Animals set for protection by German constitution

The fourth attempt to enshrine the protection of animals in the German constitution looks likely to succeed as one of a number of recent moves in Europe changing the outlook for research. Paragraph 20a of the German constitution imposes on the state the duty to protect the natural resources and the environment. Before the end of May, this paragraph is likely to grow by three words in length, and it will then demand the protection of the environment ‘and of animals’. All parties in parliament and a vast majority of the electorate now support this move, which looks certain to get the required two thirds of the votes in both houses of parliament. So universal is the consensus that it is difficult to find even traces of debate in the media. And yet, three previous attempts launched in 1994, 1997, and 2000, failed to win over the conservatives of the CDU/CSU. Ironically, it was a court decision in favour of islamic slaughtering procedures which now led to the U-turn of the conservatives. In January, the constitutional court at Karlsruhe ruled that — within strict regulations — the islamic practice of slaughtering animals without stunning should be allowed, as the constitution protects the freedom of religious practices. Following this decision, animal rights activists relaunched their campaign to include the protection of animals in the constitution, arguing that the court would have ruled differently if both of the conflicting interests had been constitutionally protected. CSU chairman Edmund Stoiber, who is set to challenge Gerhard Schröder in the September elections, took notice and persuaded the conservative leadership to support the animal rights move. The minister for consumer affairs, nutrition and agriculture, Renate Künast, now believes that the constitution will probably be changed in May, and definitely before the general elections. What will the consequences be for research with animals? Although there will be no immediate change in practical aspects, future legislation and court cases will operate on a different legal background. Until now, the situation was in favour of research in a similar way as in the above cited court case over religious slaughtering practices. As the freedom of research (like the freedom of religion) is guaranteed by the constitution, while the prevention of cruelty to animals is based ‘only’ on federal law, the interests of researchers automatically ranked higher if any arguments came to the constitutional court. In the future, the benefits of the research in question and the threat to animal protection will be examined more closely in court. On the other hand, it is still possible to build roads and factories, even though paragraph 20a pledges the protection of the environment. Similarly, animal experiments with a sound