Animal Rights - How We Treat Animals Reflects Who We Are

From a purely biological perspective, no creature inherently has rights beyond that which it has the power to impose. What is able to survive does, what cannot does not. But our world is not just biology. It is ethics as well. "Might makes right" cannot be the operating paradigm in a world where freedom, compassion, humanity, and love are desired. Nor are we removed from consideration of the rights of other creatures just because we are paying somebody else to create drugs, scent a deodorant, or raise our food.

Humans with the ability to use their technology to affect and control the world so widely and deeply are constantly faced with ethical choices. Modern life is not a matter of mere survival as it was when we were in the wild. It is an opportunity to develop and grow as introspective, sensitive, and ethical people. For example, walking in the woods requires no rules, but driving in traffic does. Drinking from a stream is not a problem, but damming the stream and flooding thousands of acres is. Breaking down brush with our hands to make a lean-to for shelter is one thing, but denuding the planet with machines is quite another. Hunting animals in the wild for food using only ingenuity, strength, and speed is a matter totally unlike wiping out whole populations with rifles (for 'sport') or with our urban encroachment. Farming animals to feed a swelling population is necessary, but denying them any form of natural or decent life, or subjecting them to abuse or cruelty is not a right we can claim.

Living in the wild would present few ethical choices. Causes and philosophy have a way of taking a back seat when life is consumed with day-to-day survival. But an advanced society with almost limitless technological capabilities is another matter. Our ability now to practically cage and control every creature on the planet and virtually destroy the Earth's life-supporting environment on an Earth-wide scale requires choices and ethical responsibility.

The first choice to be made, it would seem, is whether we wish to survive here long term or not. Assuming the answer is yes, we must take fiduciary responsibility for the planet and its web of life. But it does not end there, as some humane and green movements would seem to argue. In order to survive we must also take the lives of the plant and animal food we consume. That is a reality we face, and, assuming we wish to survive, it is not a matter of ethics. On the other hand, our management and behavior toward other living things-including our food-do present moral choices. It also creates a mood, if you will, setting the tone for how we treat one another. If we find it easy to treat life with insensitivity, it is a small step to treat one another the same way. If we extend care, compassion, and decency out toward the rest of the world, we are far more likely to treat fellow humans similarly.

Killing animals or plants for fun or just because we have the power to do so is neither rational nor ethical. It is a form of psychopathic behavior that threatens the web of life upon which we depend and desensitizes us to the value of all life.

People who take joy in the pain, suffering, and death of other creatures, or justify it because of dollars to be made, threaten civilization itself. It is not that great a leap for those who behave in this way to extend similar insensitivity to humans. Would we rather live next door to someone who creates habitat for wild creatures in their yard and live-captures house mice to set them free outdoors, or someone who stomps on any bug they see, chains their Dog to a stake in the yard, yahoos about shooting songbirds from their window with a pellet gun, and hunts for trophies leaving carcasses to rot? It is not a coincidence that serial killers often have a history of torturing and killing animals (1).

Creatures raised for food should not be treated as nothing more than production units, confined so as to never see the light of day, and then be handled and slaughtered inhumanely. They should be raised kindly in a free and open environment where they might enjoy the life they have. Arguably hunting should be reserved for the singular purpose of obtaining food, not for the pleasure of killing. If there is opportunity to show compassion, why not take it rather than abuse and exploit just because we have the power to do so?

Scientists and much of the public justify animal experimentation as necessary in order to find disease cures, test toxins, check mascara safety, and so on. I am reminded of an experience in a toxicology class. The lesson for the day was to show how topical products could be screened for safety. For a demonstration, the professor held a rabbit by the nap and put some drops of a chemical in the rabbit's eye. The rabbit squealed and struggled in pain. It was a miserable thing to see. As days went by we were shown the progression of the caustic chemical on the rabbit's cornea. The extreme ulceration that resulted was grotesque and the pain the rabbit was enduring was gut wrenching. To this day I remember vividly and regret that I paid tuition for this needless cruelty-although to show any reaction at the time risked being viewed as unscientific and emotional, a definite no-no in medical schools.

The lesson to be learned from this pathetic display of human insensitivity was that noxious chemicals will ulcerate and dissolve eyes. How profound. There wasn't a student in the class that could not have guessed the outcome before the macabre demonstration was done. The real takeaway was that life could be treated with disregard. If we wanted to be good doctors we needed to suck it up, put aside silly compassion and bravely mutilate life for the sake of the greater good of medicine.

Torture aside, such experimentation is unnecessary and really quite embarrassingly sloppy science. Those who participate in it become desensitized to suffering, lose compassion, and learn to hone the skill of obtuse justification. Medical experimentation upon animals is unnecessary because every species reacts to toxins, drugs, and even surgery differently. For that matter, every individual is different biochemically. What might be true for one goose is not for a gander. So a scientific result from a lab in which thousands of mice, Dogs, or monkeys are tortured does not give certainty about an effect in humans or in other species. Biological differences skew all results (2).

Aspirin causes birth defects in rats but not in humans. Humans and guinea pigs require vitamin C in the diet but most other creatures manufacture it themselves. An opium dose that will kill a human is harmless in Dogs and chicks. Allylisothiocyanate will cause cancer in the male rat, but may not in the female, or in mice. Penicillin will kill a guinea pig but potentially save the life of a person. Most drugs, nutrients, and toxins have a reverse effect: a benefit at one level is a danger at another. Measuring such things is near impossible (3). Even kindness in the lab can alter results as demonstrated by atherosclerosis (the heart attack factor) being reduced by as much as 60% in rabbits that are handled, compared to those ignored (4).

The point is that nobody knows all the variables when conducting such research. They can only control for some, guess at all the others, and then make an extrapolation, a huge leap in faith timed precisely to occur before the budget runs out. This is the reason drugs go through years of FDA trials at a cost of 360 million dollars, and then can kill and maim when introduced to the population.

Nevertheless, such heartless experimentation proceeds in the name of science and the promise of cures. It's a shame. Using a little logic, or other laboratory tools such as tissue culture techniques, could as well have led to the same conclusions gained from animal experimentation. For example, researchers used 24,000 mice to prove that 2-acetylaminofluorene was carcinogenic. Based on genetic context logic, you or I could have told them the result without caging or torturing one mouse. Why would a synthetic chemical such as this not be harmful?

What is most frustrating is that the result of all the animal experimentation is not cures. Rather, there are hundreds of thousands of maimed and killed humans who bought into the faulty science of such 'proven' drugs. Animal research brings us drugs with side effects, dependencies, prescription errors, cross-reactions, and removal of symptoms while the cause of the disease continues. Animal experimentation is a bad idea at its start and a tragic disaster in practice.

The popular idea is that our environment, including all of its creatures, is a mere resource for our exploitation. That is irrational if long-term human welfare is to matter and denies that humans have a higher purpose than might makes right.

(1) Relationship between Animal Abuse and Human Violence. Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, 2007. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com.
(2) Gawrylewski, Andrea, 'The Trouble with Animal Models: Trials and Error', The Scientist 21-7 (2007), 45-51.
(3) Qureshi, B. The reverse effect. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 83 (1990), 131-132.
(4) Rowland, D. The Nutritional Bypass: Reverse Atherosclerosis Without Surgery. Parry Sound: Rowland Publications, 1995.

Dr. Randy Wysong is author of Living Life as if Thinking Matters, Solving The Big Questions as if Thinking Matters, several books on health, nutrition, self improvement, philosophy, and the origin of life. He is a pioneer in the natural health and nutrition movement, and is the first to put the creation-evolution debate on rational footings. His blog, books, updates, mind-stimulating content, interactive forums, and FREE thinking matters video-rich newsletter can be found at AsIfThinkingMatters.com.

Solutions for Problems With International IP Rights Regarding Plants Native To India

I. Possible Methods To Protect Indian Rice Industry

In the past there has been some controversy regarding a patent on basmati rice developed by a company called "RiceTec." RiceTec also uses the term, "Texmati" for its Texas-grown variety of basmati rice. Initially, RiceTec's patent seems to misappropriate India's national heritage in basmati rice. However, after learning about the myriad intellectual property schemes, the extent of the Texmati patent rights seems limited. India may safely grant product patents for Western inventions if India speeds up efforts to patent Indian products. What India needs to protect its indigenous plant knowledge is a combination of "scientific mumbo-jumbo and legal savvy." The CSIR formed a team that identified 400 herbs with medicinal uses. Now the CSIR plans to seek patents for these cures to prevent foreign companies from claiming these remedies.

A. Pursue Cancellation of U.S. Patent

The PTO seldom fully cancels a patent once granted. However, the USPTO may cancel a patent for a limited period after issuing the patent. If a patented invention is shown to not be novel, useful, or obvious, then the PTO may cancel the patent.

For RiceTec's basmati patent, India's best point of attack is novelty. DNA fingerprinting may determine whether RiceTec's rice germ plasm originates from a naturally occurring rice. If so, then India could argue that RiceTec's rice contains no substantial differences from a naturally occurring variety, negating the rice's novelty. RiceTec maintains that their patented rice's breeding material came partly from an agricultural seed repository in Idaho that is available to anyone.

If the rice provides no substantial benefits over natural basmati, India may attack the patented rice's usefulness. RiceTec's patent describes the plant as being cultivated in only the Americas and the Caribbean. RiceTec may seek to counter India's claim of a lack of utility. RiceTec could state that the company's rice plant is useful because it grows in a region that does not naturally allow basmati rice to grow.

Indian government officials and rice industry representatives have publicly stated that growers cannot cultivate basmati rice outside of the northern region of the Indian subcontinent. Similar statements have expressed that RiceTec's rice is the same type of rice grown in India for many years. The Indian government should decide on whether RiceTec's rice is the same as Indian basmati or different. If the patent rice is identical to Indian basmati, then RiceTec's invention is not novel. If the rice is not the same, then India may lose a contest on novelty, but may consider geographic indication protection.

B. Plant Breeder Rights

India currently provides no protection for plant varieties. TRIPs only provides plant variety dispute settlement to countries that have national plant variety protection. The Indian parliament unsuccessfully attempted to pass a plant variety protection law in 1994. If India adopts a plant variety patent law soon, India may pursue international protection of indigenous plants.

However, any protection will only pertain to future acts as TRIPs will not apply plant variety protection retroactively. India cannot use TRIPs to contest foreign plant patents if India does not provide plant variety protection at home. Previous Indian governments did not pass a plant protection act, despite urging by Indian professionals in the environmental, food, and patent fields. If such an Indian plant patent system existed, India would have an easier task of protecting its basmati rice industry today.

Although this avenue is currently ineffective to thwart RiceTec's patent, passing a plant patent act now will be valuable for future disputes. The TRIPs agreement requires that any laws on biodiversity, plant, and microorganism protection be in place before 2000. India has not yet begun enacting such legislation.

C. Trademark, Certified Mark, Co-op Mark

RiceTec has a registered U.S. trademark for "Texmati." The trademark registration claims that RiceTec has used "Texmati" for the previous twenty years. If India cannot refute this statement, passing off is hard to prove.

Again, TRIPs provides no dispute resolution process if a member country does not have a conflicting trademark under its own laws. No Indian trademark exists for "basmati." RiceTec does not have a registered trademark of "basmati" anywhere. In the U.S., the word, "basmati," is not registered alone, although other companies have registrations for phrases containing the term. These registrations contain disclaimers that no claim is asserted to the word, "basmati." India needs to consider whether "basmati" should be trademarked in India first, then in other countries.

If India is unsuccessful in pursuing trademark protection, certified marks or collective marks may be worth considering. A certified mark may indicate to consumers that the rice was grown in the Himalayan region of India, as Columbia's coffee growers demonstrate through their Juan Valdez marketing promotion. Perhaps India's rice exporting organizations should pursue creation of a collective mark to distinguish rice from India's rice growers.

D. Marketing

Perhaps Indian basmati's greatest disadvantage to American basmati is poor marketing by the Indian rice industry. Today, the two basmatis do not compete directly in the U.S. Currently U.S. supermarkets usually do not stock the Indian product. Normally, Indian basmati sells only in large bags in specialty markets. Specialty markets do not sell the American basmati.

Hopefully, improved marketing can allow Indian basmati to prevail over American basmati. India may benefit by aggressively competing directly with Texmati and other American basmatis. If store shelves stocked Indian and American basmatis side-by-side, consumers may choose the Indian variety. Informal taste comparisons seem to show that Texmati's flavor and aroma is inferior to the Indian variety. Indeed, one culinary expert described Texmati rice as being starchier and having less aroma than Indian basmati rice. The Indian basmati rice was more fragrant and saliently superior to the Texmati rice. This important distinction, along with Indian rice being generally less expensive, in the U.S., than U.S. rice, should enable India to increase revenue while diminishing RiceTec's market share.

A recent technological development by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute may increase India's basmati rice production. This development, India's first hybrid basmati rice, may give a higher yield than any current Indian basmati rice. If India's new basmati rice successfully competes with RiceTec's Texmati, then India's exploitation of biotechnology could increase the Indian rice industry's profits. If this Indian hybrid is indeed superior to other basmatis, the Indian government can help the Indian rice industry by passing the appropriate patent legislation and pursuing international intellectual property protection for this hybrid rice.

However, bioengineering of food products does not always spell success in the marketplace. For example, U.S. tomato growers breed varieties of tomatoes that resist damage when hauled in trucks, stay fresh for longer time periods, and even have a square shape to improve the packing arrangement in cans. However, these significant improvements result in a dramatic loss of flavor.

India markets a high-yielding disease-resistant basmati rice variety, "Pusa No. 1," that is not as fragrant or flavorful as traditional Indian basmati rice. Indian basmati rice commands a high price for its delicious traditional flavor. In the eighties Pakistan introduced high-yielding varieties to improve productivity. Some believe that the Pakistani rice industry currently receives a lower price for its basmati rice because Indian basmati rice is perceived as a higher quality basmati rice. Fearing a similar fate, Indian basmati exporters hope that the Indian government designates rices like Pusa No. 1 as "basmati-parentaged" instead of "basmati." They hope that this will help consumers to not become confused by lower quality basmati-like rice.

Even India's food and commerce ministries refuse to recognize Pusa No. 1 as basmati rice. Perhaps the Indian government should also seek to have foreign governments to classify RiceTec's Texmati and similar rices as basmati-parentaged. Such a description may assist consumers in identifying Indian rices and Indian-style rices.

E. Do Nothing

If India were to do nothing regarding RiceTec's patent, India's basmati market may suffer little, if any, damage. RiceTec's U.S. patent provides no advantage over Indian growers. U.S. patent laws do not apply to India.

A patent does not grant the patentee the right to use an invention. A patent merely grants the right to exclude others from using the invention for twenty years. If India successfully convinces the PTO to cancel RiceTec's patent, RiceTec would still be free to use the rice as no other patent exists to be infringed. Canceling the patent only allows anyone to use the rice. Also, India still can continue to sell its basmati worldwide, whether the USPTO cancels the patent or not.

II. Suggested Future Efforts

* Develop home country protection for trademarks, plant variety protection, and geographic indication to take advantage of international agreements.

* Build computer databases to document and protect Indian plants and plant products.

* Employ Indian embassies to monitor patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights in foreign countries.

* Follow Malaysia's practice of conducting research and collecting information on traditional Malay medicinal plants with the intention of patenting them for commercial purposes.

IIII. Conclusion

Initially, RiceTec's patent seems to misappropriate India's national heritage in basmati rice. However, after learning about the myriad intellectual property schemes, the extent of the Texmati patent rights seems limited. As a practical matter quality Indian basmati rice is still superior to Texmati. It is incumbent upon the Indian rice industry to aggressively ensure that this message reaches the consumer. Concerted efforts between Indian business and government can effectively promote the use of India's large pool of scientific manpower to protect indigenous plants from exclusively foreign exploitation. This technologically-endowed work force provides potential for India to profit from improved intellectual property protection.

© Frederic M. Douglas, April 1999; 2010. All Rights Reserved.

Frederic M. Douglas is an IP litigator, dedicated to pursuing practical resolution of problems concerning patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and other areas of law.

fdouglas@cox.net
(949) 293-0442
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/frederic-douglas/17/37b/7a1