IS ANIMAL TESTING JUSTIFIED?

[Guest guest]

*The following speech given by the late astronomer Carl Sagan may be of

interest :*

**

*Questioner : I'd like, first of all, to say that it must be a privilege to

be able to develop a career in something as stimulating, intellectually and

spiritually, as astronomy. Now, my question to you is, what's your opinion

on the use of animals in biomedical research?*

**

**

*Carl Sagan: I have struggled greatly with this issue, in part because I

have a graduate student, Peter Wilson, who holds my feet to the fire. For

example, I have a twenty year old jacket that I used to wear to Cornell

University that I don't wear anymore. I am very conflicted on the issue.

That gratuitous pain should not be inflicted on other animals is clear. That

animals should not be made to suffer for fairly trivial goals, the making of

lipstick, for example, I think is also clear. To argue, thouugh, that

animals should not be used in the pursuit of medicines and medical

procedures that might save the lives of humans, is not so clear. Charles

Darwin, far ahead of his time, made just the same distinction. If I had to

explain, if somehow it was my job to do so, to people whose child was dying

because a medical procedure was unavailable which might very well have been

available if animal experimentation had been performed, I don't know how I

would do that justification. Now you might say to me that I am attributing a

higher value to humans than to other animals, and where do I come off doing

that, especially at the end of an evening where I have been decrying

chauvinisms? This to me has some resonance with the argument, why should we

take any steps to save ourselves if an asteroid is going to hit the Earth?

Asteroids have hit the Earth in the past and worked the extinction of other

species. So why shouldn't we go and the raccoons will have their chance, or

the ants, or the sulphur-oxidation-state-altering submarine worms? At this

point, I have no difficulty - since I happen to be, by an accident of birth,

a human being - in justifying human beings trying to survive under sometimes

trying circumstances. That is my judgment: I am sure if I were a lizard, I

would be arguing about sacrificing the humans so we can get better medicine

for the lizards. I am sorry. I cannot help it. I am a human.*

**

* CARL SAGAN : THE AGE OF EXPLORATION, SPEECH DELIVERED

AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OCTOBER, 1994*

* Excerpted from 'Carl Sagan's Universe', edited by Yervant Terzian and

Elizabeth Bilson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York and

Melbourne, 1997*

 

 

On 11/27/06, Le Petit Chien <perro10 wrote:

>

> 'Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, is renowned for insisting

> animals should have equal rights with humans but is quoted, on camera,

> backing research in which experiments on monkeys are carried out to

> develop

> surgery for Parkinson's and other patients.'

> Article continues

>

>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,,1957448,00.html#article_continue

>

> Hi, I am unpleasantly surprised by this comment of Peter Singer.

> Isn't it contradicting yourselve if previously to promote giving animals

> same rights as humans?

>

> Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember he ones stated something like:

> 'If we don't allow ourselves to experiment on mentally handicapped

> children

> then why is it justified to experiment on chimpansees' (our ancestors to

> some believe)

>

> His blessings on primate-experimentation to develop surgery for

> Parkinson's if the outcome is contributing many more humans than the figure

> of of that is used on monkeys, to me, is a disaster for the animal rights

> movement.

> Some more scientist can now jusifie torturing monkeys a little better due

> to Singer's well recommended reputation

> of beïng a Philosopher and some what a pionier on Animal Rights.

>

> Then again, it seems nothing new reading this below peace I have just

> found at:

> http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4576

>

> " Singer's utilitarian approach allows animal experimentation if suffering

> is minimised and the research has a high probability of yeilding aggregate

> benefits that outweigh the individual pain. Nor does Singer unequivocally

> reject all animal products. It is permissable to eat free-range eggs, for

> those hens can " live comfortably " .(END QUOTE).

>

> Me, I have allways prefered altruïsm above utilitariarism and allways

> will.

> 'Sensibility as a moral guide'

>

> Best Wishes,

> Le Petit Chien

>

>