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.
March 10th, 2010 | 2:24 pm
Does Scully understand that the number of animals used in research is a minute fraction of those used for meat, regardless of how humane? Does he understand that an animal in a research study is a heck of a lot more likely to survive the experience than an animal entering a slaughterhouse?
Does he know that the ways animals utilize other animals go way past predator/prey relationships? Lifeforms exploit other lifeforms in whatever way gives them benefit. Sometimes it’s benign, sometimes it’s deadly. It’s a fundamental principle of ecology.
Scully’s a classic case of “the way I use animals is ok, but the uses I don’t need or understand should be illegal.” Worse than the AR folks in some ways.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
padraig: You are assuming rationality here. Scully is all emotion. He doesn’t care.
March 10th, 2010 | 4:01 pm
Actually I’m assuming rationalization, which to my mind is emotionalism disguised as logic, but I see your point.
March 10th, 2010 | 9:53 pm
If Scully lied in his review,stating that chimps were used, when in reality monkeys were used, then this reflects badly on Scully’s integrity. But it’s an extraneous issue. the real issue is this: does Smith believe that any experiments involving chimps are morally defensible? Does Smith believe that any experiments done utilizing animals are morally impermissible, and if so, based on what criteria? Are only experiments that have direct pragmatic application to humans morally permissible, or are experiments that only provide purely theoretical knowledge defensible all right? Are certain evolutionarily ”higher” mammals, such as chimps, completely morally off limits to use in experiments, or, are they only permissible if the knowledge is directly applicable to the reduction of human suffering? Or, can the higher mammals be used if their pain is controlled? But what if we can only reduce human suffering by devising experiments that cause severe pain to these higher animals? please answer these questions.
March 10th, 2010 | 11:46 pm
“Differing on principle” implies that both persons have coherent, articulable principles. It is not clear to me that such a situation adheres in this case. But bravo to Wesley Smith for being courteous enough to act as though it does.
March 11th, 2010 | 9:50 am
Bret, the sort of questions you pose are answered on a daily basis by committees that review research prior to approving the use of animals in research. In addition to looking at the effect on individual animals, they look at questions like, how many animals are needed to prove/disprove your hypothesis? Could you use fewer animals, or a computer model? This is then balanced against the possible benefits. You can examine this process in detail at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/index.htm, NIH being the government agency that funds the bulk of animal research.
Ultimately, most studies using animals come down to a judgment call, and they are far from black & white. Generally speaking research on “higher” animals is held to a higher scientific standard, for reasons both ethical and economical. Monkeys ain’t cheap.
If it makes you feel any better, the review process is very similar to the process that human-based research goes through, the major difference being the process of establishing informed consent.
March 11th, 2010 | 9:57 am
Sorry to double-post, but I missed an important question Bret posed:
“But what if we can only reduce human suffering by devising experiments that cause severe pain to these higher animals?”
Any study that physically harms animals HAS to have some way of reducing or eliminating the pain. For instance, non-human primates that are infected with SIV in HIV research are euthanized as soon as they show AIDS-type symptoms. The only exception might be a study of pain itself. So, the scenario you describe is extremely unlikely; I suspect research on most major threats to humanity can be done without inflicting extreme pain.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:12 am
padraig: Indeed. As I write in my book, that’s the law for primates and is generally followed under voluntary accreditation guidelines for mice and rats. Animal rights activists always exaggerate the impact on the animals because they don’t care about your rational response. It is all pure emotion and rage.
March 11th, 2010 | 11:18 pm
padraig: thanks for the information. Of course, all of this presupposes the efficacy of proper government regulation, to ensure that these animals are properly protected. Also, in order to produce treatments that are effective for human disorders, we must use animals that are as close to humans as possible, which practically speaking, means chimps. One of the ironies of ”human exceptionalism”, is it’s advocates assertion that humans are ontologically distinct, and superior, to other animals, but also its insistence that we must use animals for experimentation, in order to continue human advancement. This assertion relies on the notion that humans are very similar to other animals, especially the primates, but this view is inconsistent with our supposed human exceptionalism. but to admit to animals possessing traits similar to us, (as one must, otherwise why the research?) logically implies that we have strong moral duties. Has anyone tried to provide a strong moral foundation for reconciling all of this?
March 12th, 2010 | 12:00 pm
Have to split some hairs with you, Bret:
Bret: “Of course, all of this presupposes the efficacy of proper government regulation, to ensure that these animals are properly protected.”
Somewhat, but self-regulation is more critical. The feds only come around so often. Most research animals have caretakers (not researchers) whose responsibility is the day-to-day welfare of the animals. They often act as proponents for the animals and are not afraid to butt heads with researchers. (If you’re looking for unsung heroes in this conflict, the caretakers are great candidates.) But when that fails, and it has, the feds had better be ready to step in.
” Also, in order to produce treatments that are effective for human disorders, we must use animals that are as close to humans as possible, which practically speaking, means chimps.”
Depends on the disorder. Some animals react similarly to humans, some are opposite. That’s why researchers pick the animals they use based on what they’re studying. Also, both ethical and economic factors say if you can use a rat (or fruit fly or jellyfish) instead of a chimpanzee, you don’t use a chimpanzee (or marmoset or rhesus). Practically speaking, researchera will use the cheapest model (animal/computer/whatever) that they think will yield reliable results when translated to humans.
Generally speaking, you’ve hit on the oxymoron in a lot of ARA’s arguments. On the one hand they argue that research on animals is immoral because they’re so similar to humans, and it’s also invalid because they’re so different from us. Huh? That’s the problem with absolute viewpoints, they can’t explain complex situations. Like life.
March 12th, 2010 | 6:48 pm
William F. Buckley, in the 1950′s and 1960′s, did an admirable job of purging from conservativism those elements that, to put it charitably, were incongruent with the conservative view of life, for example the Randians, John Birchers, racists, antisemites. these elements were, and are morally pernicious influences that are analagous to the animal abusers of today. Whether or not Wesley Smith fits into this latter class, or not, remains to be seen. True, consevativism is an amalgam of free marketers, religious believers, etc., and we want to be as open as is possible, some things, like animal abuse, is beyond the pale, and must be purged. Animals are God’s creation, they do, have a right to life on that basis. No, this right is not identical to the Tom Regan or PETA view, but one of its tenets is that, although animal life is subordinate to human life, animal life should be respected. Pragmatically, this means that animal life should only be destroyed if it directly threatens human life. Wesley Smith has done admirable and essential work fighting euthanasia, so I’m very reluctant to assert that he should be purged from the conservative movement, but some of his claims, for example, regarding ”handling” elephants, clearly highly intelligent animals that may even be able to recognize their own reflections, give me pause.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Bret. Only destroyed if they threaten human life? That’s not a conservative view, it is very radical. I believe in proper animal husbandry. That’s not abuse.
March 12th, 2010 | 7:55 pm
Animals are God’s creation, we both agree on that, right? (I believe He did it through evolutioary processes, but that’ exraneous to this issue). It would be very presumptous for me to try to decipher God’s intentions, but it seems reasonable that He did not create these animals so that we could kill them at the first sign of a conflict between us and them, what a waste right? He gave us reasoning capabilities so that we could figure out ways to coexist with them peacefully. This is hardly radical, it’s about respecting God’s creation enough to search for all alternatives possible prior to desroying God’s creation. For Him to create these creatures, with remarkable (although, of course, inferior to human) emotional and cognitive capacities, and then for us to then destroy them without careful reflection on the less lethal alternatives, might not sit well with him. This is conservative in that it’s respecting God’s creation, and not indulgingly or rashly destroying His handiwork, and it’s cautious about not choosing solutions that are not easliy reversible, and the last time I checked, death is unlikely to be reversed. It’s only radicals who choose the most lethal, and impulsive, and rash decisions.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Bret: I don’t do God in my public work. They are sentient creatures that can suffer, which imposes upon us a duty to treat them humanely based on our understanding of pain and our empathy. But we also have a duty to ourselves, and using animals in research and as our natural food, as two examples, is not wrong or immoral, assuming proper standards of care. If you take a Judeo or Christian view, it can’t be deemed wrong either. What was Jesus’s Last Supper? Lamb. It was the Passover Feast.
March 12th, 2010 | 8:35 pm
Gotta echo Wes here, Bret. Those wildebeests weren’t threatening the lions and alligators. Whether we like it or not, one animal killing and eating another one is a perfectly natural thing to do. Life is something to be actively and aggressively defended, not assumed.
March 15th, 2010 | 5:19 pm
Mr.Smith: I’m guessing, since you have a blog on First Things, a journal that, among many important things, is commited to the notion that religious arguements are legitimate in the Public Square, you are open to religious arguments? The ACLU, etc., don’t do religous arguments either. My argument is based on the fact that animals, paricularly the higher mammals, possess cognitive, and moreover, emotional capacities not unlike our own. Part of the rich history of engaging in natural theology is making deductions, about our Creator. He could have made things much easier by not providing pain recepters, etc. to nonhuman creatures, but He did’nt. The deduction one could make is that these creatures should be protected, after all, God did this by giving them the ability to protect themselves. I agree with you that we are the most impotant species, but part of what makes this so is protecting the weaker, the less intelligent, and, yes, the lesser species. Padraig:I agree that we must actively and aggressively defend life, but I think that’s taken care of when I stated that animals should be killed if they threaten our lives. Also, we have morality, animals don’t, so we can transcend the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest mentality that other animals are trapped in. Lots of thing are natural, but not moral. Thousands of years ago, it was natural for older men to procreate with thirteen year old girls. We now, through moral reasoning, know that this is reprehensible. So, just because there might have been an evolutionary, adaptive advantage at some point in our distant past, like hunting, or huge age descrepencies in mating, does NOT mean it’s adaptive now.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Bret: Not making religious arguments. Never have. FT is about culture too. But Scully DOES make religious arguments. They belong in the public square as much as any philosophy or value system.
March 15th, 2010 | 7:42 pm
I think that we have evolved beyond the need to hunt. Unless someone MUST do it in order to SURVIVE, which seems unlikely, considering the plethera of food sources, hunting is not morally justified. The amount of suffering it causes to these animals is considerable, especially when an animal is not cleanly killed, that it does not meet the moral threshold of acceptability. And, as I pointed out previously, just because it’s natural does not mean it’s right (i.e.,the naturalistic fallacy). Hunters are generally not bad people. They just need to accept the arguments against hunting, and stop doing it. This is not about chastiizing them.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact