What do you think?
Rate this book
Animal Experimentation
The direct mail campaigns of powerful animal rights lobbies and their guerrilla tactics against animal laboratories certainly demonstrate where they stand. Equally compelling are those who argue that medical progress and consumer safety are significantly enhanced by research using animals. This balanced collection focuses attention on the clash of opposing positions in this national debate, whose intensity is sure to weigh heavy on society as demands for more research make the need for rational, informed discussion all the more urgent.
- GenresPhilosophy
182 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1991
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 6, 2015
This book is an excellent primer on the philosophical and social issues surrounding the use of animals in laboratory research. But, I would have liked more quantitative or generally more rigorous data about the laws of animal research, the conditions in which animals are kept, the diseases that have been eradicated because of animals research, etc.
July 26, 2024
A FASCINATING AND VERY USEFUL COLLECTION OF ESSAYS FROM "BOTH SIDES"
This 1991 collection of essays includes (as always with the Prometheus Books "Contemporary Issues" series) both "pro" and "con" essays on the subject of animal experimentation and animal rights; essays are included by persons including Peter Singer, Richard Ryder, and Tom Regan.
One essayist suggests that there is a difference between "animals over whom we have custody" versus wild animals; "the former, I think, have rights to our affirmative aid, while the latter have such rights only in certain circumstances." (Pg. 30)
Ryder suggests, "Speciesism denies the logic of Evolution. Indeed, the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins attacks the prejudice of speciesism on biological grounds..." (Pg. 40) He adds, "It cannot be denied that out of all the millions of experiments performed on animals, some useful knowledge has been gained. But equally it must not be forgotten that this knowledge often could have been acquired by other means and that many of the greatest discoveries of all have owed nothing to the use of laboratory animals..." (Pg. 41)
Another essayist notes, "The animal rights movement... is distinguished from the animal welfare movement, as represented by, for example, the Humane Society of the United States. Animal WELFARE activists don't necessarily claim that animals are the moral equivalent of humans, just that animals' feelings deserve some consideration; we shouldn't needlessly hurt them---with pointless experimentation, say, or by making fur coats... just about every thinking person ... will agree that animal welfare is a legitimate idea... But the truth is that animal welfare is just the top of a slippery slope that leads to animal rights." (Pg. 44)
Another asserts, "I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations." (Pg. 109) Later, he argues, "One cannot coherently object to the killing of animals in biomedical investigations while continuing to eat them." (Pg. 112)
These essays give an excellent selection of arguments from all sides of the debate.
This 1991 collection of essays includes (as always with the Prometheus Books "Contemporary Issues" series) both "pro" and "con" essays on the subject of animal experimentation and animal rights; essays are included by persons including Peter Singer, Richard Ryder, and Tom Regan.
One essayist suggests that there is a difference between "animals over whom we have custody" versus wild animals; "the former, I think, have rights to our affirmative aid, while the latter have such rights only in certain circumstances." (Pg. 30)
Ryder suggests, "Speciesism denies the logic of Evolution. Indeed, the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins attacks the prejudice of speciesism on biological grounds..." (Pg. 40) He adds, "It cannot be denied that out of all the millions of experiments performed on animals, some useful knowledge has been gained. But equally it must not be forgotten that this knowledge often could have been acquired by other means and that many of the greatest discoveries of all have owed nothing to the use of laboratory animals..." (Pg. 41)
Another essayist notes, "The animal rights movement... is distinguished from the animal welfare movement, as represented by, for example, the Humane Society of the United States. Animal WELFARE activists don't necessarily claim that animals are the moral equivalent of humans, just that animals' feelings deserve some consideration; we shouldn't needlessly hurt them---with pointless experimentation, say, or by making fur coats... just about every thinking person ... will agree that animal welfare is a legitimate idea... But the truth is that animal welfare is just the top of a slippery slope that leads to animal rights." (Pg. 44)
Another asserts, "I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations." (Pg. 109) Later, he argues, "One cannot coherently object to the killing of animals in biomedical investigations while continuing to eat them." (Pg. 112)
These essays give an excellent selection of arguments from all sides of the debate.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews