How Animal "Rights" Activists Are Trashing Science
ROBERT BOOT, HERSTON MEDICAL LIBRARY
mail_boot at uqvax.cc.uq.oz.au
Sat Jul 17 07:11:43 EST 1993
In article <2289vcINNcul at darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, jdale at cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Dale) writes:
> Well, I'm glad you posted this relevant and interesting talk that Franklin
> gave. But I'm sorry to see that it is the same typical emotional,
> grandstanding, empty type of argument that dominates all discussions about
> animal research.
Much very sensible comment deleted.
> ---Jonathan Dale
> (and of course I will be happy to post my own paper on the issue,
> especially on relevant criteria for ethical consideration, if
> anyone is interested. There are lots of interesting things to
> say about this issue without calling each other Nazis.)
I, too, think that Franklin seriously weakened his argument with his allusions
to Nuremberg. I should be pleased to see your paper, Jonathan. If you don't
wish to post it, I should be happy to receive it by email.
Your comments about Singer are correct as I far as I remember. It is certainly
unfortunate that he is being made the scapegoat for animal rights activists,
although I, too, disagree with his assesment of the utilities.
Whatever the differences in detail & in priorities it is vitally important that
the public & politicians be better informed on these issues &, for that matter,
on the value of the scientific enterprise.
ROBERT BOOT R.BOOT at cc.uq.edu.au
HERSTON MEDICAL LIBRARY
The University of Queensland Telephone +61 7 365 5354
Brisbane Qld 4072 AUSTRALIA Facsimile +61 7 365 5243
More information about the Bioforum