Before I started reading this book I had little knowledge about what animal rights really were, hence why it is one of my essential questions. I had heard of it before but was very interested in learning more which is one reason why I selected nonfiction books which tend to be more informational. I chose to read Monkey Business first because it is extremely significant and from reading the description of the book I learned that this case was actually what started the fight for animal rights. In my reading this week I came across a passage which made me start to really understand what it means for animals to have rights. "[Genn] likened the monkeys to battered children, who, because they cannot protect themselves in court, are represented by 'next friends' - guardians who can bring legal actions on behalf of abused children. If the suit were successful, it would mean that animal protection organizations could have the right to serve as next friends to animals used in laboratories. It would also show that the court recognized there animals have the legal right to exist as something other than experimental tools" (Guillermo 118). If a child was abused but was unable to defend themselves they would have a guardian represent them, but animals are abused and mistreated, yet at the time there was no one to represent them. I feel that the comparison of exploited animals to abused young children was what made me begin to understand the importance of animal rights and what they stand for. The comparison to abused children is very effective in showing the importance of animals getting rights and also is effective in persuading people to support animal rights by using pathos or appealing to their emotions. From this, in particular, I learned that animal rights help to guarantee that animals can live as something other than test subjects and that animals have rights that deserve to be protected by the law.
Source: allaboutsana.com |
In respect to the Animal Welfare Act, I had never heard of it before. I believe this in part because it is somewhat unsuccessful in actually ensuring that regulations and standards are satisfied. The Animal Welfare Act was first mentioned in last week's reading section and that was where I was introduced to it. The initial act was passed in 1966 and was said to be "inadequate"(81). Even with the act in place people often violated it much like the Institute for Behavioral Research did. It was said that "No one needs a Ph.D. or any other credentials to recognize blatant violations of the Animal Welfare Act" (81). This shows that almost anyone could have seen the problem with IBR and that the Animal Welfare Act isn't enough. The book also mentioned how, "It was designed to give some protection to animals used in laboratories, but it mandated minimal standards"(82). The fact that the act only required minimal standards to be met lead me to believe that the Animal Welfare Act was not enough. That all being said since this case took place many things have been added and changed about the Animal Welfare Act making it more successful. I have not done much research on the current standards of the act, but I assume that it is more in depth and provides stricter regulations and laws.
Source: faunalytics.org |
If you are interested in learning more about the Animal Welfare Act today, I
found this website to be very informative, or if you are more fascinated by the statistics behind the facts this website is for you.
Citation for the book Monkey Business:
Guillermo, Kathy Snow. Monkey Business. National Press Books, 1993.
I'm glad that you took this time to reflect on your essential questions. I don't want people to get caught up in reading their books and forget there are larger concepts the books are supposed to be addressing.
ReplyDeleteYou really do seem to be learning a ton about this subject, and I hope it's going to impact your future in some way.