Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Hi, A propos of the earlier discussion, this letter was posted on another list (with permission to distribute). It's Peter Singer's response both to the TV programme and claims that his interview represented a shifting of his attitudes. (And I here make no claim of agreeing or disagreeing with him - just passing it on is all!) John ###original message### Dear All, I was most concerned about the reports regarding Peter Singer and decided to contact him directly, this morning, to find out his views 'from the horses mouth'. His response was swift and included an attached letter to the editor of the Observer which is as follows: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Editor Your story " Animal Guru Gives Tests His Blessing " (Observer, 26/11/06) suggests that my remarks in the BBC2 documentary " Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing " represent a change in my position on animal testing. That impression needs to be corrected. Neither in my 1975 book Animal Liberation, nor anywhere else, have I ever said that no experiments on animals could ever be justifiable. My position has always been that whether an act is right or wrong depends on its consequences. I do insist, however, that the interests of animals count among those consequences, and that we cannot justify speciesism, which I define as giving less weight to the interests of nonhuman animals than we give to the similar interests of human beings. In our on-camera discussion, Professor Aziz claimed that experiments he had performed on a small number of monkeys had yielded major benefits for tens of thousands of people suffering from Parkinson's Disease. I replied that if the facts were indeed as he asserted, and there was no other way in which the benefits could have been achieved, such research could be justifiable. Whether the facts are as Professor Aziz claims I shall leave for others to debate. Professor Aziz is quoted as saying that my remarks are " an encouraging sign. " Before he gets too encouraged, he might consider that in Animal Liberation I suggested that a test for whether a proposed experiment on animals is justifiable is whether the experimenter would be prepared to carry out the experiment on human beings at a similar mental level - say, those born with irreversible brain damage. If Professor Aziz is not prepared to say that he would think such experiments justifiable, his willingness to use animals is based on a prejudice against giving their interests the same weight as he gives to the interests of members of our own species. Whether or not the occasional experiment on animals is defensible, I remain opposed to the institutional practice of using animals in research, because, despite some improvements over the past thirty years, that practice still fails to give equal consideration to the interests of animals. For that reason I oppose putting more resources into building new facilities for animal experimentation. Instead, these funds should go into clinical research involving consenting patients, and into developing other methods of research that do not involve the harmful use of animals. Sincerely, Peter Singer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 I agree with what Peter Singer says that the research should be performed on consenting humans rather than on animals. But the main part of his argument seems to be based around the intelligence of the animal or human subject. I don't think it's to do with intelligence, but to do with love - humans tend to love fellow humans more than animals (regardless of their intelligence level) so I don't think his point is reallyvalid. For example, if I had a retarded relative and a dog of the same intelligence, and I had to choose between them it would be curtains for the dog - not just because I love the person more but because of all the other people that do too. My stance would have been to disagree with the animal research on the basis that there are consenting (or eligible) humans out there that can be used instead and will provide valid results. And personally, I don't see what the problem is with that. If that German doctor (the one that wears the hat) can disect corpses on live tv for the sake of showbiz, then I don't see what the problem is with using willing humans in research. John Davis wrote: > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The Editor > > Your story " Animal Guru Gives Tests His Blessing " (Observer, 26/11/06) > suggests that my remarks in the BBC2 documentary " Monkeys, Rats and Me: > Animal Testing " represent a change in my position on animal testing. That > impression needs to be corrected. > > Neither in my 1975 book Animal Liberation, nor anywhere else, have I ever > said that no experiments on animals could ever be justifiable. My position > has always been that whether an act is right or wrong depends on its > consequences. I do insist, however, that the interests of animals count > among those consequences, and that we cannot justify speciesism, which I > define as giving less weight to the interests of nonhuman animals than we > give to the similar interests of human beings. > > In our on-camera discussion, Professor Aziz claimed that experiments > he had > performed on a small number of monkeys had yielded major benefits for tens > of thousands of people suffering from Parkinson's Disease. I replied that > if the facts were indeed as he asserted, and there was no other way in > which > the benefits could have been achieved, such research could be justifiable. > Whether the facts are as Professor Aziz claims I shall leave for > others to > debate. > > Professor Aziz is quoted as saying that my remarks are " an encouraging > sign. " Before he gets too encouraged, he might consider that in Animal > Liberation I suggested that a test for whether a proposed experiment on > animals is justifiable is whether the experimenter would be prepared to > carry out the experiment on human beings at a similar mental level - say, > those born with irreversible brain damage. If Professor Aziz is not > prepared to say that he would think such experiments justifiable, his > willingness to use animals is based on a prejudice against giving their > interests the same weight as he gives to the interests of members of > our own > species. > > Whether or not the occasional experiment on animals is defensible, I > remain > opposed to the institutional practice of using animals in research, > because, > despite some improvements over the past thirty years, that practice still > fails to give equal consideration to the interests of animals. For that > reason I oppose putting more resources into building new facilities for > animal experimentation. Instead, these funds should go into clinical > research involving consenting patients, and into developing other > methods of > research that do not involve the harmful use of animals. > > Sincerely, > > Peter Singer > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.