New German law pleases animal protectionists, worries researchers

July 25, 2002

What a difference two little words can make. Germany's parliament recently voted to add the words "and animals" to a clause in the country's constitution that requires the state to respect and protect the dignity of "life." Animal protectionists applaud the move, while many scientists fear it will hinder research.

Prior to this amendment, "life" was taken to mean "human life." The passage in question - article 20a of the German constitution - now will read, "The state takes responsibility for protecting the natural foundations of life and animals in the interest of future generations" (emphasis added).

The change in article 20a is a so-called "state goal" -? an aim so important to society as to require consideration by all branches of the government when formulating or interpreting law. This amendment does not grant individual rights to animals. Rather, it provides a legal basis for viewing animals as living creatures capable of suffering?creatures whose interests must be weighed against human interests in research, teaching, religion, and so on.

There's the rub. Just how will the law be interpreted? How will conflicts between the interests of humans and those of animals be resolved?

Some scientists fear that the amendment will open the door for court cases to challenge animal research, and that it may lead to tighter restrictions on the use of animals in product testing and biomedical research. One pro-research organization referred to the day on which the lower house of parliament passed the law as "Black Friday."

Animal protectionists, on the other hand, hope to use the constitutional change to bring about more humane treatment of animals?such as reducing unduly long transport times for animals en route to slaughter. Some legislators have suggested that the government might direct more research funding to seeking alternatives to the use of animals in research.

The decision to grant legal standing to animals came after a decade of debate. The German parliament had rejected a 1998 initiative by the Social Democratic Party and the Green Party to include animal protection in the constitution. Conservative lawmakers blocked that effort, arguing that a greater emphasis on animal protection could place animal interests ahead of human interests, and that it might hurt the country's research industry.

What changed their minds, apparently, was a ruling made earlier this year by Germany's highest court, allowing Muslim butchers to slaughter animals without first stunning them, as prescribed by Islamic Law. Prior to passage of the amendment to article 20a, there was no legal basis for weighing the "right" of animals to humane treatment against the human right to freedom of religion. Now there is. The German Animal Protection Society already has announced plans for a renewed examination of Islamic ritual slaughter.