Teacher: Ok class. I have some really exciting news for you today.

Class: Yeah!

Teacher: Next week, we will begin our study of the physiology of organ systems. That means that we get to dissect animals and learn about how their bodies work.

Julie: Yuck! That’s gross!

Teacher: No. That’s life! You will see what the brain really looks like. You will even see a heart as it is still beating inside a rat. This is the most interesting part of 9th grade Biology.

Kevin: Does that mean that we get to see blood squishing all over?

Teacher: Yes, there will be blood involved.

Tina: Do we really have to touch the animals?

Teacher: You will touch the animals, but you will have gloves on at all times.

(The bell rings and the class runs out of the room, except Ketan, who goes to speak to the teacher).

Ketan: Mrs. Anderson, it’s against my religion to kill animals, so I don’t think I will be able to do the dissections.

Teacher: But don’t you make exceptions for the sake of learning? This will be a very good learning experience.

Ketan: I’m sure it will be, but there are many ways to learn without sacrificing life.

Teacher: Yes, but no matter how you do it, there is no replacing this experience. I can describe to you what a vibrating heart feels like. It’s soft, and moist, and there’s a vibrating feeling under it, but that description could also be used to describe a fish. It’s sort of like this. I can tell you what sugar tastes like, but you will never know until you taste it yourself.

Ketan: Yes, you are probably right. I will never know what a rat’s heart feels like as it is beating, but I don’t think it will make a big difference in my life if I do learn what it feels like. But for the rat… he is being deprived of his life, just so that I can feel what his heart feels like. That is so unfair. How would you feel if some elephants wanted to know what it felt like to step on a human and just stepped on you even if it didn’t make a life-and-death difference in his life?

I understand that it is important to learn physiology and anatomy, and know where things are located, but I feel that it is wrong to do so at the expense of animals’ lives. Especially at this stage of the game, where it does not really matter if we know what an animal looks like inside. And if we really need to learn, sometimes we see dead squirrels and rats lying on the side of the road. We can always get some gloves, pick them up, and cut them open to learn about their anatomy. We don’t need to kill live rats.

Teacher: I guess you have a point here. I will excuse you from this assignment, if you can come up with a reasonable alternative within the next two days.

Narrator: That day, Ketan goes home and talks to his cousin, who is in medical school.

Ketan: You won’t believe what happened in school today.

Chetan: What happened?

Ketan: Our class is going to be dissecting worms and roaches and rats and stuff for the next few months, so I talked to my teacher about it. I told her it was against my religion to kill and that I didn’t think it was very necessary in this case to kill so many animals.

Chetan: No way! You told her that?

Ketan: Yeah, but wait, it gets better! She told me that if I could come up with a reasonable alternative within the next two days, then I could be excused from the assignment.

Chetan: There are lots of alternatives to this. Our medical school has lots of them because we are now moving toward more humane methods of medical education — no one is required to kill anything for the whole 4 years that we go thru medical school.

Ketan: So how do you learn?

Chetan: Well, we have computer programs for anatomy and physiology which are very interactive and fun to use. We click on the mouse to remove the skin or a particular muscle and you can see what is under it. Or, you can click on a screen to see the heart pumping and click on a medication to see the effects of that medicine on heart rate, blood pressure, etc.. It is just like the real lab. Of course, you don’t get to feel what it really feels like.

Ketan: That’s exactly what Mrs. Anderson told me. She said I would never be able to feel the real thing.

Chetan: Yeah, but we have cadavers. These were people who have donated their bodies to the medical school after death, so we can feel a real liver and a real spleen and a real brain. But we don’t have to kill in order to get the experience.

Ketan: Wow! That’s so cool! I wish I could do that.

Chetan: Do you want me to speak to my anatomy professor to see if you can come in and look at my cadaver? I will show you all the important organs. It will be fun for you too. Plus, it will be a real human.

Ketan: Yeah, that would be nice.

Chetan: And you can use our computer programs while you are there to learn about the anatomy and physiology.

Ketan: Cool! I’ll ask my teacher tomorrow.

Narrator: The next day, in school, Ketan brings up his idea to Mrs. Anderson.

Ketan: (raises his hand)

Teacher: Yes, Ketan.

Ketan: Mrs. Anderson, remember when I talked to you yesterday about it being against my religion to kill animals? And you told me that I could come up with an alternative assignment? Well I talked to my cousin who is in medical school; he told me that they have some computer programs that I can use to learn anatomy and physiology and then he could take me to see his cadaver so that I can feel a real human liver and heart. Does that sound like a reasonable alternative?

Teacher: Yes. That sounds fine with me.

Julie: I want to do that too; I think it sounds cool to go to the medical school and use their computer program, and then see a real human body. Can I be excused from the assignment too?

Teacher: Yes, that would be fine Julie.

Kevin: (Whispers to Ketan) Does that mean you get a day off from school?

Ketan: (Whispers back) Probably more than one because I can’t do the whole computer program in one day.

Kevin: (Yells to the front of the class) Me too. I want to do the alternative assignment.

Teacher: We’ll have to see about that. I don’t know how many of you can be accommodated.

Ketan: I’ll ask my cousin — may be they can just have a special class for us or something.

Teacher: That would be fine with me, if it’s okay with the medical school. Perhaps in future we may look into purchasing a computer program for our school too.

This skit was prepared by a medical student, Yashica Ghelani, Absecon, NJ.

Hunting’s other victim:

The Environment

– Peter Muller – New York State Chairman of the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting –

Ecology teaches us that there are objective, measurable, quantifiable ways to measure the health of an ecosystem. Biological diversity is one such scientifically recognized indicator.

What is biodiversity? It is a measure of species-richness, or the number of species within a community of organisms. Generally speaking, high biodiversity (a great variety of plants and animals, and not too many of each) is an indicator of a healthy and viable ecosystem while a low biodiversity (few varieties of life forms and hordes of individuals of each species) is an indication the ecosystem is under stress and could collapse.

What effect does hunting — and its concomitant practice of habitat management — have on the balance of ecosystems?

Let’s start answering this question with some other questions: Isn’t hunting part of our nature? Don’t animals, living in a natural environment, hunt? So, what’s wrong with hunting?

Animals living in a healthy ecosystem are in a state of natural predation. By evolving together in the same ecosystem, both predators and prey have adapted so that they both benefit as a species from that relationship. Predator and prey species have adapted structurally and behaviorally to allow them to be healthy predators or prey animals.

For example, prey species usually tend to have very large litters and shorter gestation periods. Rodents such as mice, rats and guinea pigs are typically prey species and are among the most rapidly reproducing species of mammals. Lemmings, another prey animal, can have litters of about six offspring every three weeks. This is nature’s way of assuring the species will survive even though many succumb to predation. Elephants, with no natural predator, typically give birth to one calf after a 22-month gestation period.

The eye structures among prey species tend to be well suited for peripheral vision — their eyes are on the side of the head can rotate to be alert to a predator approaching from any direction. Among predators, the eyes are in front of the head and can be focussed stereoscopically to allow the predator to assess the right distance to take its prey. If we look at birds, for example, we see different eye structures among the raptors (owls, hawks, eagles) as contrasted to passerines (sparrows, starlings, orioles).

The ability to move and survive on their own shortly after birth (precocial) is markedly more developed among the prey species than among species that have no predators. The various species have evolved these adaptations so they can all live and thrive in an ecosystem.

The natural predator will take some of the prey species but will never get close to totally eradicating them. Among species that have evolved together, no predator species ever takes more than about 10 percent of its prey base.

How likely will any individual predator successfully kill its prey in any given attempt? Usually about one chance in five, because the typical rate is around 20 percent — however it sometimes is less than 10 percent.

Natural predation benefits both the predator and prey species (and incidentally, the scavengers). Predators obviously gain a source of nourishment but the prey species also benefit. Predation usually removes infected and diseased individuals, thus checking the spread of illness, and congenitally weak animals, which prevents them from breeding and improves the gene pool.

Hunting by humans operates in the opposite direction. The kill ratio at a couple-hundred feet with a semi-automatic weapon and scope is virtually 100 percent. The animal, no matter how well adapted to escape natural predation (healthy, smart, alert, quick, etc.), has virtually no way to escape being killed once it is in the cross-hairs of a scope mounted on a rifle. Nature’s adaptive structures and behaviors that have evolved over millions of years are almost useless when man is the hunter.

Hunters generally go after healthy, big animals for meat and trophies. This leaves the diseased and congenitally weak animal to breed — thereby degrading the gene pool and spreading disease.

Hunting by humans has never been akin to natural predation, and modern technology makes the matter worse. But even hunting by indigenous people, before the blessings of Western civilization, was just as destructive — only at a slower rate. The North American Mammoth and the Pantagonian Giant Sloth are just two examples of animals that were hunted into extinction by indigenous hunters.

To see how destructive hunting can be to an ecosystem, let’s look at a specific game animal. Perhaps the most widely hunted animal in North America is one of the common species of deer (white-tailed, mule-deer or black-tailed, with an aggregate of about 50 sub-species).

Territories have a natural carrying capacity for each species that has evolved in that habitat. Nature has mechanisms to assure that the appropriate carrying capacity for each species is not exceeded. Let’s assume a naturally segmented area has sufficient browse to feed a deer population of 400 animals. What would happen if the net increase of one year brought the population well over 400?

Let’s say with all normal control mechanisms in place (such as natural predators), the population reaches 500 healthy individuals. At the start of the next rutting season, several mechanisms would kick in to assure fewer fawns the following year. If deer are hungry (not starving, but not well-fed, either) the sexual drive of the male deer declines and the female deer stop ovulating. Because the browse is not sufficient to feed all of the 500 animals, a portion of the deer population would not reproduce during that season. With the normal die-off during the winter and the lower-than-normal birth rate during the spring, the total population would be reduced to less than 500. Within a few seasons, the population would again stabilize around the capacity for the territory.

If the population drops substantially below the carrying capacity (say around 300), similar natural mechanisms would bring the population back up to the normal carrying capacity of 400. Other mechanisms, such as immigration and emigration, stop help maintain the population at the carrying capacity.

These mechanisms with which the species has evolved have intrinsic assumptions that have been true for millions of years. Human hunting destroys some of them. Normally the sex ratio of male to female animals is 50:50. Deer are born about evenly male and female. Most “sport” or “trophy” hunters prefer to take bucks rather than does. This alters the gender ratio of the population.

Let’s say it changes from 50:50 to 75:25 — leaving three times as many does as bucks. Nature’s mechanisms that adjust the population to the food supply will now miscalculate and cause an overpopulation. The same 400-animal herd which would have produced a 100-animal net gain (assuming a 100-animal winter die-off and a 200-fawn increase based on a 50:50 ratio), will now produce a 200-animal increase. (This assumes the same 100-animal die-off, but 300 does give birth to 300 fawns).

With the ratio distorted to 75:25, the population would thus increase to 600 instead of 500. Now indeed catastrophic starvation and die-backs can occur. Hunting is thus not the cure — but rather the cause — of overpopulation and starvation of deer.

State agencies encourage the destruction of the naturally evolved ecosystem by encouraging hunting, which balloons the population of the game species at the expense of non-game animals. Other “management” techniques, in addition to sex-ratio distortion, include:

• Removal of natural predators (such as wolves, coyotes, panthers, bears)

• Altering the natural habitat to provide additional browse for game species and destroying the habitat of the non-game species, (i.e. clear-cutting and/or burning areas and sowing them with oats for deer at the expense of rabbits, voles, various reptiles and amphibians, etc.)

• Introducing exotic game species into areas and then destroying the habitat to favor their survival at the expense of native species that have evolved in the area (i.e. stocking an area with pheasants — an Asian bird — and cutting tall timber trees needed by raptors for perches).

Hunting by humans is not a sustainable, mutually beneficial predator-prey relationship. Human hunting techniques, even the most primitive ones, are far too efficient to meet the conditions required of a natural predator-prey relationship.

With modern technology, the efficiency becomes totally lop-sided so as to cause instant habitat degeneration. Add to this the conscious mismanagement of habitat to further degrade and obviate all natural corrective measures.

Biodiversity is destroyed by using techniques such as sex-ratio distortion, habitat manipulation, removal of natural predators and introduction of exotic game species. The goal is to maximize the number of targets for humans to hunt, thereby destroying the naturally evolved ecosystems and putting them at the brink of total collapse.

What will it take for these ecosystems to survive? Prohibit hunting by humans and other forms of non-sustainable consumptive uses of these animals. Permit the reintroduction of re-immigration of predators (which is naturally occurring). Stop “managing” the environment of those areas.

When it comes to managing the environment, our knowledge is inadequate to do an even passable job. Even given an ethically sound motivation — which can’t be said of most governmental agencies now — we simply don’t know enough to do a better job than nature. For the sake of life on earth, we must not allow the hunting and gun-manufacturing lobbies to continue to dictate wildlife policies.

The above article is reprinted, with kind permission, from Vegetarian Voice (Perspectives on healthy, ecological and compassionate living), Vol. 19, No. 2. Vegetarian Voice is published by North American Vegetarian Society, P.O. Box 72, Doldgeville, NY 13329. Besides publishing above quarterly, NAVS is also the originator of the “

World Vegetarian Day” on October 1, in honor of Mahatma Gandhi, that started in 1975. They also celebrate Summerfest every year. For more information, please call them at 518-568-7970.

HISTORY OF NUTRITION EDUCATION

An Examination from Vegetarian Perspective

Good nutrition and the establishment of a balanced diet have always been great concerns for the American society. Since as far back as the 1800’s, a curiosity existed about the nutritional values of different foods. During this time, awareness concerning the different components of food was limited to proteins, fats, some minerals, and carbohydrates, with little knowledge about how the body uses these substances. Food was considered to be merely a provider of energy, with proteins needed for tissue building.

THE DISCOVERY OF VITAMINS

In 1912, Casimir Funk discovered substances he called “vitamins.” He noted a direct correlation between the “vitamins” and certain physical conditions. During the same year, Dr. McCollum and Marguerite Davis discovered a substance in cow’s milk, butter fat, and egg yolk that seemed to be essential to growth in animals in laboratories. Their discovery was called vitamin A, the first vitamin to be discovered. Additional vitamins were discovered and elimination of deficiency diseases now became possible through the consumption of vitamin rich foods.

In 1923, the Bureau of Home Economics, a new part of the Department of Agriculture, took on the responsibility of addressing questions of human nutrition, in response to public interest. They came up with a set of diet plans centered around twelve food groupings known as the Basic Twelve. Four diet plans were created that encouraged the selection of foods from the twelve different groups according to level of income. This implied that all levels of income needed some guidance; or adequate nutrition was determined by wise food choices, not just by having enough food. Prestige automatically became attached to animal foods, portraying them as “preferred” foods and foods for the higher class. Furthermore, the government endorsed these eating patterns in order to support the economic interests of producers in the meat, dairy, and egg industries.

R.D.A. AND BASIC SEVEN

In 1941, the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council formed the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA), which were the first comprehensive set of nutrition standards. To make the RDA more practically applicable to diet and food choices, they reduced the Basic Twelve to seven food groups consisting of:

(1) leafy green and yellow vegetables,

(2) citrus fruits,

(3) potatoes and other vegetables,

(4) milk and milk products,

(5) meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dried beans & peanuts,

(6) cereals, bread, and flours, and

(7) butter and margarine.

The Basic Seven was introduced in the schools. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also published a series of pamphlets promoting the latest guidelines. Until 1955, the Basic Seven remained the nation’s nutrition education model.

BASIC FOUR

By 1960, (1) meats, (2) dairy products, (3) breads and cereals, and (4) fruits and vegetables replaced the basic Seven and became the dominant dietary model in the country. It was well-received by industries promoting animal products as food, since their foods made a notable presence, comprising one-half of the recommended categories in this new diet. While other vegetable protein sources were supposedly included in the meat category, they were always considered second rate and most often not mentioned at all. Fruits and vegetables on the other hand, decreased from five of the twelve food groups, to three of the seven food groups, and eventually to one of the Basic Four where they all got packed together, a blatant statement concerning the relative insignificance these foods were to have for the dietary trends of the future.

Dr. McCollum, who was noted for his work with vitamin A, presented the health-giving properties of cow’s milk. Since no one had yet discovered that certain vegetables also contained vast amounts of these vitamins, cow’s milk was immediately declared a wonder food and deemed essential. In addition, McCollum coined the term “protective” foods for any foods containing vitamin A – namely butter, whole milk, and eggs. With the promotion of these foods, the dairy industry boomed. Furthermore, the government decided to guarantee dairy farmers a minimum return for all milk products they produced by purchasing the leftover products. The surpluses were distributed to schools, prisons, and the military in the form of butter, cheese, and milk.

Milk had been priced according to its fat content in order to prevent producers from watering it down. This fat-pricing system had further increased the value of fat and the high cost of cream and butter. Regulations preventing the sale of “filled milk” (milk whose far was replaced with vegetable fat) had ensured people were getting nutrient-packed dairy fat. Legislation had discriminated against margarine to reinforce the sale of butter.

GROWING CONCERNS ABOUT DIETS BASED ON ANIMAL PRODUCTS

It was until the mid 1950’s that the dairy industry remained in a positive limelight. It was then that the first studies connecting these foods with increased blood cholesterol and dairy fat was uncovered. Further studies confirmed that butter had more cholesterol-raising effects than other fats and that high blood cholesterol levels were associated with increased risk of heart disease.

Meat, which had been acclaimed for its favorable protein content and considered the food for the “higher” classes, was also found to be linked to heart disease. During the Korean war, autopsies were performed on the bodies of both American and Korean soldiers, and it was revealed that blood vessels of 77% of the American soldiers had been narrowed by atherosclerotic deposits (a precursor to most heart attacks and strokes), while no such damage appeared in the arteries of the equally young Koreans.

Later it was publicized that saturated fats, found primarily in animal foods, raise cholesterol levels. A diet high in cholesterol and saturated fat appeared to increase the cholesterol in the blood and clog arteries, which often leads to stroke and heart attacks, two of the most common causes of death in America. Heart disease as well as other health problems, such as obesity and diabetes were found to be results of an unhealthy American diet. It was strongly recommended that Americans adopt a diet significantly lower in calories, cholesterol, saturated fats, salt, and sugar. More vegetable and fruit products were suggested.

By 1980, the Basic Four altogether was discarded and replaced with seven simple guidelines:

Eat a variety of foods.

Maintain desirable weight.

Avoid too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.

Eat foods with adequate starch and fiber.

Avoid too much sugar.

Avoid too much sodium.

If you drink alcohol, do so in moderation.

Efforts are being made to educate teachers and the American public about healthier eating habits. Options such as vegetarianism or even an increased consumption of vegetables/fruits and a reduced consumption of meat (especially red meat), are gaining support and attention. The need for nutritious and well-balanced meals is essential to increase the health of the American society. In 1991, when USDA published the New Food Pyramid, it portrayed the importance of animal derived products reduced, and that of the grains, fruits, and vegetables reinstated.

An Award Winning Essay at 1992 Vegetarian Fair at San Diego, by Anita Daudani

.

Each Year, we have been inundated with requests from readers for data that might help them assess not only the fiscal integrity of charities that solicit their gifts, but also the efficacy of their programs. We have often been asked to rank charities by quality.

We have always refused to do qualitative ordering, as that would require making value judgements that we’d prefer our readers make for themselves, using their own criteria. Individuals and organizations tend to have differing priorities and tactical perceptions.

For example, one party might think the best way to fight cruelty is to fight meat-eating first, because if eating animals is accepted, people tend to feel animal life in general has low moral value.

Someone else might argue that protecting dogs and cats should come first, as these are the animals with whom the most people relate. Once a certain standard of treatment of pets is established, this theory goes, better attitudes will carry over to help other species.

Others might put the emphasis on stopping hunting, trapping, and other recreational torment of animals, because such practices lack moral defense.

Many other priorities might be chosen, without any choice being “right” to the exclusion of all others — and then there is the question of how best to achieve the goal. Should one seek reform, or only abolition? Should one pursue protest, legislation, litigation, mitigation, education, reduction, refinement, replacement, or direct action? Is the object immediate redress of a grievance, or effecting long-term change in public attitudes?

Different approaches must be tried, as a way of finding out what might best resolve each issue. Further, the more diverse the voices of animal and habitat protection, the more chance there is to involve people of widely differing background and outlook.

Biotechnology can now cross animals with plants, leaving all the vegetarians confused, wondering whether the food they are eating is actually vegetarian.

Flavor Savor

tomatoes contain genes from a fish, the Arctic Flounder. So staunch vegetarians want the altered tomatoes labeled.

Similarly, chicken genes are introduced into potatoes. Tobacco is altered with genes from mouse or fire-flies.

A mouse specifically created has been used to grow human organs, like ears. Similarly, scientists have managed to grow liver, skin, cartilage, bone, ureters, heart valves, tendons, intestines, blood-vessels and breast-tissue with polymers.

Genetic engineering at lengths such as these, are a symbol of consumerism gone berserk.

Genetic engineering is immoral because:

1.All animals feel pleasure and pains

2.It is done without their permission or any compensation

3.Animals are not allowed to run away, resist, protest, or call police help

4.Animals also develop great attachment towards their young ones, and their separation causes mental shock.

All gains go to men and none to animals.

What do religious leaders say about it?

Hindu Swamiji: According to our Vedas, our religion forbids killing of any animal and exhorts to be kind to them.

Jain Muniji: All life is precious – be it human or animals. We cannot give life, so we have no right to take life.

Buddhist Monk: Ours is essentilly a religion of kindness, humanity and equality.

Sikh Saint: There no grounds for ignoring or devaluing the life of an animal.

• by Keya Kamat –

Biotechnology can now cross animals with plants, leaving the vegetarian confused. The scientific world today has the power to alter the very fabric of nature, by transferring characteristics not only between plants , but cross-altering animals, plants and human beings. Genetic engineering which is without ethical limitation has a serious impact on the environment of animals and plants. It violates our relationship with the natural world. Most people believe animals have a right to live their lives free from human interference with their original genetic structure. Also, that animals can never serve as models of human disease — just because they’re much too different. But scientists still keep trying — after all, the human transplant market is worth well over $ 6 billion per year!

Biotechnology in recent years has been progressing in leaps and bounds. It represents a quantum leap in the exploitation of animals, allowing humans to move genes from one species of animal into another totally different species.

Scientists and biotech companies in some major countries of the world want to create new animals that produce more and ‘better’ meat, give up their valuable products such as wool more easily, and have organs that can be used in human transplants. It doesn’t stop there… many of the genetically modified crops now being field-tested in the US (and around the world) could not only have a devastating Jurassic-Park type impact on the global eco-system, but also hit agriculture-based third-world economies dependent on cash crops. Genetic engineering is a one-dimensional ‘reductionist-science’ that ignores the wider dynamics of life systems.

Genetic engineering primarily involves the introduction of genes containing DNA (deoxyribo-nucleus acid) procured from humans or animals into cells of bacteria, yeast or other animals. One of the outcomes is termed ‘Transgenic Animal’. These transgenic animals cannot be bred by natural/traditional selection or artificial insemination.

Donor females are given hormone injections and hormone impregnated sponges are also inserted directly into their reproductive tracts, so as to make them produce lots of egg-cells. This process has been termed ‘super-ovulation’. These eggs are then artificially inseminated either manually or surgically. Next the embryos are collected by further surgery or slaughter. These embryos are then injected with foreign DNA containing the genes of preferable traits, and then transferred into foster mothers, by surgery again.

It takes 80 donors and recipient animals to produce only one transgenic cow — if everything works perfectly — which is VERY rare.

Once the transgenic animal is produced, its suffering just about starts… for example, non-porcine genes have been added to pigs, producing animals with gastric ulcers, liver and kidney disorders, lameness, damaged eye-sight, loss of co-ordination, sensitivity to pneumonia and diabetic conditions.

Genetic engineering research is most often carried out on animals such as pigs, mice, sheep, farm animals, fish and sometimes, even on some plants such as the tomato, tobacco and corn.

Vegetarians around the world are seriously wondering whether the food they are eating is actually vegetarian. In the case of Flavor Savor as they are usually called, tomatoes are genetically altered by introducing into them genes from a fish, the Arctic Flounder, so as to reduce freezer damage, to enable them to have a longer shelf-life, to ripen longer on the tree while remaining firm at the time of picking and transporting and to make them bigger and tastier as well. No layman can make out the difference between Flavor Savor and a normal tomato which is primarily why staunch vegetarians want the altered tomatoes labeled.

Other such experiments with vegetables include chicken genes introduced into potatoes for resistance to disease and for increasing shelf-life and size, tobacco altered with mouse genes to reduce impurities or with a gene from fire-flies that makes the leaves glow at night. Some biotechnologists go to the extent where it becomes a game for them — playing around with genes of animals. This might result in some ghastly creature produced just to satisfy someone’s whims and fancies.

Scientists in the US have bred a mouse called the ‘Oncomouse’ which has been genetically engineered to develop cancer and in due course die a slow, painful death. The first oncomouse was bred in 1981, yet, in the past 15 years, a cure for cancer still seems to elude scientists. Genetic engineering on mice does not stop there. A mouse specifically created to lack an immune

system has been used to grow human organs, like ears, externally, even internally. The absence of an immune system ensures that the mouse will not reject human tissues. Scientists make a look-alike mold of a human organ, say, an ear, with biodegradable polyester fabric or other polymers. They then

transfer the bone/muscle cells into the form and transplant it on the mouse. When ready, the organ is ‘grafted’ from the mouse. The mouse somehow manages to remain alive after the ear is removed.

Similarly, scientists have managed to grow liver, skin, cartilage, bone, ureters, heart valves, tendons, intestines, blood-vessels and breast-tissue with such polymers. But, if the idea of reversing the experiment (substitute the mice with humans) came about, people would call it blasphemous! No thought for the animals is involved. The extent to which these experiments will go is uncertain. A change will only come about when scientists realize the animals’ right to live a normal, healthy life, without man tampering with their genes.

Pigs are also grown transgenetically, so that their organs can be transplanted into humans. Transgenic pigs were first produced in 1985. Scientists have succeeded in making the required organs in pigs capable of producing human cells. These proteins they hope will trick the human immune system while transplanting the organ(s) so that the recipient does not react to the foreign tissue.

Another example is that of sheep that have been injected with hormones, bioengineered to cause wool-shedding to produce the so-called ‘self-shearing’ sheep. This is done in Australia, where, unfortunately for the sheep, the climate is mostly hot and sunny. As a result, some sheep experience an increased rate of abortion. WHERE ON EARTH WILL IT ALL END?

Talking about sheep, meanwhile, Welsh Mountain clone sheep are living proof that life can be created without sperm! A scientist at Rosalin Institute created them by fusing a cell grown in the laboratory with an empty sheep-egg through a spark of electricity. Imagine growing a sheep in a lab-

dish! Ironically, when pondering about doing the same with

scientists find it ‘unethical’!

In another bizarre experiment, Indian scientists at the Nimbalkar Research Institute, Phaltan, Maharashtra, have, by artificial insemination, created an animal with goat-head and the body of a cow. This animal grows fatter faster and the volume of meat has therefore increased.

Scientists claim that they can, and will make genetically-altered animals that will help cure human diseases and illnesses; well, transgenic research has been going on for nearly 20 years, and it still has not cured a single human illness. But illnesses like diabetes, blindness, lameness and cancer (among others) have all been produced unexpectedly in animals subjected to these ridiculous experiments. Genetic engineering at lengths such as these, are a symbol of consumerism gone berserk. Is it really fair that animals and their environment face the brunt of our insatiable curiosity?

Considering that “to err is human” the probabilities of a mis-judgement or mis-step or mis-reaction resulting in a catastrophe are very high. And in such an eventuality, it will be next to impossible to trick the genie (or ‘gene’) back into the bottle (test-tube).

— by P.H. Butani —

Genetic engineering on animals is highly undesirable, unnatural and therefore unethical. Some rationalists believe that it is tantamount to tinkering with nature’s pre-planned programme. Once modified, the individual genetic ‘personality’ of the animal stands irreversibly altered. It is used AGAINST the well-being of animals rather than FOR their welfare.

Genetic engineering is highly immoral because of four robust reasons:

1. Although lower in the order of evolution animals are very much sentient beings which means that they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain in the same way as we do.

2. In the case of humans, their permission is taken for genetic engineering. Further, for certain experiments, they are paid ‘inducement money’ and in the case of failure, they are given a generous compensation. In contrast, in the case of animals, genetic engineering is done without their permission or any compensation which is patently mean and unfair.

3. Animals being speechless and defenseless, cannot run away (all escape routes are blocked), resist (they are held down), protest (they are muzzled), or lodge a police complaint nor can they move the court for redressal of their grievances.

4. There are psychological perspectives also. Like human mammals, animal mammals also develop great attachment towards their young. And when any of the young is forcibly separated from the mother, she feels sad and expresses her sorrow. Early weaning leads to abnormal behavior and pathological changes in the small intestine. Even rough handling affects their psyche. Fear of humans reduces the reproductive performance of animals. Further, in cloning of animals (say cow, buffalo, pig, rabbit, mouse etc.) multi-identical offspring are born. The mother becomes attached to her young and each offspring’s separation from her causes mental shock and plunges her into depression. Repeated cycles of this trauma leaves her heart-broken. This is mental cruelty.

Thus, the prime motive for using genetic engineering on animals is not for any real concern for or welfare of them but solely and ultimately for the benefit of man. In other words, all gains go to man and nil to animal — it stands to lose its health, limb or life for man.

To test the validity of my views, I put the same question to Hindu Swamis, Jain Munis, Buddhist Monks and Sikh Saints. At first they frankly said that they had absolutely no idea as to what genetic engineering was. On my briefly explaining the application of genetic engineering to animals, all of them gave more or less the same answer:

The Swamiji said: “According to our Vedas, all living beings have a soul. It is an infinitesimally small part of the Universal Soul (Parmatma) seated in the heart of every being (Jiv Atma). Our religion forbids killing of any animal and exhorts to be kind to them. Now if genetic engineering causes any pain or suffering to animals, then it is definitely not right and it would be very cruel to forcibly subject them to it because as you say, it doesn’t benefit them. It only harms them.

Narayan!”

The Jain Muniji said: “We hold that all life is precious – be it human or animal. But unfortunately the sanctity of animal life is not recognized and if, during the course of genetic engineering it loses its life, no remorse is felt. The dead body is just carted away. Bhagwan Mahavir has summed up this philosophy very succinctly thus: ‘What we cannot give, we have no right to take. We cannot give life, so we have no right to take life.'”

The Buddhist Monk nodded his head in agreement and added: “Buddhism is essentially a religion of kindness, humanity and equality. It is against animal sacrifices. So those who do these kind of things (genetic engineering) are deviating from the right path. They seem to have only passion for experiments (Paryog) but no compassion for animals.”

The Sikh mystic in his typical Punjabi-accented Hindi opined: “We accept the cyclic Hindu theory of ‘Samsara’ – birth, death and rebirth – and karma. Humans are, therefore, equal to all other creatures – big or small. Conversely, all animals are sentient beings and therefore no pain should be inflicted on them. Because who knows that in our next birth, we may be born as an animal. That is why genetic engineering should not be performed on them.” To make his point clear, he added: “There may be grounds for valuing the life of a person more highly than that of an animal. But these, however, are not grounds for ignoring or devaluing the life of an animal for the simple reason that the basic characteristics (of divine life) are present to some degree in all animals.”

“The Presumed Consent Law”

Tina Nelson — Executive Director, American Anti-Vivisection Society

Xenotransplantation, or the transplantation of organs from animals to humans, is on the rise. Due to the chronic shortage of human organs, many transplant centers are considering the use of substitute organs from baboons, chimpanzees, pigs and sheep.

Approximately 12,000 organ transplants are performed in the United States each year. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is a nonprofit organization in Richmond, Virginia that, under federal contract, allocates organs nationally. Patients can register and be placed on a waiting list; however, this does not guarantee that an organ will be available by the time the patient’s own organ fails. For instance, in 1993, 50,169 patients registered with UNOS, but 2,887 died while waiting for donor organs. The primary cause for these mortality rate is the shortage of organs due to the failure of people to donate. Only 1 out 5 people has consented to donate his or her organs at death. At least 100,000 people die each year of accidents or strokes, and approximately 20,000 of these are potential organ donors. However, the number of donors remains low, at about 4,000 per year.

In a 1993 AV Magazine article, John McArdle, Ph.D., our Scientific Advisor, wrote an article which discussed the alternatives to xenotransplantation. Among those alternatives is the Presumed Consent Law. This law was originally recommended by the Council of Europe in 1978 and subsequently passed in most European countries. The basis of this law is the legal presumption that anyone is a potential organ donor, unless he or she has stated an opposite wish, which can be done making a written statement of dissent in any form. At death, family members are not required to extend permission to “harvest” the deceased’s organs. This law is the exact opposite of the current United States organ donation law which requires that the person grant prior permission for the use of his or her organs at death.

The United States law has been extremely ineffective and unable to meet the high demand for organs despite evidence that the majority of people support the concept of donating. The European law, however, has been overwhelmingly effective, especially in Austria where organ availability quadrupled after the Presumed Consent Law was implemented. In Belgium, the experience was similar, proving that the results of presumed consent are very successful.

Several animal protection organizations are presently working on building a coalition, and expect to have legislation drafted and introduced regarding a Presumed Consent Law in the United States. By establishing this law, we will be saving many lives that otherwise would have been wasted and will have provided a smart alternative to xenotransplantation.

I encourage AAVS members to support the implementation of such a law, but offer an additional suggestion in the interim. Please call or write the AAVS and request The Humane Research Donor Card. Millions of animals would be saved if medical researchers used human tissue in their work instead of killing healthy animals. By carrying this card, you ensure promoting ethical research which benefits people and animals. Also available in The AAVS catalog is our publication, Health and Humane Research, which provides factual information on animal experiments and alternatives, and contains The Humane Research Donor Card.

The American Anti-Vivisection Society promotes compassion in classroom, laboratories, and dinner plate. This 100+ years old organization also issues grants to scientists for using and/or developing non-animal tests. For more information, please write: 801 Old York Road, Suite 204, Jenkintown, PA 19046-1685. Phone: 215-887-0816.