Extending Protections
Today, as a physician, I evaluate and often treat asylum seekers who are torture survivors. However, my first introduction to torture and genocide was at nine years, when I read A Cry from the Heart: The Bahá’ís of Iran, by William Sears. The most vivid story I recall was that of a young boy who was burned to death with his father after he failed to renounce his religion. At the time, I could not comprehend the complex factors that led to his death, although I understood that the act was intrinsically wrong. After a few years passed, I learned more about the sociopolitical milieu, as my dad’s family migrated to the United States to escape the religious intolerance described by Mr. Sears.
By the time I reached college, I had become increasingly interested in international affairs. I studied the historical events that led to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the large-scale genocide in Serbia, and comparable crises. After college, books such as Samantha Power’s The Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, continued my education.
I have been deeply affected by each account of torture. Although each story is unique, there is a thread of commonality. I have discovered that the psychological trauma that survivors experience inevitably trumps their physical pain. Fear, vulnerability, humiliation, and witness are universal themes. Frequently, survivors struggle with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other psychiatric disorders.
As global citizens, we implicitly understand how acts such as torture and genocide against other humans are wrong. But, I remain perplexed by our failure to empathize with other animals. Humans are not alone in our capacity for emotions such as horror, helplessness, shame, and empathy. Elephants and chimpanzees experience PTSD and other forms of psychopathology as a result of trauma. Learned helplessness has been described in victims of domestic violence, as well as rats exposed to inescapable shocks in the experimental laboratory setting. Even upon being handled, mice become distressed. Nonhuman primates, dogs, mice, chickens, and sheep demonstrate empathy. Pigs kept in isolation become withdrawn and refuse to move or eat when they become depressed. Fowl chicks separated from other chicks become anxious and depressed, and their symptoms improve when they are reunited or when they are treated with medicines used in humans. And the list goes on.
From an evolutionary and physiological perspective, it makes sense that nonhuman animals experience many of the emotions that we have erroneously assumed are unique to humans. Emotions such as fear and aggression enhance survival. The hippocampus, found in all vertebrates, is a small part of the brain involved in memory storage and retrieval, and may explain some of the similarities across species. In humans, PTSD is associated with degeneration of the hippocampus, perhaps because of recurrently and chronically elevated levels of the stress hormone, corticosterone. As it turns out, chronic disruption of the system that controls reactions to stress has been found in animals who have been confined, force-fed, restrained, isolated, and forced to undergo surgical procedures.
Many have justified the use of animals in experimental research by citing their similarities to humans. However, it is precisely the common potential for mental and physical suffering that is the reason we should avoid using animals in research. When examined objectively, there can be only one reason that we do not use a universal language to describe the trauma that occurs across species – our own prejudices and discrimination. Setting aside species differences, can we really say it isn’t torture?
The ethical dilemma might be more complicated if animal experimentation were indispensable. However, increasingly, the reliability of animal experimentation is being questioned. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 92% of all drugs that pass preclinical testing on animals fail in human clinical trials. Of the eight percent that receive FDA approval, half are later withdrawn from the market or have significant side effects that were not identified during animal experimentation. More than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines successful in nonhuman primates and more than 150 stroke treatments successful in animals have failed human trials. High throughput in vitro human cell tests more accurately and efficiently predict human toxicity than animal tests.
Currently, an estimated 50 to 100 million animals are experimented on each year. And there is little to no protection for most of these animals. The majority of these animals are not even covered by the Animal Welfare Act. Projections suggest that the exploitation of animals in research will continue to increase over the next few decades.
Everyday, I am personally haunted by the stories of torture survivors. Admittedly, it is difficult for me to draw the line between individuals based on race, gender, or species. Unfortunately, suffering is a universal experience. I personally think it’s time for us to redefine our circle of compassion, our personal choices, our professional obligations, and our laws. History has shown us that if we fail to do so, the torture and genocide will continue, and justice will be deferred.
9 Comments
And it’s not just a line between human and non-human that’s drawn – dogs and rabbits are tested on, which many people see as fine because they’re “lab animals,” even while they have pets of the same species at home who they love as family members.
Thank you so much for sharing this information. While never a fan of animal testing, I was totally unaware of the disconnect between animal testing and successful FDA approval and usefulness! This fact makes your essay even more compelling. Thank you so much for enlightening me.
Hope, this is a great blog, thanks for so much new information and connecting dots… I’ve read accounts of people who endured unimaginably sadistic torture in North Korean camps and it boggles the mind. Or child sexual abuse. There’s no place in my brain to process that. To put animal testing on the same physical and moral par is an important exercise for us all. I admit I haven’t thought too deeply about the efficacy of animal testing, always assuming that it must be a “necessary” evil on the whole. Question about the 92%: do you know if anyone’s figured out how much of that number is due to species differences vs how much is caused by the human phase of trials being more rigorous?
Hope, this is a great blog, thanks for so much new information and connecting dots… I’ve read accounts of people who endured unimaginably sadistic torture in North Korean camps and it boggles the mind. Or child sexual abuse. There’s no place in my brain to process that. To put animal testing on the same physical and moral par is an important exercise for us all. I admit I haven’t thought too deeply about the efficacy of animal testing, always assuming that it must be a “necessary” evil on the whole. Question about the 92%: do you know if anyone’s figured out how much of that number is due to species differences vs how much is caused by the human phase of trials being more rigorous? I’ve followed the Spanish primate rights case closely. The Great Ape Project is amazing. http://www.greatapeproject.org/
Thank you for this blog. I have had a front row seat on what war and torture can do to another person and I cannot abide it. I think we need this to end immediately. I also think that experimenting on animals is archaic and must be stopped we are judged by how we treat the least of us. Each soul deserves to be treated with care. Ever animal that is breathing has a soul in my book. I am sorry this is not a very eloguent reply but it makes me quake in anger. Thanks for the educating post. Callie
Hi Brian and thank you for your comments and question. You raise a good question about what might be responsible for the significant discrepancy between animal research and human research outcomes. Although scientific rigor might also come into play, species differences cannot be underemphasized. Chimpanzees, thought to be our closest living relatives, are a great example. Despite the fact that we share about 98-99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, we have major cellular and physiological differences. About 80% of chimpanzee proteins differ from those of humans. These differences affect disease susceptibility and treatment response. I find recent research from various geneticists especially interesting. Researchers have found that it isn’t just similar DNA that matters – gene location (referred to as genomic neighborhood) and gene loss across species also matter, resulting in differences in anatomy and other important differences across species (such as the way we express language).
Thanks, Hope. That’s really interesting about the proteins…. keep up the great work!
Love your post. I totally agree – no matter how small we are, each of us is capable of making a big change – a little at a time.
Hope: Thank you for your profound words of compassion. Animal suffering has long been a cause dear to me. My hope is that as humans evolve they will come to understand that all of earth’s beings are connected and are critical to its web of life, and deserve humane treatment.
June 17, 2009