Big cat poser for vegetarians

SOME of South Africa’s most respected and influential scientists have been engaged for weeks in a bitter spat over the government’s vaccine roll-out, or lack thereof.

On the one side are academics from the universities of Witwatersrand, Cape Town and KwaZulu-Natal. On the other, the head of the vaccine arm of the advisory committees set up supposedly to provide the best possible scientific advice to shape the national response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Perhaps because the barbed exchanges have been conducted through editorials and correspondence in the normally sedate pages of the august SA Medical Journal (SAMJ), the matter has gone virtually unremarked upon. That’s unfortunate, because the dispute goes to the heart of the government’s inability to heed expert advice, even when it has specifically solicited it.

Globally, one of the mantras of the pandemic has been to “listen to the science”. That’s all good and well, but the science is rarely unambiguous and uncontested.

Scientists are not immune to cherry-picking information that drives them towards conclusions that chime with their personal ambitions and prejudices. In addition, the welding of science to policy is beset with difficulties, not the least of them being that most politicians’ brains are wired to be fact-free vacuums.

In South Africa, despite the initial assurances of President Cyril Ramaphosa and Health Minister Dr Zweli Mkhize that the process of using science to inform policy would be transparent, it has been anything but playing with open cards. And, as is invariably the case with the ANC government, ideology and ministerial clout were quickly shown to trump rational thinking.

The first scientist to publicly break ranks was the Medical Research Council’s (MRC) president, Professor Glenda Gray. In a media interview she criticised the government’s lockdown regulations and noted that child malnutrition cases had, during the pandemic, increased at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital.

This prompted a sharp rebuttal from Mkhize and his directorgeneral, Dr Anban Pillay, calling Gray “a liar” and demanding that the MRC board investigate her conduct. So much for the cut and thrust of scientific debate.

Although Gray won the battle when the MRC backed her up, she lost the war. Within months, the most outspoken medical scientists on the Ministerial Advisory Council (MAC) were peremptorily axed in what Mkhize, with Orwellian cynicism, described as a “strengthening” of the committee.

Gray got the chop, as did Professor Shabir Madhi, head of vaccinology at the University of the Witwatersrand and leader of South Africa’s first two Covid-19 vaccine trials, Professor Francois Venter of Wits, head of the Ezintsha international network of public health experts, and Dr Angelique Coetzee, chairperson of the SA Medical Association.

Last month, an SAMJ editorial — co-written by Madhi, Venter, Wits infectious diseases expert Dr Jeremy Nel, Professor Alex van den Heever of the Wits governance school, dean of nursing and public health at UKZN Professor Mosa Moshabela and Professor Marc Mendelson, an infectious disease expert at UCT – labelled the reasoning on the AstraZeneca vaccine as “muddled”, “misguided” and raising “deep ethical concerns”.

Professor Barry Schoub, head of the MAC vaccine committee and the government’s medical Rottweiler, responded with undisguised anger. In a rebuttal SAMJ editorial, he lashed his impertinent critics for their “loathsome … distasteful, uncalledfor, and damaging” activities in daring to question publicly the Health Department’s actions.

To do so served only one purpose, wrote Schoub. That was to damage “the fragile trust of the public”.

Undaunted, the sceptics responded in this month’s SAMJ, dismissing Schoub’s response as “a distraction from a bigger problem”.

“South Africa’s vaccine strategy is being decided without appropriate levels of transparency, by individuals with a track record of questionable decision-making,” they wrote.

The to-ing and fro-ing in the SAMJ is not an arcane matter. That Schoub, and by implication Mkhize, believe that the public is so intellectually delicate as to crumble when experts debate the wisdom of policies that affect every South African, is extraordinary.

For the record, it’s not a robust debate that makes us feel insecure and distrustful. It’s “experts” who want to take life or death decisions in secret, free from scrutiny.

MONTHS of scientific research on the couch has concluded: yes, animals are sentient beings.

Not surprising, given that five of the six researchers are dogs.

However, the result has previously been affirmed by proper, respected scientists.

This human participant has a serious issue with killing things. Flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents and ants are fair game if they wander into our territory. Spiders and geckos are welcome, and it’s pretty certain there is a snake in the ceiling that has been left undisturbed. We just hope it stays up there.

Decades ago, I chose vegetarianism. Back then, there was little interest in this hippy-type tree-hugger movement. The soya products available were horrible. Not only did they taste like cardboard, they caused gas on a Chernobyl scale.

The only restaurant that offered anything other than Mac cheese and salad was the Hungry Hermit, whose brinjal bake was legendary.

There were lots of boring salads or over-boiled beans and carrots.

A health issue forced its hand, and carnivorism was reinstated with long teeth (see what I did there?). But as medicine moved on, it became clear this wasn’t necessary as long as it was not total veganism.

A happy reborn vegetarian also found plant-based food had come a very long way with really tasty options.

The question of animals being sentient has been stirred by falling in love with lions and leopards. They are magnificent and powerful and deadly. But lions within their pride, when not fighting over food, and leopards with cubs, can be gentle and loving. There’s cuddling and grooming and playing. It’s tender, quite beautiful and too complex to not include some form of feeling.

Of course, the same applies to the herbivores, which make up the bulk of the carnivores’ diet, and a mom herbivore hanging around where her lamb/cub/calf has been killed is immensely sad.

The couch study also came to mind when an odd report surfaced on Sky News Australia, of the Victorian Farmers Federation president Emma Germano complaining about “serious unintended consequences” if proposed laws recognising animals as sentient beings were passed. The laws would mean people with animals would have to take “reasonable” steps to provide an “acceptable” level of care.

Seriously? According to the report, Germano was worried because “we’ve seen cases overseas where animals have sued their owners and been emancipated from those owners”.

Another group that would argue for animals not feeling anything is the US’s National Rifle Association. Video emerged recently of its chief, Wayne LaPierre, shooting and wounding an elephant.

The guide shows him where to shoot the animal to put him/her out of his/her misery. The “sentient” human fires three up-close highpowered rifle shots and misses. Another guide finally kills the elephant. LaPierre’s wife Susan is filmed killing another elephant later.

One of the survey questions was how many people would eat meat or hunt if they had to go out and kill with stealth, bare hands and claws?

Not so many, was the guess. Now we just have to encourage lions and the rest to like tasty roots and fruits.