THERE鈥檚 something odd about the way I talk about my pet guinea pigs, Dodo and Nancy. A friend who works at the Medical Research Council first pointed it out to me. 鈥淣otice you say 鈥榩et鈥� guinea pigs,鈥� he drolly remarked. Nowadays, of course, the very term 鈥済uinea pig鈥� is synonymous with experimentation, usually of the illicit, unconsenting variety.
Elsewhere, however, guinea pigs have a better press. In their native South America, these amenable creatures are high-status domestic animals, carefully tended by peasant women and eaten only on special ceremonial occasions. Their transformation into the helpless objects of laboratory investigations takes some explaining.
Being classified as 鈥渞odents鈥� doesn鈥檛 help. Last year, when I rang up to book a holiday cottage that allowed guests to bring their cats or dogs, I foolishly mentioned that I intended to bring my guinea pigs, safely ensconced in their mobile home 鈥� a child鈥檚 inflatable paddling pool, though filled with wood chips and hay instead of water. 鈥淥h, but they鈥檙e rodents,鈥� the horrified woman exclaimed. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not on 鈥� it鈥檚 not normal, is it?鈥�
Advertisement
This deplorable view of small mammals with big front teeth extends to the scientific community in many parts of the world, I suspect. How else to explain a strange blip in the regulations governing animal experiments in the US where there are few rules restricting what a scientist can do to an animal. The most powerful legislation, the Animal Welfare Act, sets minimum standards for housing.
The US Department of Agriculture, responsible for policing the act, has declared that the regulations do not apply to birds, mice or rats 鈥� though rats and mice make up more than 80 per cent of all laboratory animals in the country. The USDA claims it cannot afford to send inspectors to check on all those rats and mice, and that anyway, no one is nasty to them.
It does, however, deign to check up on the guinea pigs, hamsters and rabbits in laboratories. 鈥淭he USDA figures that the public doesn鈥檛 care about rats and mice,鈥� says Martin Stephens of the Humane Society in Washington DC. 鈥淏ut in this country at least, guinea pigs, hamsters and rabbits are regarded as household pets.鈥�
Britain, as one would expect, is far more subtle in such matters. All vertebrates, even small furry ones with a love of gnawing, are granted the same protection under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986. Yet here, too, rodents remain second-class animals. A few years ago, when Home Office inspectors found the then 90 year-old Wilhelm Feldberg CBE, FRS at the National Institute for Medical Research, London, was incompetently experimenting on cats (This Week, 9 June 1990), they subsequently politely suggested that he switched to rabbits. Researchers are actively encouraged to use 鈥渓ower animals鈥� 鈥� you can guess which those are 鈥� whenever possible.
This policy has made an impact on the animal research statistics. The use of experimental animals in Britain has declined overall in recent years, but the number of rats and mice used in research has increased. New biomedical techniques, particularly those involving monoclonal antibodies or genetic engineering, consume a growing number of these creatures. Defenders of animal research, such as the Research Defence Society in London, highlight this fact in their publicity material for schools. On the cover of one leaflet is a drawing of young chirpy-looking rat sitting on a man鈥檚 hand. Turn the page and you find a giant coloured pie chart drawn in a Petri dish showing 鈥淲hat sorts of animals are used in research鈥�. Virtually all the pie 鈥� 84 per cent 鈥� is labelled 鈥渞ats, mice and other rodents鈥�. And not only are they rodents, they are 鈥渟pecifically bred laboratory species which would be unlikely to survive in the wild鈥�. And, of course, if they were in the wild, they would be vermin and fair game for the pesticide squad. Moreover, 鈥渄ogs, cats and primates are not used unless absolutely necessary鈥�. So that鈥檚 alright then, isn鈥檛 it?
Only Denmark has done the decent thing by small mammals. When the Danes revised their law on animal experiments recently, they removed the bit about using the 鈥渓owest鈥� possible sort of animal. 鈥淩odent experiments now have the same status as experiments with, for example, dogs or cats,鈥� says Eva Rasmussen of the Danish Institute of Toxicology in S酶borg. The concept of a hierarchy of vertebrates is suspect, the Danes argue, and in any case cannot provide ethical grounds for discrimination unless 鈥渓ower鈥� could be shown to refer to a lesser sensitivity to pain and suffering.
The guinea pigs in my life would like to point out that they are quite sensitive, thank you, and there is no need to investigate the matter further. They also reckon that I鈥檝e been looking for a holiday cottage in the wrong country.