Matthew Scully’s nasty review—and my reply thereto—continues to bounce around at National Review. Yesterday, over at The Corner, Jason Steorts wondered where we differed on principle, and offered an opportunity for both of us to clarify our positions. Scully hasn’t responded yet, but I have. I won’t quote myself at length, since it is easily found by hitting the link provided. But I think this is the core point. From my post:
What I do believe in, and stated so repeatedly, is a proper animal-welfare approach to deciding these issues. That isn’t enough for Scully. He is quite overwrought about the entire issue. My great sin, it seems, was that I didn’t rail against most uses of animals. Assuming proper standards of care, I just don’t see it that way, and perhaps therein lies the rub.
Scully doesn’t believe in animal “rights,” but he would shut down most medical research with animals and animal agriculture except for “humane meat.” His burden, it seems, is that he cannot bear those who see it otherwise, which accounts for the furious tone and intellectual dishonesty of his review.
If he responds further at The Corner, I’ll do an update and link it at this post. Otherwise, time to move on.
