|
Thesis
& Antithesis
OPINION
By Stuart W. Cl. Derbyshire
Rebuttal By Jack B. Suconik
Time to Abandon the Three Rs
Stuart Derbyshire is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University
of Birmingham. sderbyshire@the-scientist.com
Derbyshire
Submitting to "refinement, reduction, and replacement risks the
future of animal research
Suconik
Only
as currently practiced in vivisection, and testing
laboratories.
Derbyshire
The best hopes to treat or cure
any number of diseases all rely on current animal experiments.
Suconik
A subjective vague unverifiable opinion that may reveal the reason
that so many people die from intractable maladies every
day.
Derbyshire
Like all science, the investigations
that scientists perform with animals increase our knowledge of nature and
can therefore increase the possibilities for human action, advancing the
cause of human freedom.
Suconik
A cryptic statement made false by the
omission of the word sometimes, and inclusion of the words “human
freedom.”
Derbyshire
So why do scientists persist in
denigrating their own behavior by advocating the three Rs: refinement,
reduction, and replacement?
In the
United Kingdom
. since the passage of the 1986 Animals
(Scientific Procedures) Act, researchers must obtain a license from the
home Office, which involves an assessment of the invasiveness of the study
and the species used. following the principles of the three Rs.
Invariably. licensing will require considerable justification for any
procedures that involve distressing the animal, and considerable pressure
will he applied for the use of fewer animals, and from further down the
phylogenetic tree (such as using rats rather than primates). Although
legislation is less stringent in the
United States, in practice the three Rs are still
enforced by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, which
voluntarily assess any proposed research with respect to the three Rs and
provide assurance to grant-awarding bodies that the research is animal
welfare- friendly.
Through a variety of voluntary and enforced mechanisms, therefore, animal
researchers pledge to uphold the three Rs. At first blush, that seems
reasonable, if somewhat patronizing.
All animal experimenters have an incentive to reduce the amount of stress
an animal is subjected to— through
refinement— because a stressed
animal will be less likely to behave or respond normally and might
therefore skew results. Equally, all researchers will naturally tend to
use fewer or less-costly animals or techniques— through reduction and
replacement— in order to get quicker results for fewer resources.
Suconik
Such generalizing doesn't square with the history of vivisection. "All animal experimenters” have not displayed any such
‘‘incentive’’ to reduce the amount of stress an animal is
subjected to,’’ to speak in terms of “all” in this context is very
unscientific chatter. The word “incentive” does not mean “all animal
experimenters are determined to reduce the amount of stress an animal is
subjected to, as history demonstrates so vividly.
Derbyshire
The three Rs. however, are much worse
than
patronizing : they are disastrous.
They draw attention away from the value of experimentation and toward the
importance of animal welfare.
Suconik
Disastrous from a Derbyshire point of view, but not the
perspectives of millions of people free of the slave holders disposition,
and rationale.
Derbyshire
By extension, animal experimentation
will he looked upon negatively because no animal experiment is in the
interests of animal welfare.
Suconik
Not True; some experiments have been performed in the interest of the animal kingdom.
Derbyshire
Adoption of the three Rs comes across
as a confession of guilt. The impression is that research animals are a
necessary evil, when in fact they are just necessary.
Suconik
A subjective opinion that can’t be verified.
Derbyshire
The three Rs also raise false
expectation that animals will eventually he replaced as experimental test
subjects. which is highly unlikely.
Suconik
A subjective statement that reflects the authors wishes that can
not be verified.
Derbyshire
Last
year, in the United
Kingdom
alone, 2.85 million scientific tests on
animals were performed. More, not less, animal research will likely he
required to investigate burgeoning models of genetic disease.
Suconik
Another
speculative statement that reflects the authors wishes.
Did the many of millions of tests conducted world wide result in a cure
for cancer or aids or the common cold? And if they did can it signify that
there was no other way but the torture and killing of animals.
Derbyshire
Ultimately , we cannot have
it both ways. It is not possible
to advocate animal welfare
and at the same time give animals untested drugs or diseases, or slice
them open to test a new surgical procedure.
Suconik
The alleged “not possible” is not a reality, to "give animals untested
drugs or diseases, or slice them open to test a new surgical procedure"
does not militate against the desire for, and advcoation for an end of barbarism.
Derbyshire
The
three Rs encourages a focus on animal welfare that is both unrealistic and
dishonest.
Suconik
To
value, and advocate a less harmful more humane possibility of functioning in the
vivisection and testing lab is not unrealistic or dishonest. It is
inevitable and the stuff of decency in the quest for justice.
Derbyshire
Regardless
of any beliefs
about
the value of animals. if you engage in activities that are invasive or
lethal to animals or if you control their reproduction, their living space
and their habits, you are expressing a de facto belief that animals are
sufficiently different from humans to make such activities justifiable.
Suconik
This apparently is one, if not the primary reason to make such
"activities"
justifiable to some people. "Sufficiently
different" is an ancient criterion to justify persecution torture and
slaughter. It was the
same yardstick responsible for the misery and death of millions of Jews,
Gypsies, and other different people in Nazi Germany. But there should be no such criterion to justify mayhem to living beings, human
or non human. It seems to me that every event has a cause, and
that "sufficiently different" has been a 'cause' (or formula)
for misery, pain, and violent death to which we have become habituated
since the beginning of our bloody history. But liberation from such
habituation seems to be inevitable because of the large segment of
humanity not afflicted with
the 'sufficiently different' rationalization.
Derbyshire
Scientists
are keen to defend themselves against accusations of cruelty by promoting
their allegiance to the three Rs but forget
that
the real reason for animal experimentation is to advance the welfare and
understanding of humanity. Advancing human understanding requires the
freedom to do more animal research, and often with higher
species,
and is incompatible with continued support for the three Rs.
Suconik
"To
advance the welfare and understanding of humanity” is a worthy concept
with which this writer concurs. It is with the alleged means in this context that
is unacceptable to a large segment of humanity because of the inevitable cruelties of the experimenters knives,
hammers, saws, fire, and other instruments of torture which must include a
life of confinement behind bars. Would we sanction such barbarism on white
or black human
animals? We have to a degree on various occasions, but it was not
acceptable as routine
practice because human animals were not 'sufficiently
different.' Human history is a catalogue of bloody disasters caused by the 'sufficiently different' rationale which
in the age
of city destroying weapons is a very dangerous idea. Universal repudiation
of the "sufficiently different" rationalization, and resultant
effects, would be but a step toward a new morality that may save us, as
well as non human animals from ourselves.
Derbyshire
Those
of us who research on animals or support that research have made a moral
choice to put humans first. We should behave and argue with a conviction
that is worthy of the choice.
Suconik
We
do, as a matter of fact put ourselves, families, friends, and nations,
first, and we should, but when such classification entails the suffering
and violent death of others that are of no threat to ourselves, human or non human, rationalization can not
make it right.
Derbyshire
Animal
experimentation is a positive activity that advances our appreciation of
nature and disease. and defending animal research
should
he part of a moral campaign that celebrates human knowledge and
understanding.
Suconik
Animal
experimentation is the
infliction of torture, suffering and death on animals a ghoulish activity alleged benefits notwithstanding. And
will, I believe, if morality prevails, be universally prohibited.
Derbyshire
Simultaneouslv advocating animal research while
trying to apologize and
introduce alternatives is a poor defense of animal experimentation.
Successful promotion of animal
research
can only happen when we withdraw
support for the three Rs.
Suconik
Such self serving reasoning is to be expected in a world that produced a plethora
of Hitlers that perceived the suffering and death of others as the means
to their opportunism. Variations of such reasoning provides the
rationale for the unrelieved suffering and death of billions of animals
by vivisection, testing laboratories, and a host of other bloody assaults,
which is justice defiled as these words are written. Hope for change lies
in the fact that most rational people
value justice, and justice Is blind, applicable to any animal, human or
non human.
J. B.
Suconik
To test
the effects of burns, this dog was burned alive at the Shriner's Hospital,
Cincinnati, USA.
Courtesy of P.E.T.A. (1980's-1990's
|
