Commentary: Beyond Conspecifics: Is Brer Rabbit Our Brother?

Abstract

Burghardt is professor of pscyhology, zoology, and ecology, Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37916. He is also a research associate at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Herzog is an assistant professor with the Department of Psychology, Mars Hill College, Mars Hill, NC 28754. This article is a revised version of a paper entitled Beyond Conspecifics: Ethology and Animal Rights, read at the June 1979 meeting of the Animal Behavior Society at Tulane University. The work was supported, in part, by NSF Research Grant BNS 78-14196 to Burghardt. ? 1980 American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. has added to the traditional moral arguments of vegetarians. The widespread questioning of government support for basic research has been intertwined with suspicions about the use and worth of any studies on animals, even those purporting to help understand human medical and behavioral problems. New evidence of higher cognitive faculties in some animals including reason, language, and emotional sensitivity have resonated throughout the scientific and lay press (e.g., Gallup 1977, Lawick Goodall 1971, Griffin 1976, Lilly 1975). Ethological work on animal and human behavior has thus eroded the key foundation for the age-old rigid distinctions between human and nonhuman (see Regan and Singer 1976 for an excellent anthology). The study of the animal mind is again fashionable (Burghardt 1978), as evidenced by the highly technical contributions constituting an entire 1978 issue of The Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Vol. 1, no. 4). Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and many organizations are now grappling with the issues involved in our treatment of animals (e.g., Allen and Westbrook 1979, Curtis 1978, Henig 1979). We think the issues are basic ones that have serious implications for research (see Broad 1980). Furthermore, we see little consensus on them within the biomedical, psychological, and animal behavior communities. When Aronson's work at the American Museum of Natural History on sexual behavior in cats was under serious assault (Wade 1976), differences within the scientific community itself on both the procedures used and the value of the studies prevented strong support for him. The controversy was surely a factor in the abolition of the Animal Behavior Department, of which he was the last head, by the museum authorities earlier this year. Similarly, Hutchinson's studies on electric shock-induced aggression in animals (including monkeys and people) led to Senator Proxmire's ridicule and Golden Fleece award, resulting in a celebrated suit (Holden 1976) and Proxmire's eventual public apology. Although the research community seems pleased with the outcome, many animal behavior researchers are clearly ambivalent about the scientific and ethical aspects of this kind of work. Indeed, Ulrich (1978), who had performed similar work in the same laboratory, published an apologetic disavowal of his efforts in this field on moral grounds. The research establishment is going to have to formulate a thoughtful response, or it may lose the respect of a new generation of students, researchers, and politicians even when it wins in the courts. Alienation has begun: Already eminent researchers have complained to us that students, particularly in Europe, are becoming too moral.