License To Cause Pain

As campaigners protest at the failure of a recent Government policy document on genetic modification to mention animal welfare, Ruarc Gahan argues that opponents of vivisection can no longer be dismissed as sentimental animal lovers with mediocre intellects.


By simple animal welfare criteria, genetic engineering has a record of cruelty and unnecessary suffering, and there is no sign that this will change. Genetic modification of animals has produced transgenic animals suffering from cancer, cystic fibrosis, gastric ulcers, lameness, damaged eyesight, liver and kidney disorders and so forth. Scientists produced a "geep" (half goat, half sheep); they have grown as ear in a test-tube and transplanted it onto the back of a mouse with no immune system to see if it would be rejected; scientists have genetically engineered mice that develop cancers in the lens of the eye which are soon replaced by tumours that grow until they burst out of the lens capsules and destroy the rest of the eye.

It is therefore intolerable that the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should proceed or conclude without consideration of these and other grotesque abuses of animals that occur both in the "creation" of genetically modified animals and in the testing of products which result from genetic modification of living organisms. Yet Environment Minister Noel Dempsey's recent policy document, National Consultation on Genetically Modified Organisms and Environment, makes no mention of animal welfare - although these issues were raised during the Minister's consultation process last summer. Now the Irish Anti-Vivisection Society has joined forces with Compassion in World Farming to argue that, under EU law, the Government is obliged to take animal welfare into account when formulating new policy and that the Minister should amend his document.

Genetic modification is the latest form of experimenting on live animals. Can continued use of such vivisection be justified? Many people, doctors and scientists among them, assert that there is little or no benefit to be gained form experiments on laboratory animals. Vivisection, they believe, is bad science. Others claim that vivisection has been, and will continue to be, indispensable to research, as well as in product testing and education.

It is certainly true that animal experiments can lead, and have led, to seriously misleading results that have not only failed to prevent human suffering, but in many cases have actually increased it. In Science on Trial (1994), Dr Robert Sharpe describes 101 selected examples of animal-based research that had undesirable - sometimes tragic - results.

However, my case against vivisection is an ethical one. Vivisection is wrong even if it brings benefits to humans or other animals. In his foreword to Dr Sharpe's book, Sir John Gielgud writes: "I long ago came to the conclusion that it was horribly evil to experiment on other living beings and then attempt to justify the practice by calling it 'medical research.' Vivisection is an appalling practice that should be stopped immediately."

Perhaps it is a question of consent. I submit that it is morally unacceptable to carry out experimental laboratory procedures on any creature, human or other, that has not given its informed and understanding consent. A normal, educated human of average intelligence, and fully apprised of the nature of a proposed experiment can consent to be used. This would be generally acceptable. But if babies or small children, brain-damaged persons, or people with dementia, were used in experiments, there would be a justifiable outcry. It would be a clear case of abuse of power, of unjustifiable exploitation. Animals are in the same category as these humans who could not have given their meaningful consent. The difference is that they aren't human.

Why does "not being human" place animals outside the categories of those who must be protected from abuse? Is it that they do not feel pain and cannot suffer distress? Clearly not, for if so, the phrase "cruelty to animals" would have no meaning; the SPCAs would be nonsense organisations; animal welfare legislation, which assumes a capacity for suffering, would be mere gibberish. But do they suffer at the hands of scientists? Anaesthetics, analgesics and welfare measures, according to Dr Paddy Sheridan (quoted in The Irish Times, November 9th, 1998) "should obviate the need for suffering." However, I have read enough and seen enough video footage to know that animals do indeed suffer in laboratories before they die, or are 'sacrificed', to use the vivisector's euphemism. The question, therefore, is not whether or not they suffer and die, but whether we should use evil means to pursue desirable ends.

Or it it that animals do not have souls? In our culture it is commonly believed that humans have souls but animals do not. Some people, however, believe that animals do have souls, and again, many reject the notion of "soul" altogether. My case against vivisection is not based on a belief that animals have souls, and I cannot take seriously a case supporting vivisection grounded on the supposition that humans have souls and animals don't. The philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, famously wrote: "The question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?'

Is it, then, in Ireland today, that animals are less important than humans? That they matter less? We must of course ask, important to whom?

Humans, if asked which is the world's most important species, will normally answer, "Ours!" A rat, if it could have a view and express it, would no doubt answer, "Mine!" To rats, the alleviation of human suffering would probably come fairly low on their list of priorities - certainly not worth the sacrifice of a rat. Our human brains, however, enable us to see a broader picture, to view ourselves as one among the animals that are born, know pleasure and pain, and then die. We are able to understand that, to a rat, its life and well-being are the most important things in the world, just as ours are to us.

Opponents of vivisection may well be dismissed as sentimental animal lovers with mediocre intellects. But the notion of rights for animals, over and above the generally accepted right to some degree of basic welfare has gained credence in recent decades. To espouse the concept that animals should be given, in law, the right to life and the right live the sort of lives for which evolution has fitted them and which is congenial to their natures, is no longer to invite the label "crank". The concept of animal rights is a subject of debate in university departments worldwide, and I could without difficulty list, among those who have espoused and ably defended it, a dozen distinguished professors in the fields of philosophy, theology, physiology, biology, biophysics, anthropology and law.

Animal rights notwithstanding, what about the alleviation of human suffering? Shouldn't that come first? Well, some amount of suffering is endemic to the human situation: to abolish suffering we must abolish life. But we choose to procreate, knowing that our children will suffer and die. By choosing life we accept suffering. Of course we may try to reduce and alleviate suffering and to postpone death. But we may not, by virtue of our power over then, arrogate to ourselves a right to condemn other creatures to unnecessary suffering and premature death in laboratories because we make this choice.

Vivisection is exploitation of the weak by the strong, of the powerless by the powerful. It's both presumptuous and barbaric. If there is a reason why it cannot be outlawed straight away, then it should be phased out over five years, during which time the development of alternative research and testing techniques would undoubtedly accelerate

Ruarc Gahan
Irish Anti-Vivisection Society
The Irish Times, December 1999

back to top

back to list