Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

P. Michael Conn, co-author of The Animal Research War, warns about the plan to use the law to undermine—and eventually destroy—animal research in a column in The Scientist. This isn’t alarmism. These law clinics at universities like Harvard and Rutgers hope to set lawyers in motion to do just that.  From his column:

Under current US law, things are either property or persons. Legal rights for animals require the establishment of personhood; property cannot have rights. US welfare laws view animals as property, but emphasize our responsibility to care for them humanely. The effort to ascribe “personhood” to animals is a central focus of animal rights supporters, since changing public perception of animals is one way to stop their use in food, clothing, entertainment, and research. In some jurisdictions, “pet owner” has been replaced by “animal guardian,” ascribing a different status for the animal. References to animal researchers as “vivisectors” who “exploit” “sentient beings” and practice “torture” and “cruelty” (applied generally to research), also impact the public. In a poll earlier this year (May 7–10),2 only 57% felt that animal research was morally acceptable, down from 62% in 2004.

The future may see an attempt to recognize Aristotle’s three categories: things, animals, and persons. Animals may not ultimately enjoy the rights of persons, but the law may become increasingly specific about our obligation to care for them. If, on the other hand, “personhood” for animals is achieved, this status is likely to be in conflict with animal research. Failure to address developments in the education of law students is likely to have a long-ranging impact on the ability to develop new treatments needed for human and animal well-being.

I discuss this matter at some length in my upcoming book A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy.  The threat is real, ranging from obtaining the right for animals to sue—supported by Obama Regulations “Czar” Cass Sunstein and Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe—to having them declared “persons,” a current such case involvling a chimp now in front of the European Court of Human Rights.  We ignore Conn’s warning at great peril to scientific advancement and the alleviation of human suffering.

Dear Reader,

Your charitable support for First Things is urgently needed before July 1.

First Things is a proudly reader-supported enterprise. The gifts of readers like you— often of $50, $100, or $250—make articles like the one you just read possible.

This Spring Campaign—one of our two annual reader giving drives—comes at a pivotal season for America and the church. With your support, many more people will turn to First Things for thoughtful religious perspectives on pressing issues of politics, culture, and public life.

All thanks to you. Will you answer the call?

Make My Gift

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles