Dr. Michael Fox: Animal Rights
(Page 3 of 15)
January/February 1983
By the Mother Earth News staff
PLOWBOY: At that time, were you still pretty much an academician? That is, I assume you hadn't yet become actively involved in the causes that concerned you.
RELATED CONTENT
Support local, sustainable meat producers (and get more meat for your money) with a little help fro...
Cast iron pots and pans are the basis of a well-stocked kitchen, and will last a lifetime if you le...
This simple animal shelter, a versatile pole barn building for livestock animals, such as cows, she...
For clean scratch and happy (as well as productive) hens, it's worth your while to cobble up to thi...
FOX: Correct. In fact, I continued my research and earned a doctorate in ethology — or animal behavior — from the University of London in 1976. It was at that point, though, that I became a little uneasy about just sitting back and enjoying my tenured position and my security. I felt that I simply wasn't doing enough about a problem that I believed — and still believe — was deeply dangerous . . . not only to the animals that were being mistreated in many areas of our society, but also to society itself! At any rate, I began to look for a position that would allow me to make a real difference, and by chance and coincidence I was offered my present job as director of the Institute for the Study of Animal Problems . . . which is the scientific branch of the Humane Society of the United States.
PLOWBOY: That was also in 1976?
FOX: It was, and I immediately began to investigate the care and husbandry of laboratory animals . . . creatures used in scientific experiments. Of course, it wasn't long before I'd earned a reputation as a crazy idealist. At the time, you see, no one else in the scientific community was suggesting that lab creatures — I was mostly concerned with dogs and primates — have emotional needs, and that by ignoring such needs, many researchers were botching their experiments. That is, regardless of whether the work in question was justified, its results were often influenced by animal emotional factors that were never even recognized, much less accounted for, in the evaluation of the research.
For example, long-term isolation of a beagle or a rhesus monkey can cause serious behavioral, emotional, and psychological changes, including stereotyped pacing, depression, anorexia, or excessive eating, drinking, or grooming . . . the last of which can actually lead to self-mutilation. I've seen cancer research and pollution studies in which such beagles and monkeys were used, and the behavior changes and stresses involved were not even considered by the researchers, although it's widely believed that such factors do influence the results of experiments by increasing the animal's susceptibility to spontaneous or induced diseases, chemical toxicity, and the formation of malignant tumors.
PLOWBOY: Today, many cancer researchers feel that stress might be one of the most significant among the many factors that can contribute to the development of malignancies.
FOX: Yes, there has been a considerable turnaround in that area in the past few years. And, as a result of Congressional hearings held in October 1981, the scientific community is even beginning to accept the fact that animals have emotional needs.
Page:
<< Previous 1 |
2 | 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
Next >>