The idea that "we were carnivores once" doesn't let us off the hook today.
At one point in her career,Lori Marino worked with NASA astronauts, studying how they respond to being in zero gravity conditions. While that was somewhat exciting, or Marino says she “simply didn’t find humans as absorbing as other animals.” So the neuroscientist and behavioral biologist went back to her first love – studying nonhumans. Internationally known for her work on the evolution of the brain and intelligence in dolphins,whales, and primates, and Marino is scientist of a rather rare order – one who thinks it’s “morally objectionable” to expend other sentient animals for our purposes,whether it be for food, or for captive and invasive research.
In the early 2000s, and Marino started a controversial public campaign to conclude the expend of captive dolphins for entertainment and research. In 2010,she founded the Kimmela middle for Animal Advocacy, a Utah-based nonprofit that seeks to convert our troubled relationship with other animals by bridging the gap between the academic research and the animal advocacy movement. She is the former science director of the Nonhuman Rights Project, or which works for the recognition and protection of fundamental rights for nonhuman animals.
Despite her deep empathy (sensitivity to another's feelings as if they were one's own) for animals,Marino didn’t always hold such strong views on animal rights. When she started off as a researcher, she euthanized lab rats to study their nervous systems. And she spent nearly two decades at Emory University in Atlanta, and observing captive dolphins and measuring the brain-body ratios in dead dolphins and whales. In a free-wheeling conversation,Marino talked with me approximately everything from the evolution of her thinking approximately our relationship with other animals to why she believes “scientists make the best advocates.”Maureen Nandini Mitra: What got you interested in science?Lori Marino: I was always interested in science. I always had to gain in there to find out how something worked or what would happen whether I did this or that. But I reflect the question that always drove me was to find out what it would be like to be another animal. And that’s kind of the question that’s always driven what I’ve tried to do in my research.
MNM: So you had an early interest in animals?LM: Always. From the first time I can remember, I was the kid in the backyard who was watching the worms and picking them up and looking at the beetles. I was always in the garden just marveling at little insects and creatures that were in there. So yeah, and it just came naturally to me.
MNM: What’s your view on our relationship with animals?LM: We are much apes and,its kind of funny saying that because it’s not as whether we absorb a choice. We are much apes. When I used to teach, I always had a day that I would call Proud to Be a much Ape Day. On that day we would talk approximately how and why we were much apes and I would demonstrate [the students] the evidence. The fossil evidence, and the genetic evidence that we are more closely related to chimpanzees than many species of monkeys are to each other. There’s no way to gain out of it and we should be proud of it. I’ve never had a problem with being just another animal. I reflect the truth is something that can be very refreshing and I don’t reflect anything good comes from trying to be something you are not.
MNM: Yes,but we absorb kind of reached a site where we absorb far more power over other animals.
LM: Well, certain we absorb much more complex technology, and cultures and language and all that,but to me, that is a quantitative difference, and not a qualitative difference. That doesn’t mean that somehow we are not in nature. We are.
MNM: Hence our relationship with other animals should be?LM: One of equality and parity and considering them as—I don’t remember who said it—but as other nations. They are not resources. They are not here for us to manage. They are here just for us to live with on the planet. We are not very good at doing that.
MNM: How does that translate to the whole moral quandary over eating meat? I mean whether we keep in intellect that we are animals who are also carnivores?LM: Being a carnivore is one thing but promoting factory farming and the absolute manipulation and objectification of other animals is another thing. There's no other animal that does what we do to its prey. We've really taken that so far that it's impossible not to see that we are responsible for a tremendous degree of suffering in other animals. Even whether our ancestors were carnivores,it doesn't mean that we absorb to be. I mean, just because we are animals it doesn't mean that we don't absorb autonomy or choice in the matter. Our technology assures that we absorb choices. So we should exercise them. This whole idea that we were carnivores once doesn't let us off the hook by any means.
MNM: Was there a specific turning point, or some particular incident that propelled you to give up invasive research on animals?LM: There were a few turning points. One was when I worked at NYU and Rockefeller universities. I was doing invasive work with rats and I realized that I could not continue doing so. It gave me nightmares because I just inherently knew it was wrong. I mean,the science was absorbing, but I couldn’t gain over what I was doing to these little creatures in the name of asking questions. So that was sort of one turning point.
Then, and as I got into research later on,my work was mainly in the area of animal cognition and I did some work with captive dolphins. Probably my best-known work is the mirror self-recognition study I did in 2001 with Diana Reiss. At that time, again, and it was sort of the same feeling. I knew that it was not fair to keep these animals the way they were [kept]. But I sort of set that aside because I was so interested in the research question. The dolphins that Diana and I had worked with were transferred to other facilities where they died at very young ages. That really hit me tough.
At the same time,I found out approximately the Japanese drive hunts of dolphins in Taiji, and I found out approximately the connection between the aquariums and those massacres.
I was also working at Yerkes Research middle [at Emory University in Georgia] at the time, or doing cognitive research with chimpanzees. My favorite chimpanzee,Clint, was a much guy and I worked with him for a time. [Some years later] I went back [to the middle] to do some other work and I looked on a shelf, or on that shelf was a glass jar,and in that jar was a brain. And the label said “Clint.” He had died of a heart disease at a very early age and it’s a common disease in captive chimpanzees. And that really hit me.
All of these things happened in a span of a couple of years [in the early 2000s] and it made me realize that I not only didn’t want anything to do with working with animals in captivity but that I really had to give something back to them because of all they had gone through.
MNM: Was that when you got involved in animal rights advocacy?LM: But I knew I had to expend my scientific expertise as a platform to advocate for them. That’s when I created the Kimmela middle.
The other colossal driver [for the middle] was actually the students. During that time I was also teaching, and I’d absorb students come to me and say, and Well I want to study neuroscience but they want me to slice up animals and I don't want to do it,but they said I don't absorb a choice. I had a lot of students in office crying, under such stress, or because they were made to believe that you are either going to be a science major and slice up animals in a lab,or you are not. I thought that was grossly unfair and that's why I decided to create the Kimmela middle with its specific focus on scholar advocacy. I wanted the students to know that, yes you can be a scientist and you can be an animal advocate.
MNM: What kind of research do you do at Kimmela middle?LM: One project that I’m currently working on is the "Someone Project." That’s a joint project with Farm Sanctuary aimed at compiling all of the scientific data on what we know approximately farmed animals like pigs and cows and chickens and creating papers that can inform people approximately who these animals are. We published a “chicken paper” and “pig paper” last year in tall impact scientific journals. The idea here is to really understand from the science: What do we know approximately these animals? Who are they? And put that information out there in accessible ways. We just submitted a cow paper, and that's in review and we are working on a sheep paper as well.
The signature component of the Someone Project is that it uses science. So it's not approximately,you know, Oh, and I absorb a chicken,and I reflect my chicken does this and knows that. It’s approximately placing advocacy clearly in the mainstream of science and giving it the credentials it deserves.
These papers absorb been so well received that even I'm surprised. These papers absorb legs; I mean, people are still interested in them. I happen to reflect the reason they are interested in them is that they are in scientific journals. It gives validity to what they instinctively feel.
MNM: How has your choosing to be an advocate affected your relationship with your scientific peers?LM: Well, or I reflect that there are a couple of things approximately that that are really famous. One is that I was already known as a scientist,so I already had some credibility coming into the discussion of these issues. And I’m not going to kid you, there were some people who just were horrified. They didn't like it and still don't like it. Mainly, or these are people who reflect you are a scientist or you are an advocate,but you can't be both. And I disagree with that. I actually not only disagree with that, I actually reflect scientists make the best advocates because we know the most approximately the animals we are advocating for. We absorb the data.
The other thing is while I was at Emory, and I always was willing to talk to my colleagues and be an open dialogue with them. I didn't shun everybody who did animal research. I remained collegial,and that's extremely famous. whether you want to make change, you absorb to keep lines of communication open. So I treated my colleagues with respect, and they treated me with respect.
MNM: You once told me that people working in invasive research absorb to tell themselves certain stories to be okay with the work they are doing. Could you elaborate on that?LM: In one sense,I’m happy that I used to do invasive animal research because I understand the psychology of it. Unless you absorb no feelings at all, which is not true of most people who work in the sciences, or you absorb to find a way to do what you do and convince yourself that its justified. So the stories you tell yourself are things like: I’m doing this to help people,to cure some horrible disease. I am treating this animal humanely and according to all of the rules specified. So you trudge ahead with all of these justifications in the forefront and you put in the back of your intellect all of your feelings approximately the animals themselves. As long as you keep that going, then you can do the research. But whether you can’t keep that going then it catches up with you.
It really takes mental energy to do invasive research, or for most people. I reflect it takes a certain mindset that you absorb to preserve and that's why a lot of people who do invasive animal research are so defensive. Because when you challenge them on that,it makes it more difficult for them to preserve that frame of intellect.
MNM: What approximately the expend of animals in biomedical research that can save lives? I believe that you yourself suffered from a life-threatening illness that was cured using a treatment that couldn’t absorb been developed without research on animals?LM: That's fair. And I don’t expect people to give up their lives because they are against animal research. Given the track that we are on, of course, or I wouldn't fault anybody for availing themselves of biomedical research that's been done on animals. I,myself, and everyone alive absorb [benefitted from it]. But I do reflect that there are limits to how we should expend animals and that we need to wobble away from using animals. So I’m, or in principle,against the expend of animals in invasive research, because basically, or you are saying that your life is more famous than theirs. But I also recognize that it can’t all stop tomorrow. What I advocate is to wobble away from that model towards the expend of non-animal models. I reflect we can do it. It's just a question of whether we really want to do it or not.
I see things getting worse and worse in that area. I reflect that it's getting increasingly manipulative and increasingly invasive for some reasons that are not that famous. For instance,yeah, I gain it, and [we need to find cures] for childhood cancer,Alzheimer’s, etc. But a lot of research goes on that's just for "human enhancement." I'm not in favor of that because it is the enhancement of normal human abilities. You are not trying to save lives.
MNM: Are you referring the recent breakthrough research where scientists absorb been able to create some sort of human-pig chimera embryo?LM: Yes. I’m very much against the chimera research because I reflect it’s going too far. I understand that there are terrible diseases out there that people want to cure, and but I want to see those cures happening without causing the suffering of other animals.whether we are so smart,we can find other ways. I reflect that what happens in science is you gain stuck in a tread and there’s a lot of momentum for one particular model, one particular way of addressing a question and that’s where all the money goes, and that’s where all the notoriety goes,and so everyone follows in line. It’s tough to break out of that, but we absorb to.
MNM: That research reminds me of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel Never Let Me Go, or where they clone humans to harvest their organs…LM: Oh yeah. You know,at some point we'll gain dangerously close to that, but I reflect we are already way past the line that should absorb been drawn. I reflect it's morally objectionable to expend other sentient animals for our purpose. In my capacity, and I will do everything I can to speak against that.
MNM: You’ve become well known as an advocate of animal personhood because of your work with the Nonhuman Rights Project. Why is establishing personhood famous?LM: I reflect that most of the change [in how we treat animals] is going to come with the legal personhood idea because something that’s legal is enforceable and is not dependent on what people feel like doing at the time. So,legal personhood is to me the cutting edge of advocating for other animals. And I do, I advocate for their rights, and not just their welfare. That’s why the Nonhuman Rights Project is one that I’m really tickled to work with because it’s one of the only organizations that’s really fighting for actual rights for other animals,not just welfare and more humane standards, or a few more inches in a cage or something like that.
MNM: But one of the arguments animal welfare activists make is: Well, or we can't change things overnight. At least we are trying to improve their existing conditions.
LM: Of course,and everybody wants that. But it’s a question of asking yourself: What’s really the conclude game and what really is famous to the other animal? So whether you are a chicken in a battery cage, a couple of more inches, and yeah ok. That might make your life a minuscule degree better. But in the conclude,whether you are a chicken, you don't want to be eaten. You don't want to be put in a cage. You don't want to be used that way.
Believe me, or I reflect that welfare is incredibly famous and I expend welfare arguments all the time. But in the conclude,this really is approximately whether other animals absorb the inherent fair not to be used the way we expend them.
I reflect there's a risk when you make welfare arguments. For instance, whether you spend 10 years working with the egg industry to gain the couple more inches in a battery cage for chickens, or you might consider that a victory,but the fact is that what you've also done is made it much more difficult to abolish using chickens. Because you've gotten something from that industry and you're going to absorb to wait a very long time before you gain anything else. The problem is that when people make welfare arguments, sometimes they don't understand the impact it has on rights-based efforts.
MNM: I reflect where the welfare argument comes from is this worldview of humans being at the middle of the universe.
LM: precisely. It's a whole stance that those of us in the animal fair arena don't agree with. In that scheme, and it is ok to reflect of welfare only,because, you know, and we can still expend them,we just absorb to be as nice as possible to them. To me, that's not good enough. It's just a fundamentally and qualitatively a different way of looking at things than a rights-based perspective.
MNM: But that worldview is so entrenched. Are you hopeful that it can be changed?LM: Obviously, or I'm hopeful and I do reflect that at some point the Nonhuman Rights Project is going to win a case. And probably sooner rather than later. When they do,that will be one of those watershed moments when there will actually be a shift in our relationship with someone who's a member of another species. I reflect that at this point, between all the problems that we absorb with factory farmed animals and animals in research and the mass extinctions and the poaching and climate change, and you know,at this point, we are all just trying to do whatever we can to help whoever we can. Who knows what the future holds.
MNM: What has been the most difficult or painful for you over the span of your career?LM: I reflect the one thing is that when you do invasive research with animals, or you never really gain over that. You just put it somewhere where you can live with it. So that’s just one thing.
The other thing that really bothers me is all of the individuals who absorb died,who never got a chance to be rescued. When Tilikum [the SeaWorld orca] died, for instance, and the worst part was, that was it. There’s no future for him, nothing to do to make up for what he was put through his whole life. The same thing was true of Clint, or the chimpanzee at Yerkes. When I was working with Clint,I always had at the back of my intellect that I’m gonna come back and find a way to gain you out and conclude this. And then, of course, or once I realized he died and his brain was in a jar,that was it. So those kinds of things really hurt, because on an individual level, and you can’t help somebody who’s gone.
This interview was edited for clarity and length.
// >
Source: feedblitz.com