April 12, 2006
James Jauchem, Ph.D.
AFRL/HEDR
8308 Hawks Rd.
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235
Re: Use of pigs as subjects in Taser research and testing
Dear Dr. Jauchem:
"All I could see was red, and the pain was like an extreme
migraine headache and how I imagine a whack in the back with a
baseball bat would feel." These are the words a reporter
who voluntarily subjected himself to a one-second hit from a Taser
weapon used to describe its effects. Upon viewing a recording
made of the procedure he had just undergone, he added: "It
wasn't pretty. I don't remember many of my reactions shown
on the tape, from my head flailing back and mouth opening to
scream. . . . But I know I'm not doing that again."
Being a human volunteer, it was this man's choice to undergo his
experience; he need never endure it again. The pigs subjected
to this same procedure at Brooks Air Force Base were not so
lucky. Not only were they made the subject of experiments which
would have no benefit to them, experiential or otherwise, they were
subjected to much longer exposures to the powerful jolt of electricity which
the Taser delivers, and were forced to endure the pain of that electrical
shock time and time again. Resisting being put into the test
chamber was of no avail. Neither did their attempts to leap
over the wall of the chamber save them from the cruelty being
inflicted upon them. Though pigs are known to be highly
intelligent animals, they are not (fortunately or otherwise)
intelligent enough to have developed the kind of weaponry we humans
have seen fit to develop for use on each other. They are,
however, just enough like humans physiologically to make them
"ideal" test subjects to be exploited for our benefit.
How lucky for us! How very unlucky for them.
I suspect that you are not "moved to tears." As a
member of the Brooks Air Force Base Animal Care and Use Committee,
you saw fit to sanction what can only realistically be described as
animal torture because you believed that that torture would be of
some benefit to humans – and the study was, you might add, conducted
in full compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. At any rate, it
was most certainly a necessary study to conduct. Having viewed
the video recordings made of these tests, which show pigs receiving
electroshock "hits" from Taser-like devices, and which then
further shows them convulsing in pain, screaming, and frantically
trying to escape the testing chamber in order to avoid being
subjected to yet more cruelty, I can only state that it is my belief
that if we as a society have reached such a point that the torture of
nonhuman animals is "required" in order to discover just
how disabling the weaponry we have developed for use on each other
is, serious doubt must be raised with regard to the application
of the term "civilized" to the human species. That humans are
more powerful than other animals is beyond question; that
"might makes right," and therefore justifies our using,
in however abusive a manner, other animals for our own benefit, is a
concept with which I find myself in vehement disagreement. Nor
does the fact that the treatment of the pigs involved fulfilled the
requirements put forth by the Animal Welfare Act provide either
comfort to those who find such treatment objectionable, nor
justification to those who sanctioned it: it merely
demonstrates how poor our legal sanctions against animal abuse are,
and that, when it comes to nonhuman animals, "welfare"
means nothing more than "that treatment which allows animals to
be used in whatever manner is deemed to be of the greatest benefit to
humans." Previous tests in which pigs have been subjected
to Tasers at least included the use of an anesthetic; the pigs at Brooks
Air Force Base were fully conscious, grew increasingly aware that
entry into the test chamber meant that they would be forced to endure
excruciating, debilitating pain, and clearly suffered in a manner
that is, simply put, unconscionable.
I am writing to you to protest against the use of nonhuman animals
for research and testing procedures, both by the Department of
Defense in general and by Brooks Air Force Base in particular.
Using nonhuman animals in this manner is unacceptable. Welfare
standards that sanction the torture of nonhuman animals are
unacceptable. That members of Brooks Air Force Base Animal Care
and Use Committee were unable to recognize that "care"
does not include subjecting nonhuman animals to excruciating pain,
and that "use" is not synonymous with "abuse" is,
likewise, unacceptable.
Yours sincerely & etc. . . .
|