|
Refusing
to Quit:
Winning the Right to Conscientiously Object at Murdoch University
Andrew
Knight
- 15th September 1999
On the 11th of
November, 1998, Western Australia’s Murdoch University took the
groundbreaking step of formally allowing conscientious objection by
students to animal experimentation or other areas of their coursework.
Murdoch is, to my knowledge, the first Australian university to formally
take this step, and its decision will have ramifications for other
Australian universities. Additionally the University reviewed the humane
alternatives available in all 45 teaching units using animals within its
veterinary, biomedical and biological science courses, and concluded on
the 15th of September, 1999, that, “…
Murdoch was in a position to and should aim to conduct teaching that does
not require animals to be killed specifically for this purpose by 2005.”
These victories did not come easily but followed a year-long struggle
by myself as a Murdoch veterinary student for humane alternatives to be
made available to harmful animal usage in the veterinary course. This is
the story of how we won.
How it all began …
For me it all began back in the deep, dark mists of time when someone
hollered at me to "Get a job!" I think I was demonstrating
outside a circus at the time. For years I had alternated between
traveling, working in unqualified jobs, and periods of unemployment during
which I campaigned on animal rights and other issues. I'd always thought
it was who you were and what you did that was important, not what job you
held. Nevertheless, it began to annoy me when I was asked in interviews
what I did for a living. Once I realized that people judge the merits of
your arguments by things such as your appearance, manner and
qualifications, I began to seriously wonder if I should try to get into a
profession.
I thought about a number of professions, but becoming a veterinarian
seemed likely to enable me to do the most good. Whilst I care about all
the "green-left" issues, I care most about animal rights, and
the thought of healing animals all day long seemed like a dream come true.
Not to mention the enormous impact being a veterinarian would have on my
ability to campaign effectively on animal rights issues, in which case I
just can’t wait to be asked some day by an opponent what I do for a
living.
And so it was that I went back to school, studied hard, and made it into
the vet course. I had the vague idea that parts of my training might
involve doing nasty things to animals and also a vague idea that
alternatives were probably available, but was ignorant of the details of
either. I rationalised that if I was forced to perform unethical
experiments it would be worth it because I would be able to do so much
more good as a qualified vet.
First
blood in first year
Thus unprepared I entered first year. In the introductory biology units we
dissected cockroaches, snails, worms, fish, rats, and body parts from
abattoirs. For some reason there seemed to be a strange obsession with
lampreys. I tried not to think too much about where all these bodies had
come from. I was finally brought up hard against reality at the end of
first year by a Cell Biology laboratory class. Rats were killed by
demonstrators and the still-living intestinal segments extracted so that
the students might investigate their role in the absorption of glucose
from various solutions. At last the animals were not appearing neatly
prepared from some unknown location but were being killed right there and
then for our use. The unavoidable reality of it finally snapped me out of
my dream world.
On this occasion however I was poorly prepared. I only voiced my
opposition on the morning of the lab and had not studied the alternatives
available nor the arguments. The academics in charge were hostile and I
was refused an alternative assessment, which cost me a grade. I was,
however, the first in many years to boycott a lab and this stirred up a
great deal of controversy, with some academics supporting me. This
controversy, combined with economic pressures, eventually resulted in the
entire lab being cancelled in 1998, which saved the lives of around 30-50
rats each year.
At one stage I endured a fairly unpleasant meeting with two of the
academics in charge of Cell Biology, during which they attempted to change
my views. I knew that many of their claims were wrong but was frustrated
by my inability to respond effectively due to my ignorance of the
arguments. They left me with dire warnings that the Cell Biology lab was
only the tip of the iceberg compared to what I would later have to face in
the vet course and suggested that I reevaluate my suitability for the
course. Their warnings did not have the desired effect but instead
motivated me to research the alternatives and arguments in greater depth.
Making preparations
I sent out
urgent appeals for help to animal rights groups around the world and
discovered that I was not alone. I received help from several but three in
particular deserve special mention. The Humane Society International (HSI)
provided me with constant moral support and invaluable contacts, amongst
other things. The European Network of Individuals & Campaigns for
Humane Education (EuroNICHE) provided me with advice on conscientious
objection and summaries of the relevant legislation on the rights of
European students. Their book From
Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse is quite simply probably the best book on
educational alternatives in the world today and was to prove invaluable to
me. It lists nearly 400 humane alternatives including many for the
physiology labs I would later boycott. The US Association of Veterinarians
for Animal Rights (AVAR) provided me with details of the rapidly expanding
field of alternatives in veterinary training in the US.
And so it was that I learnt that the number of humane alternatives
available worldwide has grown exponentially in the last decade, with a
similar rise in the number of courses in which they are offered. By
January 1999 the number of veterinary medical colleges in the United
States offering alternative programs for students who request them had
increased to 21 out of 31. By 1997 just over half of the 126 US medical
schools had completely eliminated animal usage and all bar one of the
remainder were offering alternative programs. The sole exception was a
military college. For years all 6 of the UK vet schools have had, by
Australian standards, an alternative system. Instead of practising
surgical exercises on donated greyhounds and other animals that are later
killed, students learn by assisting with necessary surgery on real
patients that actually benefit from the surgery, in the same way that
human doctors learn. Some of these changes have occurred after students
have taken legal action as a last resort.
The variety of alternatives used in such courses is rapidly increasing and
databases listing thousands of educational alternatives now exist. They
include computer simulations, videos, plasticised specimens,
ethically-sourced cadavers, models, diagrams, self-experimentation and
clinical experiences. In medical and veterinary courses alternatives at
the preclinical level are mainly focused upon imparting knowledge, whilst
those at the clinical level impart surgical skills as well.
Alternative veterinary surgical courses comprise a number of stages. In
the beginning students learn basic psychomotor skills such as suturing and
instrument handling using knot tying boards, simulated organs, and other
models. They then progress to simulated surgery on ethically-sourced
cadavers obtained from animals that have died naturally or in accidents or
been euthanased for medical reasons. Finally students observe, assist
with, and then perform necessary surgery under close supervision on real
patients that actually benefit from the surgery, as distinct from on
healthy animals that are later killed.
An important part of alternative veterinary surgical courses worldwide are
the highly popular animal shelter sterilisation programs, in which
homeless animals are sterilised by students under close supervision and
returned to the shelters. The popularity of these programs stems in part from the fact
that all parties gain from them. The animals have their adoption rates
consistently increased by these programs, the students gain invaluable
experience at some of the most common procedures they will later perform
in practice, and their vet school has its image enhanced by providing a
useful community service.
Finally, I learnt of the numerous scientific studies affirming the
competence of alternative students compared with those trained by harming
animals. The studies examined the performances of medical, veterinary,
biology and pharmacology students and in almost all cases concluded that
the alternative students were at least as competent. By August 1999 the
Humane Society (US) website (http://www.hsus.org/programs/research/compare.html)
listed 28 studies affirming the superior or equivalent efficacy of
alternative methods in imparting knowledge or surgical skills.
Now I knew about the alternatives, the courses worldwide where they’re
successfully used, and the many published studies showing that alternative
students are at least as competent. It was undeniably clear to me that
there was no need to kill to learn how to heal.
However one last element remained. What was I to do if my academics proved
unwilling to listen to reason? I needed legal advice. It came in the form
of another book: Vivisection and
Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection, by
Gary Francione and Anna Charlton (publisher: American Anti-Vivisection
Society, 1992). This book was also to prove invaluable to me. It gave step
by step instructions on how to approach my academics. Advice included:
take a witness to all meetings and keep a detailed diary of events. If
academics are hostile limit all communications to letters, and keep
copies. Sample letters were included, as well as detailed responses to
some of the arguments my academics might use.
Further information about this book is available at http://www.animal-law.org/books/books.htm.
Thus armed I was prepared to face 2nd year. Following step one
of the book I first worked out my position in detail. I decided I would
compromise as far as I possibly could, and thereby hopefully exert moral
pressure on the vet school to similarly compromise. Although there were
many things I didn’t like, I decided to take a stand only on those
practicals where animals were being seriously harmed or killed, primarily
for the purposes of the prac. I would take blood and urine samples via
catheters, as the level of harm in these cases was minimal. I would
dissect greyhounds euthanased because they could no longer race fast
enough to make money, or abattoir byproducts, because in these cases the
animals were killed primarily for other reasons. However, where animals
were being seriously harmed or killed primarily for the purposes of the
practical, I would take a stand.
A month before classes were due to start I went and asked the relevant
academics what animal usage was involved in their units. Animals were to
be seriously harmed or killed in 4 labs in both biochemistry and
physiology. I stated that participation in such labs would violate my
conscientiously held beliefs and requested alternative assessments. I was
joined at this point by a friend, Michael Taylor. Alternatives were
granted to us in biochemistry, where we were allowed instead to write
theoretical reports, but not in physiology.
Second year: Welcome to Hell
Upon the commencement of classes we discovered that the second year labs
made those in first year look tame. Students and demonstrators killed
sheep, guinea pigs, rats, toads and other animals in order to demonstrate
scientific principles that have been established for decades. The worst
were in physiology, where groups of students anaesthetised sheep, then
performed vivisectionist experiments on them. Students cannulated arteries
and veins (inserted tubes) and injected various drugs to demonstrate the
effects on blood pressure. In some cases arteries were occluded entirely.
They severed nerves to demonstrate the effects on heart rate, and forced
their victims to breathe various gases to demonstrate the effects on
respiraton. One procedure involved occluding the air supply entirely. The
instructions read:
"Watch the animal closely and if respiration ceases return
immediately to air. It may then be necessary to artificially respire the
animal for a short time."
However the
lab guide gave no instructions on how to do so. Not surprisingly I was
later told that several sheep died prematurely during this lab.
At the end
of all experiments the surviving sheep were killed by students via drug
overdoses before regaining consciousness. Students were instructed to open
up the chest cavities to ensure the sheep would not come back to life.
Incredibly, one of the stated objectives was that students would develop a
sense of responsibility for an animal under their care, and the academics
maintained that the labs were not desensitising. The farcical nature of
these claims was demonstrated by the student who was thrilled to discover,
upon placing her hand inside a sheep's chest cavity, that she could
actually feel the animal's heart stop as it died.
Fighting
and winning
Our refusal
to participate in several of these physiology labs cost us marks. During
the course of second year I spoke many times with the physiology unit
coordinator who was a hard-core vivisector. I gave her details of
alternatives, of courses around the world where they're successfully used,
and of the many scientific studies that demonstrate that alternative
students are at least as competent as those trained by harming animals. I
put my case to both her and the Dean in writing but still they refused to
give any ground.
As a last resort I took action through the state Equal Opportunity
Commission. In this I used the legal strategy outlined in Vivisection
and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection.
It seems that in both Australia and the US, there is, as yet, no legal
protection for students upholding mere ethical beliefs. However, there is
strong protection in both countries for students acting in accordance with
their religious beliefs. It has been shown many times in US courts that a
religious belief need not be theistic (belief in a God or Gods), nor
traditional, but merely needs to be a fundamental belief that has a
significant impact on the life of the believer. Students who have “reverence
for life” beliefs are covered and the courts are satisfied of their
sincerity if they are vegan and refuse to use products tested on animals,
etc. My beliefs are not theistic, nor traditional, but would easily
satisfy the above definition. Additionally, most English dictionaries
include as a definition of religious belief, “any sincerely held belief
to which one is devoted or bound,” or words to that effect. The
Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary uses, “A
thing one is devoted to or bound to do,” and the Heinmann Australian
Dictionary uses, “Any practice,
matter, etc., treated with devotion or keen conscientiousness.”
The Commission has the power to order an offending institution to cease
its discriminatory actions and even make redress for past damages, up to a
maximum of $40,000; however it first seeks to resolve cases by extensive
efforts at conciliation. Average case resolution time is six months.
Negotiations commenced and the university wisely decided to give my marks
back fairly early in the process, thus denying me a more significant legal
precedent and avoiding further adverse publicity.
Victory
on the anniversary of Armistice Day
The biggest victories, however, came on the 11th of November,
1998. Murdoch’s Academic Council unanimously adopted the recommendations
of 2 reports that had resulted from initiatives put to the Council by our
student representatives. The first report was on conscientious objection
in teaching and assessment and was prepared by a working party set up to
examine the issue. The Council adopted all of its recommendations,
including the following:
“The University recognises that some students may have a conscientious
belief which is in conflict with teaching and/or assessment practices in
one or more units in which they enrol. The University shall endeavour to
make reasonable accommodations to meet such beliefs.”
And so it was that the university formally opened the doors to
conscientious objection by students who object to harming or killing
animals in their coursework. However the decision was not limited just to
animal usage. The resolution will help students with conscientiously held
beliefs of any kind, including, for example, those of students whose
religious beliefs prevent them from taking examinations or performing work
experience on holy days.
The second report considered by the Council was prepared by Murdoch’s
Animal Welfare Officer and endorsed by its Animal Ethics Committee. The
report was on animal usage in teaching throughout the university. The
Council adopted its recommendation by launching a major review of animal
usage and the alternatives available in all 45 teaching units in which
animals were used. The review was in keeping with the University’s
obligation of compliance with the National Health & Medical Research
Council (NHMRC) Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of
Animals for Scientific Purposes (1997). The Code states that:
“Techniques
which replace or complement the use of animals in scientific and teaching
activities must be sought and used wherever possible” (Section
1.9), and,
“Animals are to be used for teaching activities only when there are no
suitable alternatives for achieving the educational objectives” (Section
7.1.1).
Western Australia is presently the only
Australian state in which the Code is not yet incorporated into
legislation (this is also the case in the Northern Territory). However
with the expected passage in 1999 - 2000 of Western Australia’s new
Animal Welfare Act it is likely that breaches of the Code will become
punishable by statutory penalties.
The result of this review of animal usage was
a Report on the Review of the
Use of Animals in Teaching, which, as stated previously, urged Murdoch
to eliminate the killing of animals for teaching purposes by 2005. The
high standard and very progressive nature of this report make it a worthy
model for other Australian universities. Its recommendations, if
implemented, have the potential to propel Murdoch to the forefront of
humane education within Australia. They were passed by Academic Council on
the 15th of September, 1999.
The media storm
The enlightened decisions taken by
Academic Council in November 1998 were nothing less than historic. The
university is, to our knowledge, the first Australian university to
formally allow conscientious objection by students. This presented media
opportunities not to be missed. It was time to give the university some
public praise for its decisions and to start to get the message out to
other Australian universities. In this we were hugely successful,
achieving extensive TV, radio and newspaper coverage. One was an excellent
front page story in the Murdoch area local newspaper; another was on page
9 of Saturday’s The West
Australian. This is the state’s biggest
selling newspaper with a circulation of just under 1,000,000. Both of
these stories had large photos. We also achieved a flood of letters to the
Editor congratulating the university. I am particularly grateful to the
following Perth groups who provided invaluable assistance in gaining this
media coverage: Animal Rights Advocates (ARA), Compassion for Animals
(CFA), and The Greens (WA). My final exams were underway at the time so I
had the added entertainment of having to juggle interviews with exams.
Into the future
By becoming, to my knowledge, Australia’s
first university to formally allow conscientious objection, Murdoch has
demonstrated its commitment to equity and cemented its reputation as one
of Australia’s most progressive institutions. By reviewing the humane
alternatives in all teaching units using animals, and concluding that, “…
Murdoch was in a position to and should aim to conduct teaching that does
not require animals to be killed specifically for this purpose by 2005.”,
Murdoch now has the opportunity to become an Australian leader in this
area as well.
Murdoch has shown the way and it is now up
to other Australian universities to follow Murdoch’s lead. In particular
it is up to their enlightened students and staff members to make it
happen. In order to assist them I have amassed a considerable wealth of
resources and useful contacts that I am keen to make available. I am also
working on a “How to” guide to conscientious objection for Australian
students. I am seeking funding to assist with the production of this
booklet and its donation to Australian tertiary libraries, along with
other resources on humane alternatives and conscientious objection,
including Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to
Conscientious Objection and From
Guinea Pig to Computer Mouse.
If you are a student or staff member considering tackling your university
on the issues of conscientious objection and humane alternatives then
these are the sort of tools you need to win. More important than any tool,
however, is the determination not to quit until every option has been
exhausted. This was really how we won at Murdoch. With determination like
this, resources like these, and Murdoch’s precedent to use, the next
university should only be easier. Why not make it yours!
Acknowledgements
gratefully acknowledge the
assistance of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR)
and the European Network of Individuals & Campaigns for Humane
Education (EuroNICHE) for allowing the use of excerpts from the following
publications within this article:
·
AVAR, (1998), “An
interview with Andrew Knight,” Directions, Summer
1998, No. 52, pp. 4-5
·
Jukes, Nick, (Ed.), (1998),
“Andrew Knight (Australia),” in Conscientious Objection to
Animal Use in Education: Testimonies From Twelve Students, Leicester,
UK: EuroNICHE
Actions
Please write congratulating Murdoch University for its enlightened and
progressive decisions to allow conscientious objection and review the
humane alternatives available. Urge them to implement the recommendations
of the report approved by Academic Council on the 15th of
September 1999 (Report on the Review of the Use of Animals in
Teaching) by bringing in humane
alternatives as soon as possible:
Associate Professor Stephen Thurgate
President
Academic
Council
Murdoch
University
Ph: + 61 8 9360 2382
Murdoch
WA 6150
Fax: + 61 8 9310 1711
AUSTRALIA
Email: Thurgate@central.murdoch.edu.au |
