Students may be familiar with Monday’s protest by a
smattering of protesters upset over UCLA’s use of animals in
its cutting-edge research.
Yet such protests are just the tip of the iceberg.
Over the summer, Dr. Dario Ringach, UCLA professor and
researcher, announced that he would no longer experiment on
animals. This was not prompted by a change of heart but rather out
of fear for his safety and the safety of his family.
Last June, activists attempted to firebomb the home of UCLA
faculty member Lynn Fairbanks.
While the violent actions and threats against Ringach and
Fairbanks are certainly worse than the annoying rhymes of naive
protesters, both groups ultimately have the same goal and the same
values: the sacrifice of humans for the benefit of lower
animals.
The protesters claim they are fighting for animal rights, but
non-human animals do not have rights for precisely the same reason
that humans do have rights.
Human rights stem from our brains’ capability to use
reason to observe the world around us.
Unlike other animals, we are best suited for a world that
isn’t based on the dog-eat-dog rules of animals, but rather
on property, production and voluntary interaction.
Because lower animals are fundamentally incapable of such
reasoning, there is no purpose in them having rights.
Animal rights activists, however, usually base their notion of
rights on the ability (or inability) of animals to feel pain. This
is why they’re fine decapitating cabbage for a salad but
offing a mouse to cure cancer is an abomination.
Though they claim to be concerned with the pain of animals, they
seem quite content to ignore the pain and suffering of humans.
Animal testing can assist countless breakthroughs in medicine that
would improve our lives and health, from polio to diabetes, heart
disease to AIDS.
To the end of scientific research, animals should be treated no
differently than any other tool at a scientist’s
disposal.
Animals aren’t cheap; purchasing and caring for them
entails a significant cost. If researchers can find an easier, more
cost-effective way to advance their research, they are likely to
try it.
We should not worry about researchers’ use of animals any
more than we might have concern over the number of pipettes they
use.
Many animals are cute, but while their furry faces and adorable
antics make them good pets, this should have no bearing on their
status as research subjects.
If research can be best furthered by using animals as test
subjects, then abstaining from using them would sabotage research
and prolong medical and social ills.
In the end, the only truly ethical treatment of animals is to
use them for our benefit.
Hurst is a second-year chemical engineering student. He is
chairman of L.O.G.I.C.