ENHS Nature Trails April 99 Article 2

Natural History and You - The President's Forum
by Nathan Tublitz

The triumph of irrationality over rationality: A lamentation over the loss of civil discourse

Last Saturday (April 3rd) I gave a public lecture at the University of Oregon as part of Brain Awareness Week, a week-long series of events designed to increase our appreciation for neuroscience research in particular and the impact of biomedical science in general. The talk was well attended by over 200 people including about a dozen animal rights activists who are members of the local chapter of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Twice during the talk I was interrupted by the PETA people who, somewhat rudely, insisted upon a discourse about animals rights. I answered them briefly and requested that they defer their questions to the question/answer session at the end of the talk. After the formal presentation, two PETA people made long-winded statements without raising a question relevant to a discussion of neuroscience and one refused to be quieted. I replied that this was not the appropriate forum for an extended debate on animal rights, to which they retorted that the University has never given them any forum to discuss this issue (actually the University held a debate on this subject about 10 yrs ago but this was probably not of interest to our local PETA friends at the time since they were not even teenagers). The tension in the lecture hall rose quite quickly during their outbursts, and for a moment I thought I'd have to either terminate all questions and end the lecture or have them arrested. Fortunately neither came to pass and an ugly incident was avoided.

This incident is the subject of this column not because it happened but because it is indicative of the polarization occurring in our society on many issues involving science and the extent to which the two sides in any of these arguments refuse to even listen to each other.

The animal rights movement has a long and well publicized history dating back to the mid 19th Century and the anti-vivisectionists of Victorian England. The current generation of animal rights activists is as vocal as their predecessors but have added a more militant tone to their protests and have included violence as part of their arsenal. In 1986 The University of Oregon was attacked by animal rights protestors who broke into our building and "liberated" several dozen mice and hamsters (N.B. The word "liberated" is used loosely here since the protestors dropped off these helpless animals on the I-5 shoulder lane near Cottage Grove where they died by being run over by vehicles or eaten by local carnivores). One "liberator" was caught, tried, and convicted, the only animal rights activist in the US to be jailed for breaking into a laboratory facility. Since then the University has been the subject of dozens of PETA-sponsored protests and we have reason to believe that these will escalate in both intensity and frequency in the near future.

These increasingly frequent and potentially inflammatory incidents underscore the ferocity and frustration of the animal rights activists. They have two major points of contention: 1) that it is immoral to use animals in research; and 2) that the powers that be (in this case, the University of Oregon), refuse to acknowledge their viewpoints and are unwilling to even give them a forum for discussion. The first point, like the debate on abortion, evolution, nuclear power, cloning and other similarly contentious issues, boils down to differences in morality. These differences have always existed, however, the schism between the two sides appears to have grown so wide that it can no longer be bridged by civil discourse. As a result, both sides have increasingly resorted to apocryphal aphorisms, sophomoric put downs, and personal insults reminiscent of the negative tone of recent election campaigns. Both sides are guilty of failing to follow one of the cardinal rules of debating: personal attacks will almost inevitably backfire. Unfortunately the operative word in that rule is "almost" and in the 90s, debating has followed the lead of politicians in using personal attacks as an offensive weapon. Although effective, what has been lost in this verbal gunslinging match is a full discussion of the issue at hand. Points are now scored for amount of bile shed rather than for logic and rationale of the argument. So much for the (verbal) pen being mightier than the (tongue-lashing) sword.

Their second point - that alternative viewpoints about the rights of animals are not allowed to be voiced by those in power- has more than a shred of truth to it. Their point is remarkably similar to what has occurred historically under totalitarian regimes interested in controlling the amount and quality of information disseminated and more recently by those here in the US who are fed up with the narrowness of the news reported by the major media outlets. The prevention of expression of anti-establishment views is particularly chilling when it occurs on a University campus, since freedom of thought and expression is the only raison d'etre for a University.

The lack of rational discourse on heated issues combined with the stifling of opposing ideas is a visible trend filtering through much of modern western society. It pervades business, religion, politics, sports, entertainment, and yes, science too. Simply stated, it's the "if you ain't with us, you're against us" philosophy of life. Underlying all of this is a lack of civility and respect for opposing ideas and those championing them. Sadly, this is the root cause of nearly every war waged in the 20th Century.

We all can do our part to reduce these conflicts, at the local, regional, national or global levels by listening to our opponents. The animal rights folks have rightfully raised our consciousness about the use of animals and have made significant alteration of our national attitudes about meat-eating, fur-wearing, cosmetic testing on animals, and the treatment of animals in factory farms. I stand firm with them on these subjects. I do, however, disagree with them on the use of animals for scientific research. My opposition to their view is strongly held and is unlikely to change but I maintain full respect for their position. On the other side, the University and other establishment powers have a duty to allow the voicing of non-majority views, as long as it is done with respect and within the law. And to date, the University of Oregon has not done that. They should. Listen to your opponents before you act, and then do so with respect.

Nathan Tublitz

[ Back ]

Page last modified: 28 June 1999
Location: http://biology.uoregon.edu/enhs/archive/apr99/apr992.html
E-mail the WebSpinner: aloysius@gladstone.uoregon.edu