Just within the past year, my wife and I have become strong supporters of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. After spending a long time flirting with becoming strict vegans, she and I made the final commitment to eliminating the last vestiges of animal product from our diet this past spring, after returning home from the PCRM gala in Washington DC.
One of PCRM’s chief campaigns is to end the use of animals in medical and scientific research. I’ve written about the anti-vivisection movement before. And our growing commitment to the cause of cruelty-free research has led to an interesting and ongoing problem.
Hardly a week goes by in which we are not contacted by friends, former students, colleagues or distant relatives with a request to sponsor one of them in a fundraising event for a medical charity. Because I’m a marathoner and my wife is a triathlete, we regularly hear from those who have made the commitment to train for their first endurance event — and are doing so as a fundraiser for a health-related cause. Even before we got together as a couple, my wife and I were loyal individual contributors to groups that fought AIDS or Breast Cancer or Crohn’s Disease or Leukemia or Multiple Sclerosis or what-have-you. We sponsored friends with amounts small and not-so-small, and threw in as much helpful advice about training as we could.
But now, the obvious dilemma. We are mutually committed no longer to give a single penny to medical research that involves animals. And, sadly, a great many of the leading “disease organizations” sponsor animal-based research. Though many of these organizations do some work that is wonderfully free from cruelty, there exists — in most cases — no way to ensure that no part of a donation will go to any kind of animal-based medical research.
The only medical organizations to which we feel safe donating are those that have received the “Humane Seal” from PCRM. The list is here. It’s interesting to see who’s on it: The American Breast Cancer Fund, for example, is cruelty-free and safe for donations; The Susan B. Komen Foundation (which mainly fights breast cancer and is closely linked with many athletic fundraisers) still sponsors animal research.
Most of the requests we get these days to sponsor a niece, cousin, co-worker or friend would require a donation to a charity that does still fund animal experiments. And so, when we’re asked, we politely decline, explaining our reasons. And we also offer to fund some of the training that is being done. For example, one of my cousins recently did a triathlon in Hawaii to raise money for a medical organization that participates in animal research. We told him we couldn’t sponsor him — but we gave him a goodie-bag filled with gear, gels, socks, and hydration tools. The amount we spent was at least equivalent to what we would have contributed to the medical charity on his behalf.
In other cases, I’ve simply started giving small gift cards to be used at the local running or cycle store. Anyone training for their first big race or endurance event will need lots of stuff, and we are happy to support our loved one in that aspect of helping him or her reach her exciting goal. In this way, we can show our commitment to our friends — and to defenseless creatures.
I’ll admit we’ve had what diplomats call “frank and candid exchanges” with some people who’ve asked for our support. A few have been genuinely outraged (perhaps especially in light of my own father’s death from cancer last year). But when you ask for money for your cause, you’re going to be told — gently and kindly — why we may not be able to support it. But we will offer an alternative.
Oh, and on the vegan/health front: anyone who knows me knows how frequently I get colds. Well, folks, I’m sure I’m about to jinx myself, but since knocking out the last vestiges of dairy products from my diet earlier this year, I’ve been healthier longer than I can ever remember. My body is bouncing back from running-related soreness faster as well, and for someone now in his forties, that is good news indeed…
nice to see someone else who does that - it can be a tense moment when someone is running for a Cancer charity who supported a loved one through their illness and you have to tell them that you can’t fund them on ethical grounds, but pretty much everyone I’ve ever had that conversation with has understood and been happy for me to donate to a charity or hospice that I’m happier with…
Sx
Hugo,
Sincerely out of curiosity, how do you gel your convictions about active/ongoing animal testing/research and procedures or therapies you or your wife may receive in the future that were developed, tested or perfected on animals? Surgical procedures are often practiced on animals, but “informed consent” usually doesn’t include information about the history of the development procedure or the medicine.
Thanks.
Matt
I follow the “progress not perfection” rule here. For example, I still wear old leather shoes and belts — but won’t buy anymore. Once gains have been bought in blood, I’m not averse to using the benefits — it would be wasteful not to. But I can do everything reasonably within my power to cease financial support for those companies and institutions that still do medical testing.
I realize that taking medicine may mean financiang animal testing. We live in a complex world where perfection isn’t possible in this regard — but we should try and do as much as we can.
Lifemanship was not intended as a sincere guide to public and private conduct, Hugo.
I’ve never read “Lifemanship”, but please believe me when I suggest that I’m not trying to cultivate a facade of superiority for my own selfish delight.
You are a better judge of that than any of us, Hugo, and you certainly seem aware of the danger of being deemed an insufferable prig.
One might suggest, though, that your posts recording this sort of recurrent moral (but loving! always loving, hence condemning your less-enlightened relatives, friends and colleagues more in sorrow than in self-satisfaction) confrontation, combined with your recent post about your habit of taking up and letting go church after church, paint a less-than-flattering portrait of a man seeking what power over others he can legitimately lay claim to, after (according to your frequent references to your misspent youth, young adulthood and early middle age) a great many years spent making the lives of those around him miserable.
Flippanter, are you certain you’re not my second ex-wife?
I’m curious what exactly “cruelty-free” research entails. In some cases, the choice is between testing new drugs and procedures on animals or testing on humans (if not through official trials, then when the product goes to market). Even beyond lifesaving drugs, there was an era when a number of women went blind from untested mascara and the like, a situation animal testing seems to prevent.
I’d be surprised if the dichotomy between testing on animals and testing on people hadn’t occurred to you, and so I’m wondering what your response is.
There are many cosmetic companies out there making great products — all vegan and cruelty-free.
With computer modeling and other alternatives developed by groups like PCRM, animal testing is becoming increasingly unnecessary. And ultimately, I’m not prepared to have animals be the means by which we move towards good ends. Human volunteers are one thing, but consent of the sentient ought to be the sine qua non of all research.
Computer models are good at what they do, but they can only model interactions we already know about. When we don’t understand so much about even the shapes and functions of most of the proteins in the human body, there’s no way we going to be able to model second- or third-level consequences of a new chemical in the system. There’s no way for the computer to know that a new cholesterol drug will interfere with the action of a catalyst the liver uses to remove toxins from the bloodstream, simply because we don’t know the details of how the liver removes toxins.
As far as more frivolous uses, like the cosmetics situation, I do believe in avoiding animal-tested products… I just also avoid most non-animal-tested products, because they’re essentially being tested on me. Using products with extremely basic sets of obviously-safe ingredients, such as olive oil and sugar, seems like a good solution to that particular problem.
But at the end of the day, when a new medicine - potentially life-saving, potentially toxic - is being tested, I’d rather it be animals that discover the toxicity than humans, even humans being paid to participate in medical studies. I suspect it comes down to that disagreement in the end.
Indeed, it does come down to that disagreement, in the end.
consent of the sentient
What’s your basis for calling most non-human animals “sentient”? Several animals have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be self-aware (humans, chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants) by their ability to pass the rouge or mirror test, but most animals don’t seem to recognize themselves*. Certainly, all vertebrate animals have the ability to feel pain and suffer distress and therefore one should avoid causing them to suffer, but I’m not sure that calling them sentient makes sense in most cases. (Or did I misunderstand and really you meant that all testing should be done on humans–or other sentient animals–but done if and only if they consent?)
Incidently, this post may come across as rather aggressive. If so, please excuse me. I mean it to say, “I’m interested, please tell me more about your beliefs and the reasoning behind them”, not “Justify yourself.”
*This is not proof positive of their non-sentience, since there might be a number of reasons why an entity might fail the rouge test, but as far as I know, there are no really good substitute tests, so the sentience of other animals is unproven, at least to humans.
Dianne, you’re confusing sentience (awareness) with sapience (self-awareness). The basic thrust of speciesism is to claim there’s something wrong with thinking sapience is ethically salient and sentience is not. (Eg, that it’s wrong to just go around inflicting pain on sapient beings, but perfectly fine to inflict pain on sentient but non-sapient beings.) The rouge test is considered a very, very rough test for sapience. I don’t know what standard tests are used for sentience, if any, but I consider it clear that all vertebrates are sentient.
Diane - “Sentient” just means the ability to experience pain and pleasure; it doesn’t necessarily include self-awareness.
Hugo - I’m not sure I like the term “cruelty-free” - it seems to me to suggest a state of purity that is unattainable. Even the most rigorous vegan is responsible for the suffering and deaths of animals (via destruction of habitat to grow crops, build houses, etc.). Though it points in the right direction I wonder if it’s an unnecessarily polarizing term.
Lee, my use of “cruelty-free” is aspirational at this point. It’s a goal that one cannot fully achieve yet, I recognize that. But look, we all want global peace — even if we’ve never had it. Working towards previously unattained goals is part of the process. Oh, and as for sentience, let me paraphrase Jeremy Bentham, the great utilitarian:
The question is not “Can they talk?” or “Can they Reason?” The question is, “Can they suffer?”
The answer is, of course, a yes.
Hugo, you rock.
Thanks for taking up the cause and bravely speaking out. I am sure you’ve provided lots of food for thought to many through this blog, and will be an inspiration to future athletes who will see from your example the many benefits of a vegan diet.
Hugo,
What about testing of human pacemakers on cats and dogs? Pacemakers are taken from the deceased and donated to cats and dogs and then the animals are monitored to see when the pacemaker fails. Many cats and dogs that need pacemakers would not get them if the pacemakers were not available through such programs.
What about the testing of medicines and surgeries on parrots and other birds? They are not mammals, they are literal dinosaurs with dinosaur biochemistry. Treating them as mammals has resulted in needless death. Only by experimenting on parrots (parakeets are parrots, in case anyone’s wondering) can we learn what we need to know to treat parrots.
Every time I take a parakeet to the vet, it’s a freakin’ experiment anyway. Why not do it in a consistent lab-controlled conditions, gather the data, and let fewer parrots die as a result?
BTW: In the wild, the life expectancy of a parakeet is 2 years. In captivity it was 4 and, with experiments on animals testing foods, it’s now 6; some reach 20 years or more of healthy, active life. The sacrifice of a few animals would have an incredible benefit to all — and possibly even the animals being studied. It’s a moral calculus I’m willing to accept.
Also, remember, you’re talking to someone who served as an experimental animal for defibrillator pad effectiveness, pulse ox qualification in hypoxic patients in helicopters, and multiple glucose metabolism experiments involving either radioactives or dropping my blood glucose down to the point where my brain was not working right.
Some animal testing has to be done, both for us and for them. All benefit.
Rob, I’m not a doctor. That’s why I defer on this issue to the doctors, vets and scientists who tell me that animal experimentation isn’t necessary. Their numbers are growing, and I’ve met quite a few of them recently. I refer folks to the PCRM website for more information.
Hugo, again I can’t speak to this issue directly as it affects animals, because I haven’t made the kind of moral decisions you have in that area. But your experience speaks to a similar one I have had in my decision not to donate as any part of a benefit for the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
My personal concerns with the Komen Foundation are many: that the head of the organization is a Bush Pioneer and has given and raised enormous amounts of money for a politician and an administration that I find morally repugnant; that I feel that the Komen Foundation, as the highest-profile and wealthiest of all breast cancer organizations, already has plenty of money, and needs to do a better job of spending it; that I feel it has a vested interest in, rather than eradicating breast cancer, preserving its continued existence as a disease that can be treated with drug therapy, thus helping to keep large pharmaceutical companies profitable; that it doesn’t expend as much money on seeking true prevention and research into finding environmental causes, rather than lifestyle causes, for the disease; that it doesn’t do enough to help poor sufferers afford their medical care (not just their screening).
And there is also a part of me that has come to resent the entire pink-ribbon fest that the month of October has become in America, and the callous way manufacturers slap pink ribbons and make pink editions of their products and sell many more of them that way, and afterward donate a small percentage to the Komen Foundation, and the whole thing ends up being a marketing bonanza for them because it enables people to feel virtuous about the act of shopping. They can buy something and call themselves a do-gooder because they purchased it, when it might have made more sense to just give to the organization they want to benefit.
Most of all, I hate it because it’s had the unfortunate effect of making a very ugly disease (as all diseases are) appear pretty and soft, and associating it with femininity, motherhood, fashion, and all those other warm fuzzy things with which we associate the female breast. And I have a big, big problem with that.
The trouble is, this posture is not one that is generally socially acceptable. And when you work in an office small enough for everyone to take notice when you decline to participate in Lee Jeans National Denim Day (on which the HR office allows employees to wear jeans to work in return for a donation to Komen), it’s not a pleasant situation. Especially if you are afraid that by trying to explain your stance, you will only succeed in making yourself appear sanctimonious and unpopular.
And the truth is, part of the reason you feel the way you do is because you are one of those people who will never be able to take a pink ribbon any way but personally. Because you know what it is like, and you know it’s not pink and pretty at all, and it is hell to be reminded of it as if it were, every year, with a month-long shop-fest every October and a jeans day at work. Only when it happened to you, you were someplace else in some other city, and no one here where you are now knows that, and you don’t want them to know, because what if they did? What if HR decided that your health insurance was a risky thing for it to have taken on? And you worked for the kind of organization that was hyper-aware of the reasons for which it could legally fire you vs. the ones it could not?
All of a sudden you might find your performance evaluations suffering, and not know why.
So instead, you say nothing, and you know people are talking about you behind your back, but there’s nothing you can do.
Faced with this situation again, I’d love some advice on what to do. Besides deliberately taking a vacation day on National Denim Day.
Rob, I’m not a doctor. That’s why I defer on this issue to the doctors, vets and scientists who tell me that animal experimentation isn’t necessary. Their numbers are growing, and I’ve met quite a few of them recently. I refer folks to the PCRM website for more information.
The informal logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.” At least as many, if not far more argue the contrary.
If you wish to remain comfortable, listening to the echo of those whose view reflects your own is certainly sufficient. If you wish to move beyond that and actually change hearts and minds, you can - and must - do better.
The question is not “Can they talk?” or “Can they Reason?” The question is, “Can they suffer?”
But there are probably limits to your empathy. Insects can probably suffer on at least the rudimentary level necessary for them to avoid getting swatted. Do you squash insects? Some unicellular organisms can sense and avoid noxious stimuli. They probably, in some sense, suffer when in contact with said stimuli. Do you take steroids to decrease your immune respons to avoid giving pain to pathogenic bacteria? (Again, I’m trying to push on the limits and describe the underlying philosophy, not talk you out of it. I don’t squash bugs unless I have a particular need to. Bacteria are outside my empathy range, though.)
The other question one might ask is do animals suffer in medical experimentation? The answer is sometimes clearly yes. Hard to imagine that the Draiz (? spelling…I mean the squirt substance in the eye test) test doesn’t cause suffering. On the other hand, I’ve worked with mice in the lab before and they have never suffered anything more painful than a needle stick, have generally lived longer than an average mouse in the wild would, and have indulged in the usual mouse pleasures of company of their siblings, food, sex, and raising babies. Apart from the existential issue that they wouldn’t have existed if they hadn’t been made for research (transgenic mice), would their lives really have been better if they’d been in the “wild” where most would be eaten by cats, poisoned with a substance that would prevent their blood from clotting and kill them through internal hemorrhage, starve to death as pups because their mothers couldn’t make enough milk or had been killed, be run over by cars…in short, suffer a good deal and be offered no more pleasures than they experienced anyway. Therefore, in my opinion, the issue is not whether animals should be used in experimentation, but how they are used. If they are used only in ways that minimize suffering down to the point that they suffer less than they would in the wild, who is hurt?
Gonz, expertise in every aspect of living on planet Earth is beyond even the most brilliant individuals. An appeal to the testimony of experts is a fallacy of strict deductive logic (and a formal fallacy, incidentally), but strict deductive logic is mostly useless when it comes to actually figuring out how one is to live one’s life.
Formal fallacies are fallacies of form - undistributed middle, et al. Informal fallacies exist in deductive and inductive logic , as well as in debate, and refer to those fallacies which have nothing to do with the form of the argument. (http://mcckc.edu/longview/ctac/fallacy.htm)
An appeal to authority may well be useful inductively and in a debate (And they are the foundation of abductive logic)but only insofar as those experts are in at least near universal accord. Such is manifestly not the case here.
This is textbook cherry-picking. And while it may be what is Chosen to be believed, it is not proof; but it is presented as such.
Faced with this situation again, I’d love some advice on what to do.
1. Document everything and 2. talk to a lawyer.
Hugo, setting aside the argument about animal experimentation, I don’t understand your approach. You ARE supporting these organizations; you’re just doing so indirectly, rather than with cash. Especially when you alleviate the asker’s expenses; now instead of paying $50 for shoes, I can give $50 to the Bunny Testing Society.
Hugo, setting aside the argument about animal experimentation, I don’t understand your approach. You ARE supporting these organizations; you’re just doing so indirectly, rather than with cash. Especially when you alleviate the asker’s expenses; now instead of paying $50 for shoes, I can give $50 to the Bunny Testing Society.
Mythago, we live in a deeply imperfect world. A lot of animal rights work is about bearing witness, starting conversations, and engaging with people to change hearts and minds. The goal here is changing consciousness — and my limited experience has been that this sort of tactic of alternative donations does help begin that process.
I’m not gonna let perfection be the enemy of progress.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention as something else I can do for animals.
I thought I’d ask you about this:
I’m trying to stop eating the dairy (especially) and the eggs. But I find that I feel really weak if I don’t get at least some cheese in a week. Somehow the extra beans and hummus I add don’t seem to cut it for me. Can you suggest anything? I know you’re not a nutritionist, but can you suggest anything?
I’d also like to ask those who hold that animal experimentation “must take place” whether it wouldn’t make more sense to experiment on human animals, who not only offer real human bodies to test on–thus presumably increasing efficacy and utility of test results–but could also offer something other animals cannot offer: consent.
Obviously that’s a rhetorical question, Rob. ;-)
Lamberakis, you can try a good vegan calcium supplement (check your Whole Foods or natural grocer), and do pump in some soy or rice or almond milk. That would be my suggestion.
Lamberakis, you’re right. Animals (commonly defined as living creatures other than plants or humans) can’t offer consent.
They also can’t offer dissent. They don’t possess the reasoning capacity to make choices. They’re lower order creatures, somewhere down the food chain from us. They also sometimes provide necessary opportunities to do research that can save human (and occasionally even animal) lives. And quite often, they’re very nutritious and tasty.
I really do sometimes feel people have too much time on their hands in this country.