Are Animals a Resource or a Responsibility

by

Simon Bain

It seems that man has used animals as a resource forever but did that use carry with it an equal implication of responsibility? The answer was originally a resounding no! History records the French philosopher Descartes, regarded by many as the father of modern philosophy, propounding the view in the 17th century that animals had no consciousness, and therefore did not feel pain. Certainly at that time it could be fairly said that animal utilisation entailed little responsibility. In Britain however over the next two hundred years, philosophical debate saw the progressive emergence of an awareness of responsibility towards animals and, in 1822, of legislation, although at that time it sought to protect dogs and horses and other species did not come into the reckoning. To some degree this reflects the inconsistency that some still see in Britain’s animal lovers of today. Some of the most avid hunters would consider themselves to be sincere animal lovers, although the latter situation is not restricted to Britain.

What of Australia today? Can we fairly say that animals are equally treated as a resource and a responsibility? The best reply to this might be the quotation from George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.” Statistically the majority of us eat meat and are not adverse to wearing animal products such as wool and leather. Urban Australians accept the extensive farming practices which provide these products but in return expect that farmers accept the responsibility for humane animal management. An increasing number of Australians are however concerned about intensive livestock production practices, such as battery hen egg production, and the live animal export trade.

Companion animals are generally treated responsibly though ignorance in some quarters still prevails. There is an increasing realisation of the therapeutic value that pets may provide to people. What of the great love of Australians for sport and the part that animals play? The nation stops for the Melbourne Cup but there is widespread concern if a horse breaks a leg and is subsequently destroyed. The value of racehorses while they are successful ensures good care, but what of the less successful ones? There are those who echo Shakespeare’s Richard III’s “My kingdom for a horse,” although the acceptance of responsibility is not always in equal proportion to the expectations of the owner.

Increasingly there is concern about the use of animals in circuses, though less with animals in zoos where it is generally felt that educational and some conservation benefits outweigh the entertainment value. The last 25 years have seen a growing awareness of and concern for the management of our native wildlife. The control of feral animals such as pigs, cats, dogs, rabbits and foxes was acceptable by any means with previous generations of Australians. Increasingly there is a desire that control of unwanted animals uses humane methods. Science has turned its attention to fertility control for some of these feral species and this looks to be a better alternative than for example, 1080 poisoning.

Speaking of science, without a doubt the most contentious area concerning animal use is that involving the use of animals for scientific research. The latter has a capacity to arouse the emotions greater than any other in the animal field. Questioning and protest escalated with the publication of Australian philosopher Peter Singer’s book “Animal Liberation” in 1977. Such questioning lead to the development of the Code of Practice for the Care and use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, principally by the Animal Welfare Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which promulgated the concept of institutional animal ethics committees. Such animal ethics committees are mandatory and operate within appropriate state legislation which encompasses the Code. A scientist may not use an animal in Australia until approval has been given by an institutional animal ethics committee. The animal ethics committee is charged with weighing the value of the scientific outcome against the cost to the animals, as well as ensuring that such cost, in terms of pain and distress to the animals, is absolutely minimised. It is interesting that in some institutions in Australia, including the Australian National University, the formation of an animal ethics committee preceded the formation of a human ethics committee by more than ten years. The composition of animal ethics committees ensures debate and balanced decision making. The membership includes veterinarians, scientists, animal welfare nominees, and community representatives. The animal ethics committee in no way absolves the scientist from responsibility, in fact quite the opposite, and within a research team the ultimate responsibility lies squarely with the scientist.

Interestingly, Orwell’s concept of some animals being more equal than others has never been quite so clearly demonstrated as in the use of animals in science. The use of animals such as monkeys and dogs has the potential to evoke ardent protest, yet there is little protest about the use of mice and rats, although numerically the latter represent the vast majority of animals used in biomedical research today. Anthropomorphism, the ascription of human attributes to animals, plays a large part in this, although it is indeed difficult to divorce such feelings when one makes any judgement relative to animal matters.

In answer to the original question it could be fairly said that responsibility with regard to animals is very much an individual thing which therefore results in variation of standards. On the other hand, the aggregation of a number of like-minded individuals has the ability to change the general perception of collective responsibility and such changes, as well as providing education and enlightenment, may result in legislation that benefits animal welfare overall. It might be said that all animals are not equal and indeed we as humans have an infinite capacity to treat some animal species very differently to others. This not withstanding, undoubtedly Australians have become more aware of animal issues in the last thirty years and as a nation our general responsibility towards animals has increased considerably. This would, and should, be an ongoing process.