The Straits Times

Nov 3, 2004 Wed

 

It's right to recognise some animal rights

 

By Andy Ho
Senior Writer

NEW regulations due to come into force from Nov 15 will protect the welfare of laboratory animals. To be enforced by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), they will see scientists who mistreat lab animals jailed for up to a year, or fined up to $10,000, or both.

Put up under the Animals and Birds Act, the new rules are meant to boost Singapore's reputation as a place to do biomedical research ethically. The primary goal of that research is the healing of human disease, but the only way we can do that - from product testing to cancer studies - is through experimentation, which frequently involves animals.

At a minimum, researchers here may not inflict 'unnecessary pain or suffering' on animals, says the Act. While we may not agree on when pain and suffering might be necessary, we would probably all agree that inflicting pain and suffering on animals cannot be justified if it is only for our pleasure or amusement, or when there is absolutely no recognisable social benefit.

If that is clear, why the need for new rules?

Though the use of animals in experimentation dates back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, to this day, stories of animal abuse in the most prestigious labs are not unknown.

Just last September, the world's largest supplier of lab animals, Charles River Laboratories, was slapped with criminal charges when two chimpanzees died after being left overnight with untrained security guards. One had been wounded by another chimp while the other did not wake up from anesthesia.

Subsequently, it was also uncovered that three other chimps had been electrocuted late last year after repairs left a live wire in contact with their perch. Along with an institution-wide pattern of animal neglect, the firm that supplies the US National Institutes of Health was also shown to be shoddy in its record-keeping.

Again, in October 2002, Columbia University was rocked by allegations of animal cruelty. This came after a whistle-blower brought to light systemic maltreatment of baboons at its Institute of Comparative Medicine. Instead of being euthanised, baboons that had been operated upon in stroke research were left to suffer in their cages. Official investigations ascertained that 11 animals had, indeed, been provided with 'inadequate or questionable care'.

If only to avert such adverse publicity, Singapore has rightly taken this step to prevent the abuse of lab animals. Hopefully, it may also help prevent the rise of militant activism against the use of lab animals, a major threat to biomedical research anywhere.

Admittedly, issuing this set of new rules is but a pragmatic approach in that basic value issues are bracketed. After all, it is a complex philosophical debate as to what duty man owes to animal or, indeed, if there are any limits to human use of animals at all. But one thing that can be said definitively is that it is an inconclusive debate.

Yes, the new regulations may not assign any intrinsic value to animal welfare, but are merely driven by concern for the consequences for us of not attending to animal welfare. But this is an approach that is most likely to recommend itself to most people in wealthy, secular societies.

Still, this set of rules is a good thing.

First, we do see a lot of evidence that many animals seem capable of emotions and awareness, of responsiveness and happiness. As a consequence, many of us do make friends with animals and protect them from harm.

Of course, one can always remain sceptical about attributing such capacities to animals - since humans cannot have unmediated access to the experience of animals, and because we describe animal behaviour using human language, we may indeed be mistaken in thinking they are like humans.

But then again, we also have no unhindered access to another human being. It's only in the imagination that we can enter someone else's life. So it is probably fair to say that animals are sentient beings with interests and conscious experiences - you can imagine what it is like to be them feeling pain or suffering in some way.

An amendment to the founding treaty of the European Union even explicitly recognises animals as sentient beings. If so, scientists are morally bound to use them responsibly and care for them humanely - but if they aren't so inclined, there are punitive rules to provide the requisite incentives.

Second, if nothing else, this represents a step forward from the place where animals are regarded as mere property. The Latin word for money - pecunia - is derived from the Latin word pecus, which means cattle, so the concept of animals as property goes back some. The underlying principle was that an animal captured was one's property.

The new rules, I would suggest, represent a significant qualification to that property right, that individuals may keep and use animals in certain situations only if certain conditions are met. There will be specific proficiency standards governing training and actual usage as well as licensing requirements.

So using animals and being responsible for them in certain situations will be conditioned on meeting certain stipulations. The authorities will be able to ban those who infringe the rules and take away their abused animals without compensation. All in all, people will be restricted in what they can do to their animals - even if the latter's legal status remains ambiguous.

The upshot is this: However controversial the idea of animal rights in theory, we have - in practice - begun to recognise animal rights, at least nominally.

Some people argue that this does not confer rights on animals although it establishes that humans have duties towards them, but it is unclear what turns on this distinction. What is quite clear now is that lab animals have rights under the regulations that can be enforced by AVA officials.

Of course, as is so often the case, there will be a large gap between rules on paper and enforcement in the real world. In most jurisdictions, however, although they can always be improved, anti-cruelty statutes work pretty well primarily because they create legal duties. If nothing else, they should do the same here too.