MICHAEL CRICHTON

Over the years, scientists had evolved a standard defense acceptable to thecourts. Researchers claimed that their experiments had the goal of bettering thehealth and welfare of mankind, a higher priority than animal welfare. Theypointed out that no one objected to animals being used as beasts of burden or foragricultural work—a life of drudgery to which animals had been subjected forthousands of years. Using animals in scientific experiments simply extended theidea that animals were the servants of human enterprises.In addition, animals were literally brutes. They had no self-awareness, norecognition of their existence in nature. This meant, in the words of philosopherGeorge H. Mead, that “animals have no rights. We are at liberty to cut off theirlives; there is no wrong committed when an animal’s life is taken away. He hasnot lost anythingMany people were troubled by these views, but attempts to establishguidelines quickly ran into logical problems. The most obvious concerned theperceptions of animals further down the phylogenetic scale. Few researchersoperated on dogs, cats, and other mammals without anesthesia, but what aboutannelid worms, crayfish, leeches, and squid? Ignoring these creatures was aform of “taxonomic discrimination.” Yet if these animals deserved consideration,shouldn’t it also be illegal to throw a live lobster into a pot of boiling water?The question of what constituted cruelty to animals was confused by theanimal societies themselves. In some countries, they fought the extermination ofrats; and in 1968 there was the bizarre Australian pharmaceutical case. * In theface of these ironies, the courts hesitated to interfere with animalexperimentation. As a practical matter, researchers were free to do as theywished. The volume of animal research was extraordinary: during the 1970s,sixty-four million animals were killed in experiments in the United States eachyear.But attitudes had slowly changed. Language studies with dolphins and apesmade it clear that these animals were not only intelligent but self-aware; theyrecognized themselves in mirrors and photographs. In 1974, scientiststhemselves formed the International Primate Protection League to monitorresearch involving monkeys and apes. In March, 1978, the Indian governmentbanned the export of rhesus monkeys to research laboratories around the world.And there were court cases which concluded that in some instances animals did,indeed, have rights.The old view was analogous to slavery: the animal was the property of itsowner, who could do whatever he wished. But now ownership becamesecondary. In February, 1977,37