Why Animal Activism is Needed at UofT

by Rosemary Amey
March 14, 1995.

Animals in Canadian society face numerous forms of oppression. Millions are killed by the meat, fish, egg, and dairy industries every year. Despite widespread consumer support, the Ontario government has still not passed a regulation to prohibit cosmetics testing on animals, one of their election promises. The fur industry has declined, but still kills enormous numbers of animals, partly supported by our tax dollars.

UofT Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (SETA) is concerned with all of these issues. However, this year, our protests and lobbying have been focused on animals in research, both because it is happening right here at UofT-- in 1993, about 67,000 nonhuman animals were used in our labs--and because this issue is so widely misunderstood.

Many people take it for granted that vivisection is a tragic necessity, justified by the benefits to humanity. I was once one of them; in fact, my mother used to work as a medical laboratory technologist and was involved in animal research. From childhood on I was taught that hurting nonhuman animals in research to help people is the right thing to do. I have since realized that this is a case where our unexamined prejudices and cultural assumptions can lead us astray.

First, let me make it clear that supporting animal rights does not mean opposing all medical research. Of course, finding treatments for illness and injury is important and worthwhile! However, that does not meant that any medical research is okay.

Take, for example, the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study. In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service began a study of untreated syphilis in 399 men. The men were promised free medical treatment. They were not told that they had syphilis, and when penicillin came into use as a treatment for the disease in the 1940s, the men were denied treatment without being informed. As syphilis progresses, it can cause ulceration of the skin, deterioration of the bones, softening of the brain, blindness and deafness. This was known before the Tuskegee study began. However, the Tuskegee victims went untreated until the 1970s, when public outrage forced the research to stop. This was too late for the 28 to 100 men who had already died as a direct result of syphilis.

It is no coincidence that all of the men abused in the Tuskegee study were black.

Clearly, this abominable research should not have been done. This is true even though the results of the Tuskegee study have provided information to help treat other syphilis victims. We have no right to violate an individual's rights for the benefit of others. The ends do not justify the means.

As far as we know, UofT does not conduct such harmful research using human subjects. However, nonhuman animals are frequently sacrificed at UofT in the name of science. In contrast to the strict guidelines governing research on humans, there are no federal laws to protect nonhuman animals from harmful research. The provincial Animals for Research Act is woefully inadequate, and even states that animals used in research are not covered by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The University of Toronto has refused to release information on the kinds of experiments which are currently underway. They have provided SETA with a copy of the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines, which they say they follow. Far from protecting animals, these guidelines even explain how to kill them! How can this kind of research be accepted?

Proponents of vivisection often say, human interests outweigh the interests of other animals.

This is a prejudice known as speciesism. Speciesists believe that members ofother species do not deserve the same consideration as members of their own species. However, in the case of harmful research, what is the relevant difference between humans and other animals? In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, chairperson of the international group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, "When it comes to feelings, like pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

Originally, this article was to include interviews with people on both sides of the issue. However, when I phoned Arnold Aberman, dean of medicine, he declined to explain his views on animal research. In his words, "For The Varsity to assign you to write an article on animal rights would be like asking Ernest (sic) Zundel to write an article about racism."

It is ironic that Aberman should attempt to analogize animal rights to racism, when in fact they are complete opposites. Animal rights is an inclusive philosophy, which advocates extending compassion to all. In contrast, racism is an exclusive philosophy, which advocates restricting compassion to members of one's own group. In fact, speciesism is a similar philosophy; only the definition of "one's own group" is different.

So what can we do about medical research? Happily, much can be accomplished without harming experimental subjects. In fact, some scientists and medical professionals, such as the Medical Research Modernization Committee, believe that studying nonhuman animals produces misleading results which cannot be reliably applied to humans. Studying humans, in a careful and ethical way and with their informed consent, is the key to medical progress. For example, our knowledge of the dangers of smoking, and of how AIDS is spread, comes from epidemiology, not coercive research. Medical researcher Dean Ornish was the first person to show that heart disease can be reversed, by placing human volunteers on a very low fat, vegetarian diet, encouraging them to exercise, and teaching them stress management techniques.

Until such humane research is the norm at the University of Toronto, SETA, UofT Animal Rights Advocates, OPIRG, and other animal advocates will continue to work for change. As a first step, we seek greater access to information, and are currently lobbying the Governing Council to improve the proposed policy on Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. Not surprisingly, when our concerns were presented at a recent meeting of the G.C.'s Academic Board, the researchers became visibly nervous and asked that access to information on vivisection be restricted even more.

It would seem that both animal advocates and animal researchers agree that vivisection will not survive once the public is informed.

Note: Ernst Zundel is a locally well-known neo-Nazi.

At the time this article was written, Rosemary Amey was president of UofT Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (SETA).

This article originally appeared in the March 14, 1995 issue of The Varsity, a student newspaper at the University of Toronto.

Get rid of these ads!