[Girlie]

THE father of the modern animal rights movement has endorsed the use

of monkeys in research by an Oxford professor at the centre of

anti-vivisection protests.

Peter Singer, who is widely admired by activists for writing the

seminal work on animal rights, says giving the primates Parkinson's

disease was "justifiable" because of the benefits it subsequently

brought to thousands of human patients.

His comments will come as a blow to the protest group SPEAK, which is

trying to halt construction of a new animal research laboratory at

Oxford.

In a documentary to be screened tomorrow on BBC2 Singer, a professor

of philosophy, comes face to face with Tipu Aziz, an Oxford

neurosurgeon whose research involving monkeys has helped to develop

pioneering ways of treating Parkinson's disease.

...

"To date 40,000 people have been made better with this, and worldwide

at the time I would guess only 100 monkeys were used at a few

laboratories."

Singer replies: "Well, I think if you put a case like that, clearly I

would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment.

"I do not think you should reproach yourself for doing it, provided

I take it you are the expert in this, not me that there was no other

way of discovering this knowledge.

"I could see that as justifiable research."

Singer, a former Oxford lecturer now working in America and Australia,

paved the way for recent animal rights activism with his book Animal

Liberation, now considered the bible of the movement.

...

Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing is on BBC2 tomorrow at 9pm

--

full story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...471990,00.html

 

[Amy SF]

 

[Sevenseas]

Basically, this should come as no surprise for anyome who has read Animal Liberation. Singer does not represent animal rights in any form, not in the literal sense and not in the political sense, and the media should stop misrepresenting him as representative.

 

[IamJen]

I hear him referred to all the time as "the father of the animal rights movement". Well, sorta, but it was a ******* child.

<<not a Singer fan

 

[berrykat]

Singer is a jerk <still mad at his remarks about disabled babies>

 

[IamJen]

<<still creeped out about "mutually enjoyable" sex with animals

 

[berrykat]

 

[meatless]

Most AR people I know are not fans of Singer's.

 

[kpickell]

Quote:

"To date 40,000 people have been made better with this, and worldwide

at the time I would guess only 100 monkeys were used at a few

laboratories."

Singer replies: "Well, I think if you put a case like that, clearly I

would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment.

Well, that certainly sounds viable. 100 monkeys or 40,000 humans--who wouldn't place more value on saving the larger group?

 

[meatless]

How about 100 humans or 40,000 humans?

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpickell

Well, that certainly sounds viable. 100 monkeys or 40,000 humans--who wouldn't place more value on saving the larger group?

I would rather save 10 humans than 1 human. Does this mean that I can kill and rob the one human to feed 10 starving people?

 

[honeyfugle]

singer didn't say he was definately agianst animal testing... as i quote from wikipedia:

"Singer also condemns most vivisection, though he believes a few animal experiments may be acceptable if the benefit (in terms of improved medical treatment, etc.) outweighs the harm done to the animals used."

so he leaves the door open for himself to support animal testing when it suits him to.

sure sounds like what a real father of animal activism would do...

@kpickell: i think both groups should be saved as far as possible. i feel that innocent monkeys need not suffer when we can use other means to test medicines.

 

[kpickell]

Quote:

@kpickell: i think both groups should be saved as far as possible. i feel that innocent monkeys need not suffer when we can use other means to test medicines. \t\t \t \t\t \t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t\t

If there were other viable testing methods that worked, that would be great.

 

[IamJen]

That is assuming that primate testing works.

 

[Dirty Martini]

Quote:

"I do not think you should reproach yourself for doing it, provided -

I take it you are the expert in this, not me - that there was no other

way of discovering this knowledge.

I think the bolded part is the key right there.

 

[Sevenseas]

Key for what? Not to the fact that he doesn't represent animal rights.

 

[kpickell]

The key to what honeyfugle said and how it's the same thing Singer said.

 

[Irizary]

Animal testing could be done away with this second, with no "harm" done to science (in fact with great benefit), if all the humans who favor vivisection just donated the use of their own bodies. The humans would be doing it because they believe so strongly that there is no other way, and they want to help, whereas the animals are forced.

Oh right, vivisection on unconsenting beings is only good if YOU'RE not one of those beings.

It's like people who promote some social plan, only when they can exempt themselves from it. Or like Bush, who would never go to war or send his kids to war, but has no problem sending other people's kids to war.

 

[Sevenseas]

I don't think they said the same thing. Singer implied he was okay with treating non-humans as mere objects, honeyfugle didn't (yet) say so.

 

[Dirty Martini]

honeyfugle said "i feel that innocent monkeys need not suffer when we can use other means to test medicines."

and Singer suggested that the expert researcher indicated that there were no other means.

I thought that Singer's statement addressed honeyfugle's comment.