In a recent editorial, Sylvia Phillips spoke out against the use of animals in laboratory research. While I am troubled by the animal rights movement in general, I am particularly concerned when such anti-research views are expressed within what I would like to consider an enlightened university community.

My first concern involves the use of emotional rather than factual/logical arguments. For example, most arguments against the use of animals employ emotion-laden descriptors such as “torment,” “poison” or “head-bashing.” The obvious problem with such an approach lies in the fact that people often generalize (erroneously) from specific examples. It would be very wrong to conclude that such descriptions apply to the majority or even a significant minority of research. Ms. Phillips seems to imply that researchers comply with animal care regulations only because they are forced to.

I am also concerned by the tendency of animal rights advocates to vacillate between different arguments. They will tell you that animal research is wrong because animals are feeling, thinking creatures with rights and cannot be subordinate to human beings. They often follow this argument with the claim that animal research is wasteful and unnecessary. If one reflects upon these arguments, it becomes apparent that they are somewhat inconsistent. If the first is embraced, the second becomes irrelevant. On the other hand, if the second is embraced, it implies that animals can be used if the end justifies the means (which surely is the case in most animal research).

It is ludicrous to suggest that one species’ advancement at the expense of another is unethical. On the contrary, failing to utilize whatever means available to end human suffering would be unethical. I will agree that our relationship with the rest of the animal kingdom is reciprocal in nature. But I would also asert that as we make improvements in the human condition (in part through animal research), we will be in a better position to reciprocate the rest of the animal kingdom.

James J. Biederman

graduate student

psychology