The subtitle of my upcoming book, A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy (taken from PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk’s most famous quote), is The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement. That cost is both real and harmful, as evidenced by a story of important research on anthrax not being conducted for fear of animal rights terrorism. From the story:
Last week a commotion erupted over a canceled anthrax project at Oklahoma State University (OSU), Stillwater. The National Institutes of Health had agreed to fund the study, which involved creating an animal model of anthrax infection in baboons, and the university’s animal use and care committee had given it the green light. But OSU President Burns Hargis decided that the project would not be allowed on campus, for reasons that weren’t immediately clear.
Hargis made the decision based on several factors, OSU’s vice president for research and technology transfer, Stephen McKeever, told ScienceInsider on Friday. “The issue he was mostly concerned about was that he really did not want to attract controversy from the violent elements of various animal rights groups. He did not want to put OSU in that spotlight and so unnecessarily distract from or interfere with current research.” Although McKeever says no specific attacks or threats against OSU factored in the decision, attacks by animal rights extremists have been on the rise in the United States in recent years.
That’s the point of terrorism, to use fear as a cudgel to affect policy. This is just one example of the harm being done by animal rights terrorism, about which the general movement–with notable exceptions, such as Gary Francione–remains mostly silent or tacitly in support. That is why I no longer think of animal rights as a peaceable movement.
December 8th, 2009 | 2:57 pm
The really sad thing is that I don’t think that most people understand how harmful certain aspects of the movement have become. For instance, a few weeks ago I was at a conference of the American Musicological Association and went out to dinner with a former mentor and some of his colleagues. We were talking about a new phenomenon called “eco-musicology,” that is sprung up in the last ten years or so in tandem with the “green” movement. I said that unfortunately, that whole idea left a sour taste in my mouth because of how I feel the animal rights movment has impacted people by saying, for instance, that chimps and people have the same moral worth.
One of the people said, “you mean like Peter Singer?” “Yes, although I wasn’t going to bring him up specifically, that’s exactly who I was thinking of-him saying that it’s okay to kill certain human beings because they don’t have any more intrinsic worth than a pig or a snail.” That person said, “Well, he’s always said that his arguments are entirely theoretical.” “No, he didn’t,” I said. “He absolutely wants his theories to be adopted in common practice. Think about the title of his most famous book-Practical Ethics. ‘Practical’ means ‘applied.’ And, he recently wrote a column in the New York Times calling for actual healthcare rationing against the disabled and elderly.”
This person knew about Singer from the animal rights movement, etc. But he didn’t seem to understand that Singer is not just “theorizing” when he says that human beings and animals are the same, or that it is okay to kill certain human beings. I think that dismissal of people like Singer as only making a theretical argument has helped get us into this mess.
December 8th, 2009 | 6:03 pm
I applaud the “terrorists.” My value system is hardly that of “peace and love,” and I don’t like to see those who react appropriatedly to violence against helpless creatures patronized as “not peaceful,” as if they should have to adhere to the values of those who patronize them, but those whose catchword is “peace” might well bear in mind that vivisection isn’t peaceable either, and it’s unacceptable to those who are most “exceptionally human.” When, Wesley, are you going to understand that there is a human cost to vivisection? As for Singer, he is NOT “one of us” — logic and morality are on the same track, he seemed to start out on the right track, and then took the wrong one. IGNORE him. The genuine principles of animal rights and of the sanctity of human life are identical. It’s what we do to other animals that they do not and would not do to each other, and to use, that is wrong and makes us UNexceptional. Singer had a great first sentence: “We are all animals.” After that he goes off the rails. IGNORE him. Paying him attention only makes things worse.
December 8th, 2009 | 10:54 pm
Ianthe: ‘I applaud the “terrorists.”‘
Well then, applaud the terrorists that show up at your door when somebody decides they don’t like what you’re doing. Because they won’t be interested in adhering to your values either.
December 9th, 2009 | 12:21 am
lumping millions of people from many different AR groups as if they all think the same shows a lack of discernment. Its like saying every scientist is like the one we caught one tape torturing animals. Pretty stupid approach if you want to have an intelligent conversation.
Take this writer for instance, he wrote a pretty shallow argument based on childish thinking so now I think all writers are shallow and dumb. So should we fire them all because of this lazy writer?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 9th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Yea, like name calling is a good way to start an intelligent conversation. In my experience, animal rights ideologues aren’t interested in intelligent conversation, just in proselytizing. The point is that most in the movement do not condemn this terrorism. That makes them complicit in it, not legally for sure, but certainly morally.
December 9th, 2009 | 12:27 am
I actually think this president made an excellent decision. Smart man! The torture and horrific pain he was about to inflict upon innocent animals is MORE violent than anything these AR ppl could do. I believe what goes around comes around. You start the torture, it will come back to haunt you.
December 9th, 2009 | 2:39 am
please, spare us the sanctimonious speech. You haven’t a clue as to the thinking of the MILLIONS of people who support animal rights across the globe, in all its varied forms, so stop trying to be god here.
NEWS FLASH – the world doesn’t revolve around you.
Your living in a pretty scary world where you assign your thoughts to others silence.
Let go of the hyped up self-importance, you just might SEE others instead of your ego.
December 9th, 2009 | 7:06 am
[...] animal rights? Wesley Smith, who is very good on things like abortion and euthanasia, is at it again over at Second-Hand Smoke/First Things. Apparently, he can’t see how the dignity of [...]
December 9th, 2009 | 7:54 am
Check out this informative and inspiring video on why people choose vegan: http://veganvideo.org/
Also see Gary Yourofsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bagt5L9wXGo
December 9th, 2009 | 12:01 pm
I think it’s very dangerous what these groups are doing. Animal life is important, yes. But what about human life (and to this argument, they would say it’s not important). We should protect our life.
I do feel badly for what would have happened to these animals, but what also should be looked at is what is the impact of the death of a few animals for a cure or vaccine versus the death of no animal, except many humans?
December 9th, 2009 | 12:12 pm
I think that this might have less to do with fear from terrorists than fear from the wife of Boone Pickens, the University’s largest donor. His wife had a previous run-in with the Vet school there a while back over the treatment of horses. My guess is that she objected and the Administration responded. Just in case you don’t believe the pull of the Pickens, the entire halftime show for their last nationally televised home football game was apparently organized by Ms. Pickens to showcase her wild mustangs foundation.
December 10th, 2009 | 12:29 pm
Padraig: Your thinking isn’t clear there: the reference to value system has nothing to do with the rest of it, logically. If I were to do what the vivisectionists do, the “terrorists” SHOULD come knocking at my door, as you put it.
I’m heartened by the number of comments here from those who do “get it.”
December 10th, 2009 | 12:34 pm
Insurance Telemarketing: It has nothing to do with relative value of human and non-human animal life. The net effect is NOT good for us. The net effect of vivisection is the culture of death, callousness, loss of medical ethics, loss of principle, loss of proper priorities, loss of humanity, futile care theory, etc. The institutions of insurance and of vivisection are on similar tracks, by the way.
December 10th, 2009 | 2:48 pm
Ianthe: “Your thinking isn’t clear there: the reference to value system has nothing to do with the rest of it, logically. If I were to do what the vivisectionists do, the “terrorists” SHOULD come knocking at my door, as you put it.”
Ianthe, there are people in the world who think that they are justified in using terroristic tactics:
1) Against Christians
2) Against non-Christians
3) Against abortionists
4) Against women who support abortion
5) Against women generally
and on, and on, and on.
The particular value system that is used to rationalize terrorism is irrelevant. The problem is that terror tactics end the debate and start the war.
Terrorism cannot be tolerated regardless of the cause. Someday maybe you’ll “get it.”
December 10th, 2009 | 4:51 pm
Ianthe: “The institutions of insurance and of vivisection are on similar tracks, by the way.”
I love how you throw off bizarre remarks like this and expect people to accept them without question.
And you say MY thinking isn’t clear?
December 14th, 2009 | 12:23 pm
I followed this story, and the reason cited by most was NOT anything remotely connected to “threats” by animals rights activists, or “terrorist” “threats.”
What motivated the President of OSU is MONEY — the same thing that motivates so many frivolous experiments on sentient beings.
Except in this instance, money was used for doing good: A significant funder let it be known that she would withdraw her financial support if baboons were killed at this university.
The university caved. (Why? Because the President knows that its first and foremost duty is educating young human minds, not killing baboons.)
Is that ‘”terrorism”? No, of course not.
It’s called divestment. It’s a form of voting with one’s wallet that is a proud American tradition.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact