Noah’s Task / 123unspecifi ed. For example, before Hurricane Katrina, a best-case sce-
nario for animal rescuers would have meant that the storm did not
make landfall, and thus no animals needed rescue. Perhaps rescue
organizations would have staged outside the target region and then
gone home. Although I cannot say defi nitively how they defi ned
the worst, it seems clear that what occurred was not only bigger
but also much different from their expectations. It involved resi-
dents forced to leave their animals behind and rescuers forcibly pre-
vented from entering the stricken areas, putting animals in greater
peril with each passing day.
All the “lessons learned” presentations that I have seen and
read since the 2005 hurricane season have consistent themes. Res-
cuers “never imagined” that they would be prevented from entering
New Orleans, that there would be so many animals, that the rescue
efforts would take so long, that the fl ood would make existing shel-
ters unusable, or that the effort would require so many volunteers.
And what lessons are to be learned? Typically, the new message
is the same as the old one: Expect the unexpected. As I struggled
to reconcile “we never imagined” with the mandate to “expect the
unexpected,” Cerulo’s work shed some light on my diffi culty. Reli-
ably anticipating worst cases requires adopting a radically new way
of thinking, which Cerulo calls a “separate-but-equal” strategy.^19 It
involves considering best and worst cases independently. Cognitive
and cultural conventions can make this an especially diffi cult task
but a valuable one. Indeed, it may even save many lives.
We can truly help animals in disasters by making them less
vulnerable. Doing so involves rethinking our uses of animals. For
example, disasters would affect fewer animals if we took an obvi-
ous step and simply used fewer of them. Research facilities need to
take the Three R’s seriously and truly reduce the numbers of ani-
mals in use—without redefi ning “animals” for their convenience. If
nothing else changes, and scientists must simply use fewer animals,
how will we decide who does not get a grant, a publication, or a pro-
motion for lack of research that follows the norms? In another con-
text, how will we determine who may have animal companions?
Will it only be those who have transportation, or those who do not