108 / Conclusion
that a dog in a research facility stands a far greater chance of res-
cue than a mouse does. The mouse would merit rescue only after a
determination was made about the value of the “data” or “cell lines”
he or she embodied.
The second theme through which I examine animals’ vulnera-
bility follows from animals’ moral status. It involves how we make
decisions about animals’ fates, which I characterize as how institu-
tions “think” when faced with disasters. This “thinking” is shaped
by economic interests, and by philosophical and political positions.
For example, the poultry company sees the tornado-wrecked grower
sheds as a “disposal problem” and a public relations liability. The re-
search facility sees drowned or starving animals as lost “data.” An-
imal advocacy groups think in terms of “rescuing” sentient beings.
However, even what constitutes “rescue” depends on institutional
“thinking.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, government ac-
tions (or inactions) required subsequent animal rescuers to engage
in tactics such as breaking and entering, which the government de-
nounces as “terrorism” when used by groups such as the Animal
Liberation Front.^1 In the post-Katrina “rescue” efforts, animal “res-
cuers” broke into evacuated homes, smashed doors and windows,
and used the same tactics that the Animal Liberation Front uses to
“rescue” animals from research facilities. In both cases, the rescuers
offered the same justifi cations, claiming that the animals were suf-
fering and saving them trumped any rights to property. The differ-
ence is that in the Katrina response, the state had in effect granted
permission for rescuers to engage in breaking and entering. When
research labs are involved, to protect corporate interests, the gov-
ernment portrays the Animal Liberation Front and similar activists
as “terrorists” rather than “rescuers.” Always the solution involves
returning to the status quo, without reducing vulnerability. The
poultry company cuts its losses and brings in new fl ocks. The re-
searchers order more mice. Rescuers try to raise more money and
recruit more volunteers, for there will surely be a “next time.” Gov-
ernments push for additional regulation, as well as attendant agen-
cies and administrators. As Charles Perrow points out, there are
interests to be served, even in responding to large emergencies.^2