AN EXAMINATION OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS CONTROVERSY cont'd

The Regulation of Science
Scientific institutions are generally oppsed to any regulation by public bodies who cannot understand the goals of scientific activity (Regan 1983a). However, philosophers, animal activists and environmentalists should not be disqualified from commenting on the practices of science that do not require expertise in any particualr field. Individuals working in the natural environments of primates and other snimals can provide knowldege beyond that of the scientist in the lab, and philosophers and activists can also challenge the moral grounds of the use of animals in research. All of these views must be considered if a well-informed decision about the future of animal experimentation is to be decided.

Over the years, various attempts to regulate the use of animals have been attempted, but only a few have been effective. One of the failures took place during the polio epidemic of the 1950s with an attempt to regulate the international trade of primates. During this time, monkeys and apes were the favoured animals for polio research and monkey tissue was the standard medium to cultivate the virus (Peterson 1989). Large numbers were being imported in the frantic search for a vaccine and in the 1950s the United States was importing 200 000 rhesus macaques annually from India. The Indian government met with a lot of opposition because of the Indian custom which prohibits the abuse of animals, and in 1955 India banned exports (Peterson 1989). The U.S. made a plea to the Indian government because of the urgency of the situation; and India renewed exports with the requirement that the macaques were

1. only used for medical research or the production of antipoliomyelittis vaccines and
2. that regular inspections took place to guarantee humane treatment (Peterson 1989)

An attempt to control the growth of underground trade was carried out by amending The Lacey Act of 1900 to prohibit importation of wildlife that has been illegally obtained from the country of origin, but this too has proven to be equally impotent (Peterson 1989). When the Comparative Oncology Laboratory was charged with illegally obtaining gibbons, the case was eventually dropped because of a lack of evidence. Researchers from the institution alleged that it was because of strict regulations on trade that it was necessary to obtain animals whenever and however possible (Peterson 1989).

A global version of this act was introduced in July 1975 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature when thirty-one nations signed on at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES agreement). It is not a law, but a treaty, and is equally powerless to protect wildlife because of existing legal loopholes. For example, member nations can opt out from controls over particular species and no provisions are made for the protection of animals in transit (Peterson 1989).

The international regulation of scientific activities appears to have met with considerably more success. Several research institutions have set up primate breeding colonies and retirement funds, which are expensive, but appear to be worth the cost. One such institution is the New England Regional Primate Center which established a breeding colony of near extinct cotton-top tamarin (Peterson 1989). Similarly, the N.Y. Blood Center's lab in Liberia has a rehabilitation plan which returns chimpanzees used in Hepatitis B research to the wild (Rodd 1990). Both of these programmes are successful examples of how it is possible to reduce the number of animals rmoved from their habitat, and that it is possible to allow them to live after their use to research has been served. While it is noted that these institutions chose voluntarily to change their policies regarding the use of animals, they did so with the advice of public bodies, such as the Jane Goodall Institute and the Humane Society of the United States, who are active in providing workshops that strive to improve conditions for animals used in research.

It could also be useful to scientists who must use animals in their experiments to be aware of the guidelines for the assessment of pain, stress and distress which have been established by the Association of Vetrinary Teachers and Research Workers (Rodd 1990). If scientists were to be provided with this information, it may also help to guide their research in ways which would prevent and alleviate pain and suffering, which can ultimately affect the validity of their results.

Finally, the AIDS epidemic has generated a growing interest in the use of primates for research. In February of 1988 the U.S. National Institutes of Health suggested that the regulations concerning the use of endangered species in research should be lifted until some progress toward a cure has been acheived (Rodd 1990). However, it must be noted that there are currently 42 species, subspecies and species groups which are threatened with immediate extinction (Peterson 1989) and past history has shown that lifting bans has led to the depletion of populations. The question which must be asked is how does this benefit anyone in the long-term? What will happen when the next epidemic occurs and there are no longer any non-human primates left to serve as animal models?

Conclusion
It is unlikely that this controversy can be resolved to the satisfaction of either side; but, a negotiation which allows for the modification of scientific practices, without limiting the benefits to humans would be preferable to allowing unecessary and harmful procedures continue. Any movement toward reconciliation would be beneficial for the animals involved. If an agreement can be reached that animals are the type of beings who could have rights it would require that scientists provide justification for actions that cause harm to animals. If extreme circumstances are not present, the right not to be harmed cannot be overridden and the procedures that cause harm should be eliminated. This would include irrelevant experiments and research involving non-essential benefits for humans. If there are extreme circumstances, the procedures that cause harm should be modified so that the numbers of animals used and the pain and suffering they are subjected to are minimized. It is possible to accomplish these objectives by external regulations governed by public bodies or internal regulation by institutions and researchers. The scientific community has the means and the information to accomplish these objectives on their own. There are examples of how internal regulation has been successfully implemented and guidelines are available so that researchers can modify experiments so they will be acceptable to a majority of the public. If researchers choose not to modify their practices, external regulation may become necessary and unavoidable.

References
Linden, Eugene (1992). A curious kinship: Apes and Humans. National Geographic. 181:3, 2-45.

Mayo, Deborah. (1983). Against a scientific justification of animal experiments. In Miller and Williams, eds. Ethics and Animals. Clifton, New Jersey; Humana Press.

Miller, Peter. (1995). Crusading for chimps and humans: Jane Goodall. National Geographic. 188:6, 102-127.

Patterson, Francine. (1978). Converstaions with a gorilla. National Geographic. 154:4, 438-465.

PETA. (1996). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Newsletter January 1996.

Peterson, Dale. (1989). The Deluge and the Ark. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Regan, Tom. (1983a). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkley: University of California Press.

Regan, Tom. (1983b). Animal rights, human wrongs. In Miller and Williams, eds. Ethics and Animals. Clifton, New Jersey: Humana Press.

Rodd, Rosemary. (1990). Biology, Ethics and Animals. New York: Oxford University Press.