Replies

THE TROJAN HORSE OF ANIMAL PROTECTIONISM
by Patrick H. Cleveland, Ph.D.,
President, CFAAR/San Diego 12/09/1992

MEDICAL MIRACLES AT RISK

The children of this country need to know the facts and opinions about animal research in a truly balanced and unbiased format. This is a complex and controversial subject that only a few teachers are trained to handle. The scientific community is concerned that our children are being misinformed about this Important area of medical research. A chilling indication of how misinformed they are came in a 1991 Gallup poll demonstrating 67% of American teenagers "support animal rights" including bans on all laboratory and medical tests that use animals. They appear to be unaware of the serious consequences of such a ban. This is a science education issue of great importance. How well today's students understand It will affect the fate of millions in the next century through education, regulatory and political processes.
THE TROJAN HORSE

A number of blatant animal rights groups such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have developed propaganda programs aimed at school children. However, for the most part they have not been accepted into school curricula because the teachers can recognize this as an extreme position. A far more dangerous assault has been launched on the classroom by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) under the Trojan Horse of environmentalism, saving endangered species and "animal protectionism". This camouflaged assault is welcomed through the front doors of the schools by many unsuspecting environmentally conscious teachers and administrators as it is proffered by an established group that is well respected for it's previous work in animal welfare - HSUS. In fact the state of California recently incorporated lessons from HSUS's educational program for school children into the state's new environmental education curriculum guide. HSUS with it's 1.3 million members calls it's self the nations largest animal protection organization. Few people know that HSUS's animal protection philosophy is not animal welfare but an animal rights philosophy that says It is morally wrong for humans to use or kill animals and that they have had that philosophy since 1990.(l)

In recent years HSUS elected to call themselves "animal protectionists" to disassociate their group from the bad press that the Animal Liberatlon Front (ALF) and PETA have brought to animal rights causes. They stress an environmental theme in their "Kids in Nature's Defense" newsletter which was sent last October to over 2 million students in every elementary school in the USA. They also sent The HSUS Student Action Guide to promote activism by forming Earth-animal-protection clubs. Some of these clubs target animal research. HSUS is also influencing other well respected educational resources such the 9 million circulation _Weekly Reader_ and it's companion for middle schools, _Current Science_.
WEEKLY READER

The April 10, 1992 second grade edition of the _Weekly Reader_ published a very biased and misleading debate on "Should Animals be Used to Test New Medicines". The editor of that edition acknowledged that he was an "animal protectionist". Even after being notified of the unbalanced presentation of facts, the October 23, 1992 _Weekly Reader_ senior edition (6th grade) and the October30, 1992 _Current Science_ again contributed to misinformation about animal research by omitting arguments and facts and leading children to accept the misguided position of "animal protectionism".
THE FALSE MIDDLE GROUND

The Weekly Reader/Current Science used the common advocacy technique of posing the two extremes of the argument (pro-animal research vs. PETA) and then led their young readers to the supposed `middle ground" of animal protectionism. This is a technique that HSUS has used before. Sandra Bressler The Executive Director of the California Biomedical Research Association has charged that HSUS is a "false moderate" that attempts to establish a "middle ground that is much closer to animal liberation philosophy than would other wise appear."(2) Just what does animal protectionism mean?
WHAT IS PROTECTIONISM?

Animal protectionists such as HSUS believe in the same animal rights philosophy of moral equality between humans and animals and they share the same goal of working for the abolition of animal research as does PETA and the terrorist ALF. What separates these groups are the tactics they use and the time table set for accomplishing that goal. It's like the difference between a mugger and a con man. They each will rob you they use different tactics, have different time tables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken. the tactics and time table of the protectionists appear moderate when compared to tactics of confrontation and demands for immediate abolition by PETA. But then again PETA appears moderate when compared to the terrorism of the ALF.

Animal protectionists don't angrily demonstrate, they don't demand an immediate halt to all animal research, they have an Installment plan time table. This year to eliminate primate research, then cats and dogs, then all animals but rats and mice. Their arguments con the public about the necessity of basic research, about the capability of so called alternatives to animals. (Even the most sophisticated technology still cannot mimic the complicated interactions among cells, tissues and organs that occur In humans and animals.) They distort good judgment by selectively focusing on research that easily arouses emotion. They target non-life saving research as they push toward the abolition of all animal research as fast as societal attitudes will allow. They say they will allow animal research if it is absolutely necessary to save human life. But who determines which situations are "absolutely necessary." In the protectionist view, those situations are few in number as they see the life saving argument as but a method to phase out animal research. They are blind to the human suffering and death their actions will bring. They are willing to force the rest of society to suffer the consequences of their "higher moral ethic" but they are not willing to acknowledge or accept responsibility for those consequences.
IN THEIR OWN WORDS

Recently HSUS President John Hoyt and Board of Directors member Robert P. Welbom enunciated HSUS's calculating tactics and the necessity for hiding their views on abolition of animal research from the public. The following quotes are from presentations to animal rights groups.

Hoyt - "In the early stages of the advent of the philosophy of animal rights, it appeared that established groups such as the HSUS and newly emerging groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals could make common cause on most Issues mutually supporting each other's actions and endeavors. ...until, sadly, it became apparent to us and others that the motives and ambitions of the leaders of this endeavor were seriously flawed. ... there has evolved over the past few years a fairly radical difference in the tactics,... Some animal rights groups tend to be confrontational and demonstrative, sometimes resulting in the destruction of property, personal intimidation and, on rare occasions, violence. This is not to say that the rights of animals should be either ignored or minimized as a meaningful and vital philosophy. Indeed, it must not be. But what needs to be said, and understood, Is that those who seek to codify the rights of animals in law or custom are but a small minority ...Do we then imagine, even for one brief moment, that a government -- our government --which declines to sign a magna carta on behalf of children....will be moved to do our bidding to stop the use of animals for research or prohibit their use for food? ... I hardly think so.... ... nor do we believe that the American public will in any large measure be responsive to those groups advocating such abolition"(3)

Welborn - "I question the moral propriety of causing animals to suffer for the purpose of testing products intended for humans or for dealing with human maladies. ... Many people, of course, experience great sorrow when working for animal protection and wish for a complete cessation of animal use and abuse, But if we engage in public discourse on behalf of animal protection and hope to be effective, we must deal with the prevailing human attitudes and laws."(4)

HSUS Vice President for Lab Animals, Martin Stephens was more direct. In an unguarded moment, Katie McCabe documented his views in an unchallenged segment of "Beyond Cruelty."(5) "Yet the Society's leadership is dominated by animal- rightists. Its official spokesperson on the lab-animal Issue, veterinarian Martin Stephens, personally espouses abolitionism. "I myself am an anti-vivisectionist, but I wouldn't impose that view on people now"'. (6)

Katie McCabe also documented in "Who will live and who will die?" previous HSUS Vice President for Lab Animals McArdle's, detailed instructions on how to hide their agenda.

"Acknowledging the limited appeal of an uncompromising vegetarian philosophy", McArdle advised delegates at the 1984 HSUS convention to `avoid the words "animal rights" and "anti-vivisection." They are too strange for the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only concern is the source of the animals."(7)
HIDDEN AGENDA

These quotes leave no question about the animal rights philosophy and true goals of the animal protectionists and their intent to disguise their abolitionist goals. Was the _Weekly Reader/Current Science_ Management aware of that agenda? Were the teachers who used the _Weekly Reader/Current Science_ aware? Were the students aware?
NOT AN EXTREME

Pro-animal research is not an extreme position. The vast majority of researchers take their stewardship over animals very seriously and they conduct their animal experiments humanely and with great sensitivity. They insure that animals don't suffer needlessly, they take good care of the animals and are governed by more strict regulations and oversight than any other profession that uses animals. They are continually reviewed by local state and federal agencies. The approval process for animal experimentation is very thorough and is designed to insure the use of the fewest animals possible and that animals are only used because there is no other choice. Researchers occupy the true middle ground.
ABOLITION IN DISGUISE

The _Weekly Reader's_ statement that the pro-research and PeTA positions are "disparate points of view" and indicating that "many people" are animal protectionists, pushes young readers into the "Maybe" false middle ground. Neither the _Weekly Reader_ nor _Current Science_ brought up a single argument against that "middle ground". Arguments such as what are the consequences, who determines if research is necessary, and the fact that very few if any individual expenments can "promise" life saving results. Science just doesn't work that way. Scientists of many different fields work collectively for many years on a common life threatening problem. They can't individually promise or guarantee life saving results. Animal protectionists' conception of how science Is done demonstrates their fuzzy thinking and naivete. Science builds brick by brick upon the knowledge gained in the past. The day of the isolated researcher making swift life saving breakthroughs are long since gone, Putting "life saving" limitations on scientists would also prohibit all basic science research using animals, and all animal research on problems of human suffering. Lets recognize the protectionist limitation to life saving research for what it is: a call for the abolition of all animal research In disguise.
THIS HORSE BRINGS DEATH

Those that use the Trojan Horse of "animal protectionism" to abolish animal research, do a great disservice to patients suffering from the hundreds of diseases we are still trying to cure. Those patients are important - more important than animals. There is a fundamental difference between respect and consideration for animals (welfare) and granting them equal moral rights, just as there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals. Animal protectionism works to blur that difference through anthropomorphism and brainwashing our children. The protectionist's con man efforts in the schools have gone largely unnoticed as scientists have been diverted by the PETA and ALF mugging. Scientists should turn their attention to the schools so our children and their teachers clearly understand these differences and the very real human and animal suffering and death consequences that will accompany the granting of rights to animals.