Some of New York’s greatest villains are beyond redemption: crime, poverty, insanely high rent, corrupt politicians, but the rat, which has become such a target that there is now a rat czar named Kathleen Corradi tasked with snuffing them out, is not among that group. After all, can we assign an explicit, anti-metropolitan moral slant to an animal?
Of course, we can’t. And we shouldn’t.
To be clear, rats can often be a disgusting sight and they can spread serious diseases like leptospirosis. I’m not saying I want my morning commute on Third Avenue to be joined by a furry friend or ten. But the ads for the rat czar job wanted someone who was “ruthless” and “bloodthirsty” with a “general aura of badassery” and committed to the “wholesale slaughter” of rats. Upon taking the post, Corradi said she indeed hated rats and would use “science” to get rid of them. Does our society find itself so intoxicated by debased humor, wanton attention, and chauvinistic publicity that we now find it almost noble that this job’s occupant has checked the boxes of these heartless qualifications? And what place do rats occupy in the large scheme of things?
It turns out that rats are more than just a nuisance. We just need to take our blood-covered glasses off.
Rats (and their smaller cousins, mice) are the perfect laboratory animals. Their mammal status, sequenced genome, and human-like endocrine system are what qualifies them for this role. Without “lab rats” and “lab mice,” we wouldn’t have treatments for certain types of cancers, vitamin K, the polio vaccine, antibody technology, or as robust an understanding of neurons in the brain. Far from being disposable, disgusting creatures, rats (and mice) are perhaps humanity’s greatest scientific ally.
Some rats have helped humans in other ways. African giant pouch rats, which are twice the size of a typical rat you’d see in New York City, are renowned for their ability to sniff out landmines across the war-torn continent in countries like Angola, Cambodia, and Mozambique. They’re known as “hero-rats” and are currently being employed to sniff out people trapped in buildings, illegal materials at places like docks and airports, and diseases in lab samples. There’s a particular focus right now on these rats helping with wildlife trafficking, which according to Nick Boyd of the San Diego Zoo and Wildlife Alliance is “very destructive” to species that many around the world are trying to save.
Now, it is true that rats in New York City have their fair share of “horror stories” as the New York Times reports. But consider the antipathy towards rats as a failure of humans to understand their own sins. PETA, while certainly a radical organization in many respects, captured this sentiment when they said in a statement that declaring war on rodents “attacks the problem from the wrong end” and that rats are “sensitive, compassionate, and intelligent animals…following humans’ lead.” If there is a rat in your home, and you live in a reasonably clean area by default, is that your fault or the rat’s? Or if you live in a very run-down area, is a rat in your home the rat’s fault or the fault of people who could have improved the living conditions for humans–but didn’t?
Rats are an easy scapegoat. They can’t go on cable television or write editorials or demonstrate in the streets or do anything to publicly push back their demonization. They also have a poor reputation that is easy to use against them. But if we take a step back and appreciate how rats have been a helpful member of the animal kingdom, maybe we can stop this nonsense of saying they “run” New York City and need to be mercilessly killed. Rats are neither good nor bad. They just are trying to survive. Maybe we should rethink our urban managing skills instead.
