Should animals have rights too?

ARE you an animal lover? Of course you are. Even if you don't own one of Britain's seven million dogs or ten million cats - or a budgie, hamster, rabbit or stick insect - you probably delight in the sound of the first spring cuckoo, or the sight of a tame squirrel dashing around Museum Gardens in York.

There is a special bond between man and animal, especially in Britain.

But it is far from straightforward. Most of us who profess our affection for woodland creatures will happily tuck into flesh from the farmyard.

The debate about York's uninvited geese illustrates this ambivalence.

Many families with young children enjoy feeding the ducks on Rowntree Park pond, but can't stand the aggressive and filthy Canada geese who have barged in on the act.

Several Evening Press letter writers have demanded the birds are culled, even offering to do the job themselves.

Similarly, of the thousands of people who protested about fox hunting, few seem aerated about the many fish killed every day in the name of another country pursuit - angling.

Is that simply because the fox is cute and inedible, while the fish is scaly and best in batter?

Our approach to animals is never more mixed up than over vivisection. Only the sadist would torment animals for no reason; but can we justify their suffering if it benefits mankind?

A growing number of us, it seems, have our doubts. On the back of this, animal rights activists are scoring notable successes.

On Tuesday, Darley Oaks farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire, said it would stop breeding guinea pigs for research, following an often violent six-year campaign by protestors, which even included the desecration of a family grave.

Last year Cambridge University abandoned plans to build a medical research centre where monkeys would be used for testing because the cost of providing security against animals rights protesters would be too high.

Campaigners are bolder and more visible. We have seen their banners outside Royal Ascot At York; at Flamingo Land theme park and zoo; and outside York Hospital, where jailed extremist Barry Horne was taken during his hunger strike.

In response, the scientific community has to be more vociferous in its support of animal testing. After the Newchurch decision, 700 scientists issued a declaration in support of using animals to aid medical progress.

"Throughout the world people enjoy a better quality of life because of advances made possible through medical research and the development of new medicines and other treatments," it said. "A small but vital part of that work involves the use of animals."

By contrast Sarah Bramley, of York Animal Aid, described the closure of the guinea pig farm as "fantastic news".

"The media coverage in the last two days has been solely to label anyone who disagrees with vivisection as terrorists, yet it is only a handful of people who threaten people with violence," she said.

"This conveniently takes the public's mind away from the underlying and fundamental issue - why animal experimentation still happens."

Increasing numbers of doctors and scientists "are now coming forward and speaking up about their concerns over the efficacy of animal experiments, and it's worth remembering that Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist who ever lived, condemned vivisection, both on scientific and moral grounds".

While the public is repeatedly told that animal experiments are essential to find cures for terrible diseases "we are never told what cures and treatments have been achieved through animal experiments," said Sarah.

"Seeing as guinea pigs are topical, I'll talk about aspirin. This drug was repeatedly tested on guinea pigs and killed them all. They simply cannot tolerate the drug, yet it was put on the market for human use anyway.

"Why on earth was this allowed to happen if animal experiments are to be relied upon?"

Last November, the Reverend Margaret Kirk conducted a service of thanksgiving, celebration and remembrance for animals at the Unitarian Chapel, St Saviourgate, York.

She said today: "Animals enhance our lives. We should care for them, we should protect them as much as we are able to."

While she is unhappy about anything that causes harm to animals, "I would accept there are circumstances when it may well be necessary for our greater understanding of human diseases".

But stringent controls strictly enforced were vital to limit the suffering.

What about going further, and giving animals specific rights?

"As far as giving them rights in some kind of documentation, I'm not sure. As human beings, we have some responsibility for their stewardship. That should be to protect animals as far as we possibly can."

The passion on both sides of the vivisection argument is impressive. But why do we get into such an ethical tizzy over animals and whether they should be granted rights?

"There's a very interesting contradiction in the way we relate to animals," says York University sociologist Dr Nik Brown, an expert on animals in medicine.

"First of all we are very romantic about animals. We love our pets. We're incredibly attracted to things such as natural history programmes. Nature is one of our most adored pastimes.

"At the same time, we have become very dependent on animals in a very practical way, both in terms of food and medical research. We distance ourselves from them."

This incongruity can be traced to the industrial revolution, he said. Britain switched from a rural to an urban society at astonishing speed - and that engendered strong nostalgia for our broken link with nature.

To make up for this loss people started keeping animals as companions: the first pets.

Tellingly, the Royal Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals was established in 1824, some 60 years before the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Children. The debate about whether animals should have rights began more than half a century before the same debate about children.

Today animal welfare laws in Britain are among the toughest in the world and, Dr Brown predicts, they will get tougher still.

"Generally people have become more intolerant of the use of animals in research. The UK was one of the first countries to ban the use of animals in cosmetic research," he said.

Traditionally, support has been high for vivisection carried out in the name of medical advancement. "But that's changing."

There are a number of reasons. First is the failure of bio-technology to deliver on the hype. A few years ago, it was said that animal-to-human organ transplants would save many lives.

On the back of that prediction, licences were granted for very painful experiments on animals. "That work still hasn't paid off in any meaningful sense," says Dr Brown. "The confidence in that research has collapsed."

At the same time, science has taught us more about our common biology and ancestry with animals.

We know many creatures have nervous systems like our own, and feel pain the way we do.

And our genetic make-up is often remarkably similar too. That makes us more reluctant to mistreat them.

So what will happen in the future? Dr Brown draws on history for an answer.

In past centuries Britain's leaders argued over whether children, or slaves, had rights. Today everyone accepts they do, and to think otherwise seems ridiculous.

The same thing could happen with our modern debate about animal rights.

"There is quite a lot to suggest that in the future we may well look back at the way we have treated animals and think that was the wrong thing to do."

Updated: 11:00 Thursday, August 25, 2005