Re. "Animal rights" activists invade bionet

Michael Holloway mhollowa at
Fri Jul 9 20:42:22 EST 1993

I apoligize to the readers out there who find this kind of 
sniping tiresome and unproductive.  Welcome to the "animal 
rights" "debate".  This is my last direct response to the 
persons posting here who seem determined to bravely carry the 
banner of the "animal rights" activists against us cruel 
researchers.  I will however, seek permission to copy and post 
some articles I have that do an excellent job of dragging 
the PETA crowd into the light of day.  It shouldn't be too 
surprising that there would be a number of students, and even, 
unfortunately, principle investigators, who have never payed 
attention to this stuff and, as a result, are suckered into 
accepting the arguments at face value.  The propaganda, after 
all, is designed to do just that.  An education campaign 
is called for.  Posting to talk.politics.animals will not 
suffice since the people we need to reach do not read that 
group and the articles themselves are written for researchers.  
Anyone else reading this group who has been struck by the 
severe level of noncomprehension displayed here is invited to 
join me.  Remember: simply ignoring these people has been what 
has allowed them to make such great strides.

In article <9307091235.AA00720 at> SCHLOSSER at writes:
>Just because we don't agree with the ulitmate objectives or methods of
>animal rights organizations (AR), does not mean that the issues they raise
>should not be discussed.  Where better to do so?  Just because we hold
>this discussion, doesn't mean that we support AR or destruction of
>peoples work.  

You hold "this discussion" using their definitions, their 
scenarios and with the acceptance of their postulates.  
Therefore, you are accomplishing nothing but making their case 
for them.

>Yes, "rights" are something given by
>people to other people - and we can also give them to animals.  How
>much should we give?  Your tone seems to advocate none at all -
>whatever we do is justified.  I'm not so sure about this. 

You might as well start shoveling your money out to PETA, if 
you haven't been already.  The above clearly shows that you've 
been effectively suckered into equating "animal rights" with 
animal welfare.  

>How can we
>confront AR if we don't have a consensus among those involved in research.
>In that sense, I think that this discussion is quite helpful.

The consensus HAS been reached.  *ALL* professional 
organizations that *ANY* researcher in *ANY* field of 
biomedical research that you might be associated with has a 
policy opposed to "animal rights".  Right beside that, they 
display their policy promoting animal welfare, for the benefit 
of the people who have been terminally confused by the "animal 
rights" rhetoric.  Do you belong to the AAAS?  (Do you get 
"Science"?)  Following your reasoning then, and being sure to 
use the language promulgated by PETA and their ilk,  you must 
be a cruel vivisectionist.

More information about the Bioforum mailing list