Animals are Friends, not Scientific Experiments - Research Paper Example

?Animals are Friends, not Scientific Experiments For decades, animals have been used by scientists in their research. Mostly, these animals have beeninstrumental in medical research and testing. Animal experimentation has helped scientists in finding solutions to various emerging and currently existing diseases. Admittedly, animal research has helped contribute to the lives of many people around the world. However, we cannot turn a blind eye on the inhuman treatment which animals receive in the name of medical treatment (Langley 2010). Animals are meant to be our friends and our companions. This paper seeks to quickly review animals as friends of man, and not scientific experiments. Animal research is a practice that has had an inhumane impact on animals. It is a cruel process which often involves discomfort to the animals, and in some instances, pain and death. Pain is a mental process which often cannot be observed, but it does not mean that it is not happening. Its physical impact can also be significant as observed from humans who manifest responses like screaming, crying, or even jerking away from the object or person causing them pain. If from the above-mentioned indicators we can deduce pain in humans, why is it that the scientists overlook the fact that animals also feel pain? When animals are stepped on or poked, they cry or jerk away. Animal testing involves hurting and painful procedures which include the injection of poisonous chemicals, the cutting of their abdomen, and the stressing of their bones until they break, and similar other procedures. All these painful acts are performed without anesthesia being administered. Scientists argue that anesthesia often interferes with the accuracy of their results. For which reason, they have no qualms about subjecting these animals to intolerable pain. Painful experiments on animals can make most people uncomfortable. For many years, much controversy has surrounded the practice of animal testing, and the subject of primates subjected to testing has been one of the core issues of this controversy (Conn, et.al., 2008). On one side, humans relate more to primates, more than any other animals and therefore, their eagerness on the use of such primates for experimentation is strong (Conn, et.al., 2008). The feelings of kinship with primates have often animal rights groups to express their protests against animal cruelty and testing. Those involved in primate testing however argue that these experiments are necessary in order to establish cures for diseases and the fact that primates have more in common anatomically to humans, make them the best candidate for experimentation (Guerrini, 2003). There are however inherent issues which are bound with this practice. It is evident that animals experience cruel and inhuman treatments through some of the experiments carried out on them. In some of these experiments, they are often forced to ingest household products and are then monitored to observe the results. Further, in other experiments, animals are often forced to ingest medicines before these medications are put into market. These experiments are carried out in order to ensure that they do not have any life-threatening side effects on human beings. To test corrosive chemicals, chemicals are often applied on the shaved backs of the animals and these chemicals expectedly burn the skins of these animals, often causing them much agony and pain (Larry, 2004 p145). According to the scientists, animals and human beings have a similar biological structure. This is a fragile foundation to base an argument on. Research has expressed that every animal species has a unique biological structure which may look similar to others, but are, in fact, very different. It has also been established that experimental results accrued from one species can have negative results on other species (Langley 2010). It is therefore wrong to conclude that the biological genetics of human beings resemble those of animals; and it is therefore wrong to use them as test subjects because of their anatomical affinity to man. Animals too have rights. Many people however resist the idea of animal rights simply because they believe it is an absurd idea (Cohen and Regan, 2001). They argue that if animal rights exist, then it may also be necessary to acknowledge their right to vote, to marry, etc, which admittedly is indeed absurd (Cohen and Regan, 2001). These absurdities lead them to the conclusion that animals therefore have no rights. However, the animal rights being sought are not of the absurd kind. Human rights do not necessarily mean the same rights for all people because even these have restrictions, including age restrictions on the right to drive or the right to vote (Cohen and Regan, 2001). Yet, the same right to respect must be afforded all humans regardless of their age. In effect, although infants do not have the right to vote, they have the right to be respected and to be protected from harm. For which reason, granting rights to animals, most especially the essential rights which apply to their physical nature, are not absurd rights (Cohen and Regan, 2001). They too must be accorded rights which help protect their existence and their welfare. Other objections on the rights of animals are also being forwarded, especially in relation to the reciprocity of animal rights. They argue that since animals do not respect human rights, then humans too should not respect animal rights (Cohen and Regan, 2001). There is also a semblance of truth to this argument because animals indeed do not respect human rights and more likely, animals do not even know what respect for human rights mean. However, even the lack of understanding does not reduce the need to respect human rights. In relating the concept to children’s rights, the fact that they do not understand the need to respect other people’s rights, or the fact that they cannot reciprocate in respecting other people’s rights do not preclude the presence of their own rights (Cohen and Regan, 2001). Based on this analysis, there is therefore no need for reciprocity for rights to be respected and recognized. Arguments have also been forwarded objecting to animal rights and these arguments have mostly expressed that only humans have inherent value and therefore they are the only ones entitled to rights (Spedding, 2000). This argument however cannot be quantified because there is no basis for attributing value. The lack of reasoning, autonomy, or intellect seem to be forwarded as measures of value, however, humans too may be lacking in these elements, but are still afforded rights (Spedding, 2000). Those who are intellectually challenged, who are prisoners, or who are in mental health facilities may lack the intellect, autonomy, and reasoning, but they are still afforded rights. Inherent value cannot therefore be judged as a parameter for the attribution of rights to animals (Spedding, 2000). Moreover, it is not possible to rationally support the argument that animals, just like the intellectually challenged or the imprisoned humans do not have as much inherent value. Inherent value is attributed in equal measures and all beings have the same moral value, whether they are human beings or not. When the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was founded by Alex Pacheco, he immediately tipped and led police officers into a research laboratory in Maryland known for animal experimentation (Grayson, 2000). Inside, the police discovered 17 monkeys who were physically ill with open festering wounds and with almost no hair left on their bodies. Whole clumps of hair were found in their cages and many of them looked half-starved (Grayson, 2000). This was very much in stark contrast to the true state of monkeys in the wild looking hairy, exuberant, and fierce. Years of confinement emaciated them, reducing them to skin and bones and making them look very frail (Grayson, 2000). Testimonies from the attending veterinarians indicated the state of these rescued animals and the history of medical procedures taken on them. Many of these primates had their backs cut open and some of their nerves were cut off. As a result, movements in various parts of their body were permanently stopped (Grayson, 2000). One of the animals rescued lost the use of his arms due to severed nerves. He was forced to have to crawl on his elbows in order to get to his food and to move about. The fact that his teeth were also infected did not make things any easier for him. The veterinarian further expressed how the monkeys often injured their nerveless limbs as they often had their fingers caught in the jagged and rusty cages they were in (Salem and Rowan, 2001). Police officers also expressed how many of the monkeys had missing or severed fingers apparently due to the lack of sensation in these limbs. Accounts from witnesses also indicate how the monkeys were often placed in dark refrigerators or restraint chairs, tying them down with ropes and burning them with cigarette butts or lighters, or squeezing their flesh and their testicles in order to test their responses and their nerves (Mur, 2004). Electrical shocks were also carried out on these animals. Millions of animals are being used as experiments with each year. Most of these subjects of research are treated abysmally (Bernstein, 2000). They also face continued stress and fears from the loss of control in their lives and the denial of their natural instincts and activities. These animals are often also used for various purposes – forced aggression, induced fear experiments, football helmet tests, and cleaning tests (Mur, 2004). Monkeys are often given AIDS-infected swabs and some are often deliberately driven amok to cause them to crush their infants for child abuse researches. Genes of pigs are also being changed, some of them unable to walk soon after; and for chickens, gene changes have also been carried out in order to prevent them from flying (Mur, 2004). Some animals have also been burned alive in planes or are exploded during weapons testing; some have been made to inhale toxic chemicals, in some cases, until they choke to death. Some are simply starved and then shot, given hallucinogenics and electrical shocks in order to test tolerance; and others are often fed poison to test effects and impact of these poisons (Mur, 2004). Animals are often thought of as disposable subjects. For which reason, they are often subjected to numerous ridiculous and unnecessary tests (Bottum, 2001). These researches often come at a time when many Americans actually have not health insurance and when drug and alcohol rehab centers have been closed due to lack of funding. Various ridiculous experiments have been carried out in different research facilities across America (Burne, 2001). Researchers at the University of California have been known to attach plastic swords to the fins of male fish in order to detect if females were likely to be attracted to males with or without these swords. There seems to be no logical reason for this experiment (Mur, 2004). In other centers, rats have been killed with significant doses of hot sauce with also no apparent reason behind the experiment. At the University of Texas, researchers placed electrical probes on monkeys’ brains, were later awakened at night and observations on their sex drive were observed (Mur, 2004). Once again, this experiment served no logical purpose. Rats were also made to swim to their deaths in one research facility in order to test the impact of stress. Another study also placed toy snakes in a monkey’s cage in order to test their responses. Naturally, they looked very scared. Fishes were also given gin or vodka in order to test their preference (Mur, 2004). There was no earthly and logical reason once again for these tests. For what did it matter in the end if fishes preferred gin or vodka or if rats were able to float longer than other rats, or if monkeys had a stronger sex drive at night. These experiments which were often justified in the name of medical treatment did not appear to come close to being related to any medical treatment at all. In fact, they appeared to be products of curiosity for these experimenters and just because the animal subjects were there and could not object to the procedures, they were used as subjects. These acts reflect deliberate and unconscionable practices of cruelty which cannot be given any legal or moral justification. Even if there may be logical reasons behind animal experimentation, the mere cruelty of these acts are objectionable considering that these animals also have nerves which cause them to detect pain stimuli (Boyce, 2000). These acts cause much cruelty and suffering to these animals. At the Rockefeller University research facility, researchers forced cats to vomit numerous times for about three hours after cutting off connections between their brains and their spinal cords (Mur, 2004). At the University of Iowa, pregnant rabbits were given cocaine and the baby rabbits had their brains shocked in an attempt to study maternal drug abuse (Mur, 2004). At the Louisiana State University, cats were also shot in the brain in order to detect how these wounds affected breathing. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also carried out ridiculous attempts in order to prove that the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused the deaths of hundreds of birds (Stevens, 1990). They shot birds, doused them in oil and threw them into the sea. In yet another act of deliberate cruelty against animals, the University of Illinois researchers opened up cow’s stomachs and inserted bags of newspapers in them and later checked to see if the cows could survive on a diet made up of 40% newsprint (Mur, 2004). Even the NASA has engaged in animal cruelty by sending monkeys into space carrying electrical coils into the backs of their eyes. Tobacco companies have also forced dogs and mice into smoke masks and forced them to inhale tobacco smoke 20 hours daily for many years (Foran, 2012). Some universities have also forced cats to keep awake for many days, or to walk narrow planks suspended above water-filled tanks. The above acts are not the only acts of cruelty against animals. Hundreds of household product and cosmetic companies, as well as pharmaceutical companies have also carried out tests of their products on these animals (Hau and Hoosier, 2003). Some drug companies have tested their antidepressant or headache products on these animals and many of them still conduct the same antiquated ‘standard four’ tests. These are already considered obsolete tests as they were first introduced in 1920 and 1930 when huge amounts of pills were making their way into the market (Ascione, 2010). This test involves first, the dripping of the test substance into a rabbit’s eyes; second, feeding huge amounts of the substance into a dog or a monkey; third, forcing rats to inhale the substance through a mask; and fourth smearing the substance into the raw back of a guinea pig. Then the experimenter has to wait and record or observe the impact of the experiment (Ascione, 2010). There are obvious effects of these substances, especially toxic substances on animals. Naturally if toxic chemicals would be fed to a monkey or a dog, his internal organs would be eaten away and he would likely die as a result. Knowing what the effects of these toxic chemicals on animals would not help in the treatment or management of any accidental ingestion of these substances; therefore, this ‘four standard’ test serves no earthly purpose. Rabbits and other guinea pigs often suffer the effects of the experimentation or testing silently and without protest. They often convulse violently without even disturbing the quiet of their confined rooms where they lived (Goncalves, 2002). In 1998, footages of experiments being carried out in the British headquarters of Huntingdon Life Services were released. This facility is actually one of the major research facilities serving different major and well-renowned companies worldwide (Mau, 2004). The footages indicate how the experimenters punched dogs in the face and how some of them screamed at the animals who were cowering on operating tables. The footage shows palpable fear from these animals who were supposed to stay calm during electrocardiograph tests. The experiments were also recorded body-slamming the primates into their steel cages (Yount, 2008). The research facility tried to stop the footage being released to the public, however PETA was already able to gain access to hundreds of hours of footage of animal cruelty acts being carried out in the research laboratory. The facility was found guilty of violating the Animal Welfare Act and fined with the necessary penalties. Many researchers justify the deplorable practices against animals because they seem to be hardened to the suffering they are exposed to. Robert White is one of these experimenters (Franklin, et.al., 2001). He claims that there must be no limits to science and for which reason he seems to easily bear the suffering he sees in the faces of his animal subjects. Researchers also often end up defending and supporting each other, even if they hardly even know each other (Franklin, et.al., 2001). In the trial of Dr. Edward Taub, a researcher who was accused of animal cruelty, fellow researchers flocked to the courthouse to defend him for his actions. They defended him even in the face of dead monkeys found in barrels of formaldehyde (Best and Radcliffe, 2005). However when queried on whether or not they knew the defendant or they saw the photographs depicting animal cruelty, they responded in the negative. Some of the defense witnesses were also disdainful of animal rights, calling the animals nothing more than defecating machines. These defendants also supported Taub likening him to a modern Galileo (Yount, 2001). They cited how Galileo was known to nail live animals on operating tables, eviscerating them and subjecting them to various experiments. There are however researchers and experimenters who were able to realize the cruel impact of their actions. Donald Barnes is one of them. Barnes was known for torturing rhesus monkeys, often causing the deaths of numerous monkeys during his experiments (Kistler, 2002). In time however, when he found that the experiments did not yield any useful results, he then understood how his acts were unethical. He left the research facility he was working for and later testified in favor of the prosecution in the Silver Springs monkeys’ case, declaring how the acts of cruelty against the animals were senseless and inhumane. Dr. Roger Ulrich also used monkeys in his experiments, often subjecting them to pain and aggression (Kistler, 2002). He used to believe that his experiments were in aid of research; however, he discovered that the results of his work did not justify its prolongation. He then decided to stop torturing animals because he believed that the ends did not justify the means. Animals are friends, not subjects of scientific experiments. With this in mind, various laws have been passed in order to protect animal rights. In the US, the Animal Welfare Act is the primary law being used to ensure animal rights and welfare. This law mandated that any procedures to be carried out on animals are allowed for as long as they can be scientifically justified (Stephens and Rowan, 2005). Research institutions are also called on to consult with authorized veterinarians during their experiments. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is tasked with ensuring that the alternatives for animal experimentation must be exhausted before animal experimentation can be carried out (Stephens and Rowan, 2005). The IACUC also monitors experiments on primates, especially in facilities receiving federal funding. Through these safeguards, attempts at reducing animal cruelty have been established, however, various acts of cruelty are still being carried out in various unmonitored research facilities. Surveys from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) report that about 100 million vertebrates are subjects of experimentation on an annual basis, and 10-11 million alone are seen in the European Union (Gurus Connection, n.d). Global estimates number in the 50-100 million animals and these figures do not include experiments on invertebrates like shrimps of fruit flies. Animals who have also been bred for research or those who have not yet been weaned are also not included in these numbers (Gurus Connection, n.d). More unreported and undiscovered incidents of animal experimentation are not also included in the above numbers. This situation does not bode well for these animals that are easily vulnerable to the whims of their human counterparts. The impact of animal experiments especially in relation to pain and suffering has been the subject of serious debate for many years now. The US Department of Agriculture expresses that for about 670,000 animals subjected to experiments, only minimal pain and distress was caused (USDA, 2005). About 420,000 animals were given anesthesia in order to relieve pain, however, some incidents were also recorded where pain and distress could not be relieved by anesthesia. Some cases of experimentation were also recorded as mildly or moderately painful or distressful for the animals and so were carried out without any much concern for animal rights and welfare (USDA, 2005). However, the exact parameters by which pain is measured for animals still cannot be ascertained because of the varying anatomical features they have. Just because we may consider pain to be mild or moderate does not mean that animals feel it in the same way. Whether or not the emotional or physical impact of such pain is greater or less than our own standards of pain stimuli does not mean we should credit these animals with the same pain or stress thresholds as ours. It is therefore important to consider other alternatives to animal testing instead of persistently considering these acts as the only options we can take in the advancement of medical research and treatments. The idea of animals not feeling pain started as far back as the 17th century with philosopher Rene Descartes who suggested that animals often do not experience pain because they do not have consciousness (Carbone, 2004). Bernard Rollin from the Colorado State University who was the main author of animal relief and animal rights suggested that researchers have not always been sure if animals do experience pain and for a while veterinarians were even asked to ignore manifestations of animal pain. Rollin was often asked to prove that animals were conscious and to establish scientific evidence of their consciousness (Carbone, 2004). However, the notion that animals feel pain differently is no longer the majority opinion and there is a wider acceptance of the fact that animals have a certain level of consciousness. Many critics have also considered how animal mental states can be measured and the ability of invertebrate animals to feel pain have not been settled as yet. The animal welfare regulations consider standards which govern animal testing in animal research facilities in the US. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals declares that the ability of animals to respond to pain has become a popular consideration in the animal kingdom (Carbone, 2004). Pain is considered a stressor and if it is not relieved it may lead to high levels of stress and distress. The Guide also acknowledges the fact that the ability to recognize pain in different species is an important consideration in eventually applying pain relief measures. It is therefore important for people to ensure that people care for these animals; moreover, they also need to be familiar with the symptoms which may indicate pain among their animal subjects (Carbone, 2004). In relation to analgesic pain relief, the Guide also declares that the appropriate analgesics to be chosen must be based on professional assessments in relation to what would best meet the clinical requirements of professional judgment without compromising scientific results. In effect, all the issues in relation to pain and distress, as well as their potential management with pain and analgesia must be subjected to regulatory considerations and animal protocol assessment. The argument that animal experimentation is essential for medical research cannot also hold water. Admittedly, medical advancements in treatment and research have managed to prolong the life of many people; and it has managed to establish treatments for various diseases thereby curing them from their various ailments (Robinson, 2002). The modern miracles of medicine are believed to be products of animal experimentation. Supporters of animal research declare that most significant research advancement has been founded on animal research (Paul, 2002). However, various advancements have not been attributed to animal testing and experimentation. Vaccines have not been developed based on animal testing and neither were MRIs and CAT machines and diagnostic tests. Animal experimentation also did not yield advancements like anesthesiology, antibiotics, and other modern surgical procedures (Roberts, 2002). Without any scientific support on the results of animal experiments on medical advancements, such claim cannot be justified and cannot be used solely to support animal experimentation. Experiments on animals were not responsible for the links established on the relationship between cholesterol and high blood pressure, but epidemiological studies were credited for that advancement (Roberts, 2002). Medications for heart disease and high blood pressure were established even without the misleading and unreliable studies carried out by animal researchers. Experiments on animals were also not responsible for the establishment of the relation between cancer and smoking. Cancer researchers also have not had any major progress on their animal experimentation to find cures to various types of drugs (Roberts, 2002). Out of the 20 compounds which have not been identified as causative agents of cancer on humans, 19 caused cancer in animals. However, for the 19 compounds known to cause cancer in humans, only 7 caused cancer in mice and rats. Animals experimentation were also not successful in the field of surgery. Many surgeries were also developed without the aid of animals (Roberts, 2002). Due to these advancements in medicine which were not reliant on animal experimentation, it can be logically argued that animal testing are not essential to medical advancements. The testing of medications has also been popularly forwarded as one of the major reasons why animals should justifiably be subjected to experimentation and testing. However, of the 198 new medications released from 1976 to 1985, only 102 were pulled out and relabeled because of severe side effects which were not seen during initial testing on rats, mice, guinea pigs, and other animals (Spun, 2002). These side effects have often been severe, and have included complications such as liver failure, kidney failure, seizures, strokes, and respiratory arrest. Animals have also been used to test drugs meant for AIDS. Millions of dollars and over twenty years of research have been set aside for AIDS research and in these experiments, baby monkeys have often been taken away from their mothers in order to carry out the animal experimentations and drug testing. To date, no success has been gained applying this technique and there does not seem to be any clear gains which would become apparent in the years to come (Spun, 2002). Yet hundreds of animals would still be used and subjected to more experiments until any viable progress can be seen in the treatment of AIDS and other diseases. Experiments on primates have been one of the most common animal experiments in relation to AIDS. These experiments have misled researchers for a while, mostly on how fast HIV replicates. The current medications for the management of AIDS were first conceptualized without any animal testing (Wise, 2002). It is therefore possible to advance our AIDS management activities without having to resort to animal experimentation. Instead, funding for research must be diverted towards other scientific activities which would yield similar results. Those with vested interests in animal experimentation would not favor this suggestion and they will continue to insist the vital role that animals play in medical treatment (Wise, 2002). However, it does not erase the fact that the scientific proof is piling up and they do not favor further animal testing and experimentation. In the end, their benefits are not significant and do not outweigh the suffering and pain they cause animals. It is a high time for human race to realize that animals are meant for their companionship and not for testing. The scientists should turn to the better available alternatives that could be used for testing (Langley 2010). The available alternatives includes use of computer software, carrying out the tests on the human cells by using cultures and other new methods that does not threaten the lives of animals. In conclusion, it is important to note that animals are our friends and not subjects of experimentation. The various acts of cruelty inflicted on them have no rhyme or reason. Although they seem to bring about various benefits for medical research, these same results can be gained through other means. It is therefore time for man to consider alternative ways for medical testing, mostly to ensure the continuity of our animal species and the protection of their rights. References Ascione, F. (2010). The international handbook of animal abuse and cruelty: theory, research, and application. New York: Purdue University Press. Bernstein, A. (2000). Animal-rights movement seeks not to prevent needless cruelty to animals, but to inflict it upon human beings. Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. Best, S. and Radcliffe, B. (2005). Polling America: A– O. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group Bottum, J. (2001). The pig-man cometh. Human Life Review, vol. 27(1), p. 97 Burne, J. (2001). Comment & analysis: animal testing is a disaster. The Guardian. Cohen, C. and Regan, T. (2001). The animal rights debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Conn, M. and Parker, J. (2008). The animal research war. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Franklin, A., Tranter, B. and White, R. (2001). Explaining support for animal rights: a comparison of two recent approaches to humans, nonhuman animals, and postmodernity. Society & Animals, vol. 9, no. 2. Foran, K. (2012). Stop needlessly testing tobacco products on animals. Animal Welfare Petitions. Retrieved 02 June 2012 from http://forcechange.com/21276/stop-needlessly-testing-tobacco-products-on-animals/ Grayson, L. (2000). Animals in research: for and against. London: British Library. Goncalves, E. (2002). Lambs to the slaughter. Ecologist. Gurus Connection (n.d). Animal testing. Retrieved 02 June 2012 from http://gurusconnection.com/contributes/Upload/Bhavaniswaminathan10843064619.pdf Guerrini, A. (2003). Experimenting with humans and animals: from Galen to animal rights. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hau, J. van Hoosier, Jr., G. (2003). Gerald handbook of laboratory animal science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Kistler, J. (2002). People promoting and people opposing animal rights: in their own words. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Mur, C. (2004). Animal experimentation. Michigan: Greenhaven Press Oderberg, D. (2000). The illusion of animal rights. Human Life Review Paul, E. (2002). Why animal experimentation matters. Society. Retrieved 02 June 2012 from http://www.teratology.org/members/pressrel.pdf Roberts, I. (2002). Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? British Medical Journal. Robinson, V. (2002). Do we have the right to play god? Express on Sunday. Wise, S. (2002). Beastly behavior? A law professor says it’s time to extend basic rights to the animal kingdom. Washington Post. Salem, D. and Rowan, S. (2001). The state of the animals 2001. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press, 2001. Spun, B. (2002). Is animal research really necessary? Insight on the News. Spedding, C. (2000). Animal welfare. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications. Stevens, W. (1990). 200 Birds Shot for Study of Valdez Spill Losses. New York Times. Retrieved 02 June 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/20/us/200-birds-shot-for-study-of-valdez-spill-losses.html Stephens, M. and Rowan, A. (2005). An overview of animal testing. Humane Society of the United States. US Department of Agriculture (2005). AWA inspections. Retrieved 02 June 2012 from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf Wise, S. (2002). Beastly behavior? A law professor says it’s time to extend basic rights to the animal kingdom. Washington Post Read More