans are not at the top of the evolutionary ladder but a branch of the evolutionary tree. This tree, as Adams described, enables us to see ourselves not as superior in terms of evolution but equal. Transforming our science from an objective to a subjective one and from a reductionist approach to a holistic approach would change our interactions with the earth.
We are taught to think about the world from a humanistic perspective. Humanism defines the place of humans in the universe as one of domination. The "grand" science we practice is ultimately one of the sources for our destructive thinking and our ongoing battle against nature.
The use of chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides in agriculture, is one example of our "battle" against bugs, weeds and nature. These chemicals created by scientists in conjunction with agribusiness have been proven to have devastating effects on ecosystems and human systems. Instead of solving the pest problem, these chemicals perpetuate a cat and mouse game between nature and human technology. The time-scale for the effects to be seen from the use of DDT, Round-Up, heptachlor and other such chemicals are so great that observational studies are unlikely to show the negative consequences needed for immediate action.
I believe the way we practice science to be flawed. I believe the traditional scientific method is unable to grasp the magnitude of the environmental crisis because the connections between natural systems are too complex to fragment, study and understand. The way we proceed is by trial and error. Yet, we rely on science and technology to recognize health and environmental threats. We rely on an expert to tell us what is good or bad and we expect numbers, percentages and risk assessment when we are confronted with toxins in our environment. We rely on science instead of common sense and we rely on animal testing (in many but not all cases) to find cures for our sickness.
Ironically, the objective of science is to understand the world around us but science and our humanistic thinking perpetuates our separation from the natural world. This separation has allowed us to progress as a destructive being. We are unable to understand that our actions have long-term consequences, for example rainforest destruction or man-made chemicals will come back to us in the form of climatic change and ill-health. We react by placing more and more faith in science and technology to solve the health and environmental problems that afflict us today. We believe our ingenuity will save us. Perhaps, perhaps not.
I am not saying that all animal testing should be stopped without alternatives. I do not believe we can simply "trump" animal experimentation. We have become reliant on experimentation to find cures for the increasing number of bacteria and viruses present in the world. I am suggesting it is time to look elsewhere for answers. It is time to research the source of these environmental threats and question if there is a more holistic approach we can proceed with medicine. I think by questioning the source of our sickness and by eliminating these sources many types of animal experimentation would deem unnecessary.
I was hoping the ideas presented by Carol Adams would make people question the way they think and why they think animals are necessary for science to progress. This debate is not just a battle over animal rights or no animal rights. It is a much deeper issue that permeates our culture-and it is an issue that is beginning to be recognized by a larger sphere.
We are the future and we can shape the future however way we think is right. We are the future scientists, neurosurgeons, chemists, and philosophers. We should not be taught that conformity is necessary in order to get a job in the real world. We should not be taught that this one way of pursuing science is necessary because it is the most practiced way. We should ask questions about our ideology and we should not conform just because that is the "way the world works." Oberlin is advertised as a place where world changing ideas are incubated and practiced. Oberlin should be a place where we critically question life's paradigms.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 126, Number 17, March 6, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.