Jerrold Tannenbaum says rising interest in animal welfare relects growing value many place on campanion animals. Jerrold Tannenbaum is a professor of veterinary ethics and law, the only one in the world, by his reckoning. He came to the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine in April after holding a similar position at Tufts University Veterinary School for 17 years. This is his second career with the University of California; he was an assistant professor of philosophy for two years at UC Santa Barbara before leaving for Harvard Law School. After Harvard, Tannenbaum argued major criminal cases on appeal as an assistant district attorney in New York City, then handled private civil litigation. In 1982, just as he was considering returning to teaching philosophy, an opportunity arose that sent him in an unexpected direction. Wright: You've said that your pet Yorkshire terrier, Phillip, led you to become a veterinary ethicist. What happened? Tannenbaum: It might seem strange to talk in these terms, but the little guy had a tremendous impact on my life and my wife's life. We had a very intense relationship with him. He was a wonderful dog. And I really appreciated the importance of the human-animal bond. I wanted to study more about it, think more about it. By the time he was 10 years old, he had motivated my wife to become a veterinarian. When she entered Tufts Veterinary School, there was a new dean and he asked me if I was interested in trying to put together a position focusing on veterinary ethics and law. At the time, there was little good work of a scholarly nature, so I started working in both areas. And then I got hooked. SW: We've had more animal-rights activism at UC Davis this year than in recent years. Has something changed in the social climate? JT: We're seeing people become more interested in animal welfare. Much of it is motivated by the rising value that many place on companion animals, such as dogs, cats, horses and birds. These relationships can be intense and loving, and people quite naturally look at their own animals and ask, "How are other animals treated?" SW: In the second edition of your book, Veterinary Ethics, you say the next wave of activism will be related to farm-animal welfare. JT: Reasonably accurate statistics indicate that 20 million to 40 million animals are used in research in the United States each year, while at least 7 billion animals are used in agriculture. Many protesters believe that farm-animal issues will be the major thrust of activism in the 21st century, because some people want to apply their companion-animal values to farm animals. For example, much of agriculture today is intensive, meaning that animals are housed in group conditions that are not the way they would have been housed in family farms years ago. And many people wonder whether they are suffering and whether it's an adequate way of life for them. I think we can expect protests and questions about this. Because we have the finest veterinary school in the world, we should be ready with answers. If the animals are being treated appropriately, then we should be able to say so. If the animals' conditions could be improved, then we should be interested in how various improvements could be made. SW: The most recent threats to animal researchers here were personal and violent. How can scientists and veterinarians actively discuss the issues when they are afraid for their personal safety? JT: Yes, people are afraid, and rightly so, when threatened by thugs. I know scientists who are just worn out from trying to defend what they're doing and are retreating from these battles, especially when they see so much misinformation portrayed. For example, one reads in many of these protests that the great majority of animals used in research suffer, that they're in pain, that they are tortured. That's simply not the case. The great majority of animals used in research feel no pain or suffering at all. When these distortions are coupled with threats of violence, what is one to do? Yet I think that scientists need to be able to articulate the reasons for what they're doing, and many are capable of doing it and do it quite well. I think they can't take for granted the continuing public support for what they do, because the public may not understand either what the scientists are doing or the reasons for it. I don't say defend; I say explain. And I think that is an important part of the process of being able to continue to have the support of the public, financially and morally. I do believe that the American public has a great deal of common sense. Surveys show that they support important medical and agricultural research, and they're sensible, good people. And sensible, good people should be able to respond positively to reasonable arguments. SW: What ethical issues does the growth of biotechnology present for veterinarians? JT: Where veterinarians have a contribution to make is to make sure the animals' interests are raised and given consideration. When the reports of Dolly, the cloned sheep, came out, there was no mention for months that Dolly was born much larger than normal and that, in fact, this tends to occur with cloned animals. Some have to be born through Caesarean section and some may have problems for a while with locomotion. Now, none of this is to say that these procedures are necessarily wrong. But it is important to consider what the impact on animal welfare will be. Another question raised is whether we should clone our pets. One of the objections that's been raised to human cloning is that we would turn humans into commodities-that by making them just as we want them, we would cheapen human life. It could be asked whether cloning a pet would ultimately be a good thing in terms of whether it would ultimately lead to respect for animal life or quite the opposite. SW: What are the ethical issues we face in moving to increased production of genetically modified mice here at Davis? JT: One is that a large number of animals are discarded. They simply cannot be used because they don't exhibit the genetic traits that one is looking for. Many scientists and members of the public believe this raises an ethical issue-what does one do with all these animals? Additionally, many people have ethical problems with using so-called higher animals in research-primates, dogs and cats. If we can modify mice to be disease models and reduce the use of those other animals, that may be a desirable goal, because mice are less sophisticated mentally and socially than so-called higher animals. So, many people would say here is a benefit, an important benefit, in genetic engineering. That's a way in which an ethical motivation can hook up with and strengthen scientific endeavor. SW: What is the most important thing you try to teach your veterinary students? JT: Teaching ethics is not teaching people how to behave, or telling them what is right and wrong. I try to give my students tools to analyze ethical problems and issues that face them and their profession so that they are more capable, more confident and more persuasive in dealing with important issues when they become practicing veterinarians. SW: What are some typical examples of those issues? JT: In my freshman class this week, I'm discussing what happens when a pet owner comes to the practice and cannot afford a treatment. Many of my students believe that they should try to do something to help, or will feel guilty if they don't help. But veterinarians are not charities. The average veterinarian in this country earns under $60,000 a year. Veterinarians are entitled to a decent living. Then, there's the opposite issue, which is occurring more frequently: The client has the funds and the psychological commitment, but it may not be clear that it's in the best interest of the animal or the owner to continue treatment. Today we can keep animals alive when there is very little chance they can be cured or have a decent quality of life. We face issues of when enough is enough. SW: It's evident that you have great respect for veterinary professionals and their work. JT: In many respects, veterinary medical ethics is more difficult than human medical ethics. Physicians serve the interests of their patients. But from the very beginning, veterinarians have had two masters. Animals are their patients; clients or owners pay the bill. What makes veterinary ethics sometimes so difficult-and so intriguing-is that the interests of the patient can conflict with the interests of the client. Veterinarians are sometimes caught in the middle, wanting to serve both. However, I'm very positive about the ability of veterinarians to protect animals as well as people. They protect farmers, who have economic interests in animals; animal owners, who have psychological investment in their animals; and the public, through their involvement in food safety, for example. So veterinarians are poised at exactly the right place to serve both human and animal interests. SW: We began by talking about your Yorkshire terrier, Phillip. Do you have a pet now? JT: Phillip died about nine years ago and my wife and I still have not been able to get another dog. It was a very, very great loss for us. But we're going to. We're going to. Dateline UC Davis is the faculty and staff newspaper for the University of California, Davis.