Reigning cats and dogs.

THE JOB OF an animal-rights activist used to be an easy one: Single out a lab that conducted bio-medical research using animals (preferably cats, dogs, or monkeys); get a few hundred like-minded souls to demonstrate outside the lab; and, by that means, make life very uncomfortable for the scientists working inside. The most famous case involved Cornell Medical College in New York City, which forfeited a $530,000 research grant in the fall of 1988 under pressure from Trans-Species, an East Coast activist group.

Last summer, Procter & Gamble got the idea of forming a coalition of corporations affected by the animal-rights issue. It sent out invitations to some ten other corporations that depend upon FDA approval for their goods (ranging from drugs to consumer products), and that therefore use animals in testing. However, a copy of the proposal was leaked to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the big kahuna of U.S. animal-rights groups. On the day of the proposed meeting, activists called the companies' head offices to inquire if they were going to support the new organization. PETA's intimidation was effective; the coalition was never formed.

Most pharmaceutical companies prefer to do battle with animal-rights groups through industry organizations such as the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. But even the PMA keeps a low profile on this issue. It has a prepared statement on the use of animals in product testing which it will distribute-but only upon request.

Hardly a neophyte in Washington politics, the pharmaceutical industry is stunned by the way the animalrights lobby has gained the inside track. The current animal-rights legislation, the Animal Welfare Act first passed in 1966, and most recently amended in 1985), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate new standards for animal care and treatment. The 1985 amendment was passed when Senator Dole (R., Kan.), then Majority Leader, attached it as a rider to that year's farm bill. There is a strong feeling among those who follow animal rights in D.C. that Dole's friendship with Christine Stevens, animal-rights activist, wife of Roger Stevens (former head of the Kennedy Center), and fellow Watergate resident, influenced the course of this legislation.

There is also speculation that a visit by either Christine Stevens or her colleague, former Senator John "Doc" Melcher (a Montana veterinarian), to White House counsel C. Boyden Gray caused the demise of HR-3270, the Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act of 1989, sponsored by Representative Charles Stenholm (D., Tex.), which would have made it a federal offense to break into such facilities. Louis Sullivan, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, was prepared to testify in strong support of the bill. But suddenly the Justice Department announced the Administration did not support the bill, and Dr. Sullivan never testified.

POLITICALLY, opposing the animal-rights activists is a no-win proposition. Most Americans support the use of animals in medical research, but there is no political mileage in such a position. ICs safer for a lawmaker just to sit quietly than to risk a deluge of mail.

There may, however, be some relief in sight on Capitol Hill with the formation of the Animal Welfare Caucus. Under the leadership of Congressman Vin Weber (R., Minn.), the caucus will serve as a clearinghouse for information on issues affecting animal welfare and the activities of extreme animalrights groups. Other members of the caucus include Stenholm and Joseph Early (D., Mass.).

There is also the Foundation for BioMedical Research (FBR), a non-profit education group, led by the articulate and polished Frankie Trull. FBR was quick to recognize the emotional impact of the animal-rights movement, and has tried to counteract it with emotional appeals of its own. FBR posters include, for example, Demonstrators," which features an angry crowd protesting against animal research, with a caption that reads, Thanks to animal research, they'll be able to protest 20.8 years longer. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, animal research has helped extend our life expectancy by 20.8 years. Of course, how you choose to spend those extra years is up to you." Even more effective is "Little Girl," which shows a child lying in a hospital bed surrounded by stuffed animals. The caption reads, "It's the animals you don't see that really helped her recover. Recently a surgical technique perfected on animals was used to remove a malignant tumor from the little girl's brain. We lost some laboratory animals, but look what we saved."

The father of the response to the animal-rights movement is Dr. Frederick Goodwin, currently the administrator of ADAMHA (the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services). "The response of the research and academic community up until recently has been woefully inadequate," Dr. Goodwin says. We missed many opportunities when we were celebrating the successes of bio-medical research. It was tacitly decided to downplay the use of animals in research in the hopes that we could avoid controversy and it would somehow go away." Instead, the animalrights activists gained the upper hand, at least in the public-relations arena, and researchers, in attempting to seek out the moderates in the movement and mollify them, looked "apologetic."

In order to reverse that impression, the Public Health Service (another branch of HHS) has developed a plan to publicize the use of animals as an important component of bio-medical research at every opportunity. It has developed a series of programs to provide incentives, in the form of grants, for scientists to spend more time and effort educating the public about research-particularly about the use of animals in research. Another set of programs, still on the drawing-board, will involve direct finding of informational programs at the high-school and grade-school levels.

Perhaps the most innovative policy change, so far adopted solely by ADAMHA, involves the funding of university research. If a university returns grant money because of pressures exerted by animal-rights activists (as in the Cornell case), ADAMHA will re-evaluate the entire university's grant portfolio to see whether or not the university is still competent to manage federal funds. A harsh policy but, as Goodwin points out, "we must get all types of assurances from the university regarding their funding practices, accounting practices, and affirmative-action programs. To question whether or not this is the type of institution that is conducting business the way the Federal Government feels is appropriate for the taxpayers' money is simply adding another item to a long list of things that universities already have to do to qualify for funds." In addition, an individual researcher's ability to disseminate the results of his research, including a willingness to acknowledge the use of animals, increasingly influences grant decisions.

IN SEPTEMBER 1989, Yale University was the victim of an animal-rights protest. Instead of ignoring the activists, as in the past, the medical school held its own press conference, which featured scientists explaining the drug-addiction studies that so upset the activists. In addition, Yale medical students organized their own spontaneous counterdemonstration.

The fact that researchers even need to launch a public-relations campaign is somewhat surprising. In a comprehensive survey conducted by Mellman & Lazarus in 1989, 72 per cent of the respondents favored the use of animals in medical research. Why then is the animal-rights movement so successful?

A twenty-year gap in scientific and moral education, combined with a nostalgia for the Sixties, has produced a generation of activists who understand neither the scientific method nor their place in the universe. Their moral tools come not from JudaeoChristian theology, but from the school of moral relativism.

The ironic twist is that taking a stance on a legitimate moral question-is the use of animals in medical research justifiable?-is a profoundly human activity. Humans are moral creatures; we worry about doing the right thing. And in this most human of activities, the activists have tried to blur the admittedly fine line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom by attributing to animals the same moral status that humans have. It is an impossible feat. Dogs lack certain capacities necessary for moral reasoning-empathy and sympathy, just to name two. This alone is not sufficient justification for use of animals in medical research, but it does draw a distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, a distinction that allows more value to be placed upon human life. This is not just an issue of private morality. The absence of animals in medical research would result in an increased incidence of disease and a higher mortality rate-and not just for those who support animal rights, but for humanity at large.

Animal rights form only a single plank in a larger platform of the antiscience movement, a post-Hiroshima mindset taking its cue from a pre-Enlightenment view of progress. Enlightenment philosophers and scientists established the idea that mere mortals have the power to improve the human condition; they were the original progressives. That animal-rights activists should call themselves progressives" with an "enlightened" outlook on morality, when their policies would only increase human suffering, is a brutal shift of terms.

Even so, halting medical advances is not the only threat the animal-rights activists bring. They can be more directly dangerous. Consider the case of little John Cupper. On June 10 of this year, while his father pushed him in his stroller to visit his mother in a Bristol, England, hospital, a bomb, which had been placed on the underside of an animal researcher's car, went off. While the 13-month-old child was undergoing surgery to repair the damage caused by the blast, an animal-rights activist group took responsibility for the act.

It is reassuring that the research community is no longer sticking its head in the sand when the animalrights activists come around. However, the future will still be difficult for researchers, given that it is not a different set of goals but a different set of values that separates the animalrights activists from the researchersand the general public.