Promising only in vitro testing in the future, the cosmetic companies have thus improved their public image, while harming the cause of biomedical research.
They may live to regret this surrender when a marauding lawyer discovers that their products have not been adequately tested. The FDA should be congratulated for its firm stance, in the face of considerable pressure, in insisting upon animal testing for evaluating the safety of drugs, cosmetics, household items, toiletries, and other products.
But PETA understands the vulnerability of the cosmetic industry and has made it seem that no animal should be sacrificed for the sake of human vanity. This is another extreme position.
What is to be done? We should demand that PETA be willing to openly debate its positions with members of the scientific establishment. A forum of this kind would find many sponsors in government, industry, and academia. At the same time, biomedical researchers should not regard all the animal rights activists as demons who are out to destroy the scientific establishment.
here Science has a record of genocide, pollution, and other malfeasance. THIS is a much-needed book and Margaret Cooper, a lawyer married to a veterinary surgeon, is eminently equipped to have written it.
Her aim was not to produce a standard text on the vast and complex plethora of legislation relating to animals but rather a guide that she hopes will help those who are not lawyers to understand the basic concept of the law relating to animals. Cooper also provides an introduction for lawyers who are themselves lay persons in the fields of animal welfare and animal science.
She enables them to look freshly at the law from the point of view of those working with animals. Despite the possibly dry and forbidding subject matter, the book is extremely readable. Cooper makes no attempt to cover all the laws concerning animals but discusses areas of topical interest, not merely from the viewpoint of what the law says about them, but how that law is interpreted and how it works in practice. This approach brings the subject to life without overwhelming the reader with detail.
Yet Cooper sets out the main points concisely, under clear headings, so that readers can understand the essence of each topic. Each of the chapters concludes with a list of references and recommended reading sources.
There are also useful tables of abbreviations and addresses. Cooper selected a series of topics to examine in detail; responsibility to animals, legislation relating to cruelty and welfare, protection of animals used for scientific purposes, control of disease in animals, health and safety and conservation. A final chapter considers briefly some of these topics as they are covered by foreign and international law.
He was accused of blasphemy and Godlessness, while his supporters insisted that he was merely furthering the noble cause of science. We must always be on guard against two temptations that are repeatedly denounced in the Bible: making an idol of nature or creatures, and neglecting the needs of our human neighbor. The results of a Nature poll of scientists involved in animal research reveal that nearly one-quarter of respondents have been negatively affected by animal-rights activists, or seen it happen to someone they know. If not, do we have duties towards them? Plot Summary. Manny Lopez Andrea Savage
Apart from chimpanzees he says other species, such as gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, African gray parrots, African elephants, dogs and honeybees, would meet his criteria for giving them rights. The Washington Post noted that the concept of animal rights attracts strong criticism. Richard Posner, a U.
There are too many differences. Their needs and our relations to them are too different from the needs and our relations to human groups to warrant actually granting animals rights.
Tibor Machan, a philosopher and professor of business ethics at Chapman University in Orange, California, argues that the criterion for rights is morality. We are accountable for our actions, and try to resolve conflicts by agreement rather than by force.
In short, we are moral beings. That is why the concept of a right is useful to us.
That an animal is a subject in the psychological sense, perceiving pain and pleasure, is not the same as saying it is a subject in the moral sense, with rights and duties, he explains. As for infants, the senile or brain-damaged, they also have rights because of their very nature of beings whose members are capable of conscious self-reflection. Animals should also be excluded from the category of rights holders, continues Oderberg, because they do not have free will.