- Email: [email protected]
The case for animal experimentation: An evolutionary and ethical perspective
some referees are lazy, a few are not very intelligent, and a very few are dishonest. This book gives an excellent example of appalling refereeing, and the best way I have ever seen of dealing with it - to find out how you will have to read the book. In general, I believe that referees' opinions
should be carefully considered, and replied to in a letter to the editor. In conclusion, this is an excellent practical guide to writing scientific papers. I shall certainly recommend it to my research students, although I shall indicated its limitations to them and
make good a few omissions. These omissions include labelling graphs, layout of equations, and the use of spaces in units e.g. 3.5 MN m -2. I predict that it will not be long before my free review copy becomes well worn with use or is 'borrowed' fo re ve r- I shall then have to buy another.
The Case for Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective
mans and non-humans that, in his view, make it impossible for humans to admit animals for full membership in 'the moral community'. Animals are not autonomous beings in that they do not take 'deliberative, responsible action and have the sort of awareness necessary to see this kind of action as essential to their nature, well-being and development as individuals'. Nor are they 'capable of recognizing autonomy in others' (p. 56). Fox argues that it is this autonomy - taking and recognizing moral responsibility - that should decide whether we acknowledge rights in other beings (black people, women, dogs), not the widely advocated criterion of whether a being has the ability to suffer. The capacity to suffer in animals should give rise to humaneness and kindness from humans, but it should not form the sole basis of morality. He concludes that we should give consideration to the suffering of animals and reduce it whenever we can, but that animals' pain still counts for less than that of human beings. Consequently, there may be circumstances in which to alleviate human pain and suffering, research using animals may be morally permissible, even if it causes suffering. The second section of the book moves into the more concrete areas of what scientists actually do, and is written in the belief that many people simply misunderstand what research is about and how science proceeds (for example, how important the ability to reproduce results is). Not everyone will agree with his analysis of the experiments that are described nor with his conclusions about possible alternatives to the use of animals. Others will take issue with his defence of
'pure' research and his belief that the best way of ensuring humane treatment of animals is peer review by scientists themselves. However, whatever views we individually hold, his attempt to correct the frequent claims that animal research is trivial, pointless and redundant will, I hope, be seen as contributing positively to debates that are often one-sided and extreme. Apart from some slightly dubious biology on p. 3, this book is certainly to be recommended for anyone interested in the issues surrounding animal experimentation. The arguments are important ones. And the list of recommendations at the end of the book should reassure anyone who thinks they are put forward by a complacent defender of all animal experiments.
by Michael Allen Fox, University of California Press, 1986. $24.95 (xii + 262 pages) 0 520 05501 2 Michael Allen Fox (not to be confused with Michael W. Fox of the Humane Society of the United States) has written a book that will make welcome reading for many scientists, and will be all the more welcome because it is written in a readable, unpolemical style. Fox first makes the case that, under some circumstances, animal experimentation is quite justifiable and that the ethical arguments that have been brought against it often do not stand up to scrutiny. Then, having cleared the philosophical ground, he moves on to discuss a number of examples of experiments on animals that have been widely criticized as being immoral. His concern is not to justify animal experiments in general- he simply wants to point out that there is another side to the issue, one that is often left out altogether when animal rights activists describe what scientists do to animals. In many ways, the most valuable part of the book is the first, philosophical part. Here Fox takes issue with Peter Singer and others who have argued that speciesism (discriminating against members of other species) is as morally indefensible as racism and sexism. Fox argues that discriminating against black people or women is, in fact, in a quite different category, since the discrimination here is on the basis of the morally irrelevant differences of skin colour or sex. With animals, however, there are morally relevant differences, that is, differences between hu-
TINS- February 1987[10]
Marian Stamp Dawkins Departmentof Zoolo~, Universityof Oxford,SouthParks Road,OxfordOXl 3PS,UK.
100th Issue Additional copies of this issue can still be obtained at a cost of $4.35 (£2,90). Discounts on orders of 10 or more copies are available. All prices include postage and packing, Name: ........................................................... Address: .......................................................
........................................ Zipcode: ...............
Payment must accompany order and may be made by cheque (made out to Elsevier) or by credit card. We accept AmEx, Visa (France. excepted) and Access/Mastercard/Eurocard. Please give card number, expiry date, issuing bank, the card holder's name, address and signature. Send this order form to: Elsevier Publications Cambridge, 68 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1LA, UK.
© 1987, ElsevierSciencePublishersB.V.,Amsterdam 0378- 5912/87/$02.0(3
97
should be carefully considered, and replied to in a letter to the editor. In conclusion, this is an excellent practical guide to writing scientific papers. I shall certainly recommend it to my research students, although I shall indicated its limitations to them and
make good a few omissions. These omissions include labelling graphs, layout of equations, and the use of spaces in units e.g. 3.5 MN m -2. I predict that it will not be long before my free review copy becomes well worn with use or is 'borrowed' fo re ve r- I shall then have to buy another.
The Case for Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective
mans and non-humans that, in his view, make it impossible for humans to admit animals for full membership in 'the moral community'. Animals are not autonomous beings in that they do not take 'deliberative, responsible action and have the sort of awareness necessary to see this kind of action as essential to their nature, well-being and development as individuals'. Nor are they 'capable of recognizing autonomy in others' (p. 56). Fox argues that it is this autonomy - taking and recognizing moral responsibility - that should decide whether we acknowledge rights in other beings (black people, women, dogs), not the widely advocated criterion of whether a being has the ability to suffer. The capacity to suffer in animals should give rise to humaneness and kindness from humans, but it should not form the sole basis of morality. He concludes that we should give consideration to the suffering of animals and reduce it whenever we can, but that animals' pain still counts for less than that of human beings. Consequently, there may be circumstances in which to alleviate human pain and suffering, research using animals may be morally permissible, even if it causes suffering. The second section of the book moves into the more concrete areas of what scientists actually do, and is written in the belief that many people simply misunderstand what research is about and how science proceeds (for example, how important the ability to reproduce results is). Not everyone will agree with his analysis of the experiments that are described nor with his conclusions about possible alternatives to the use of animals. Others will take issue with his defence of
'pure' research and his belief that the best way of ensuring humane treatment of animals is peer review by scientists themselves. However, whatever views we individually hold, his attempt to correct the frequent claims that animal research is trivial, pointless and redundant will, I hope, be seen as contributing positively to debates that are often one-sided and extreme. Apart from some slightly dubious biology on p. 3, this book is certainly to be recommended for anyone interested in the issues surrounding animal experimentation. The arguments are important ones. And the list of recommendations at the end of the book should reassure anyone who thinks they are put forward by a complacent defender of all animal experiments.
by Michael Allen Fox, University of California Press, 1986. $24.95 (xii + 262 pages) 0 520 05501 2 Michael Allen Fox (not to be confused with Michael W. Fox of the Humane Society of the United States) has written a book that will make welcome reading for many scientists, and will be all the more welcome because it is written in a readable, unpolemical style. Fox first makes the case that, under some circumstances, animal experimentation is quite justifiable and that the ethical arguments that have been brought against it often do not stand up to scrutiny. Then, having cleared the philosophical ground, he moves on to discuss a number of examples of experiments on animals that have been widely criticized as being immoral. His concern is not to justify animal experiments in general- he simply wants to point out that there is another side to the issue, one that is often left out altogether when animal rights activists describe what scientists do to animals. In many ways, the most valuable part of the book is the first, philosophical part. Here Fox takes issue with Peter Singer and others who have argued that speciesism (discriminating against members of other species) is as morally indefensible as racism and sexism. Fox argues that discriminating against black people or women is, in fact, in a quite different category, since the discrimination here is on the basis of the morally irrelevant differences of skin colour or sex. With animals, however, there are morally relevant differences, that is, differences between hu-
TINS- February 1987[10]
Marian Stamp Dawkins Departmentof Zoolo~, Universityof Oxford,SouthParks Road,OxfordOXl 3PS,UK.
100th Issue Additional copies of this issue can still be obtained at a cost of $4.35 (£2,90). Discounts on orders of 10 or more copies are available. All prices include postage and packing, Name: ........................................................... Address: .......................................................
........................................ Zipcode: ...............
Payment must accompany order and may be made by cheque (made out to Elsevier) or by credit card. We accept AmEx, Visa (France. excepted) and Access/Mastercard/Eurocard. Please give card number, expiry date, issuing bank, the card holder's name, address and signature. Send this order form to: Elsevier Publications Cambridge, 68 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1LA, UK.
© 1987, ElsevierSciencePublishersB.V.,Amsterdam 0378- 5912/87/$02.0(3
97