With less than two months left before the next U.S. president is elected, ScienceBlogs wanted to dedicate a space to campaign politics. A Vote For Science is a group blog that will focus on the candidates' science policies. It is 
A blog colleague brought this issue to my attention, although I recall considering the issues back during the Democratic primaries. Some of the things that Barack Obama has said had a tendency to question where he stood on animal welfare, animal rights and the use of animals in research. I was unable to really parse his position at the time because for the most part it was all fairly mainstream animal welfare stuff (not to mention he seems to go out of his way to defend hunting and fishing).
Nevertheless, I think this recent bit that I've run across is both consistent with the Obama persona and with the difficulty anyone might have in getting a true bead on his position from public quotes. The key passage from an interview with Joe Kline for TIME:
At one point, he considers the historic influence of ideological extremists--that is, people precisely unlike him. "It has not always been the pragmatist, the voice of reason, or the force of compromise, that has created the conditions for liberty," he writes about the antislavery movement of the 19th century. "Knowing this, I can't summarily dismiss those possessed of similar certainty today--the antiabortion activist ... the animal rights activist who raids a laboratory--no matter how deeply I disagree with their views. I am robbed even of the certainty of uncertainty--for sometimes absolute truths may well be absolute."
This may not be what scientists, doctors, veterinarians and others concerned about biomedical advances want to hear. But it is a valid position to take and actually a very well considered and nuanced one for a politician. Well-considered and nuanced seem to be consistent features of Obama's thinking on many issues which is why this passage seems like the real Obama to me.
For those of you who are worried about an appearance of animal rights perspective from Obama, certainly stay tuned. I don't read the available quotes, votes and positions quite that way-including citations on clearly animal-rightie type sites which you would expect to be digging up Obama's quotes which are closest to their extreme positions. He strikes me as concerned with animal welfare, certainly. As are most people who are interested in the use of animals in biomedical research. Still, it is worth keeping an eye out.
You may find the fact that Obama came out so strongly in support of biomedical research comforting. Also, his panel of scientific experts would seem to recognize the value of biomedical research and be able to set Obama straight if necessary.
Politics
Medicine & Health
Comments
Well I'm pretty happy with what he said. We all know that Obama is pro-choice, and what he said was "Knowing this, I can't summarily dismiss those possessed of similar certainty today--the antiabortion activist ... the animal rights activist who raids a laboratory--no matter how deeply I disagree with their views."
I doubt he put antiabortion activists and animal rights activists together like that for no reason, so what he's saying is that he disagrees with the anti-abortionists and animal rights activists, but is unwilling to dismiss their positions out of hand without considering their possible merits. Seems fair enough to me, exactly what you'd expect from a non-ideologue. If you combine this with his previous statements on more high profile issues affecting biomedical science I think it's safe to assume that he supports the use of animal in research.
Posted by: Paul | October 4, 2008 5:15 PM
Can only hope Obama would question the legalized animal cruelty condoned and financed by government (torturing animals, including Mans Best Friend in research Labs ( hell holes for animals). However, you White Coats, torturers of animals, probably have nothing to fear for the end of your lavish gravy trains (gov. grants)...and you can continue to bring unspeakable terror, pain and agonizing death to thousands of creatures of our planet. Disgusting terrorist are INSIDE the labs, not outside. Animal Advocates are the animals ONLY voice. Man's Best Friend has no friends in the laboratory or in government.
Posted by: Natan | October 4, 2008 6:41 PM
We may not all agree on which rights animals have. But perhaps we can agree to prioritize research that betters animal lives along with human lives, and that whatever research is being done should be done with careful planning needed to ensure that the best possible science is done using the fewest possible animals.
-nuanced ethical humans for Obama and animal welfare
Posted by: Becca | October 20, 2008 12:11 PM
But perhaps we can agree to prioritize research that betters animal lives along with human lives
hmm. Trying to understand what you are getting at here. A huge majority of animal research is conducted on species such as rats, mice and fruit flies which most people attempt to eradicate from their homes, businesses and agricultural production locations with an extreme prejudice.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | October 20, 2008 12:17 PM
It's clear that she's in favor of animal research that benefits animals as well as humans.
Is her comment really all that hard to understand? How is the fact that many of the test animals are the same species you mention relevant at all to her point? Though, I would suggest that anyone interested in this topic become familiar with, and consider, the opposing arguments- particularly those which relate to the morality of testing on animals.
It seems all too easy to dishonestly support a position for the sake of your research, careers, work. We've certainly seen that before.
Posted by: Patrick | November 20, 2008 9:00 PM
It seems all too easy to dishonestly support a position for the sake of your research, careers, work. We've certainly seen that before.
"Dishonestly"? Do tell...
Posted by: DrugMonkey | November 21, 2008 2:29 PM