From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Problems with "Animal Liberation", a review
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:47:02 GMT

Michael Holloway writes: >>
>> I'm copying this book review without permission.  I'm posting it
>>primarily for the benefit of the innocent that haven't been
>>carted off chanting slogans yet.  The people that insist on
>>taking the "moderate" view of EVERYTHING can look at it as
>>"another point of view" and the terrorists and their apologists
>>will, no doubt, distort it as they filter it through their
>>brains.
 
Interesting logic: either you agree with this fellow and
therefore you are "moderate", fair-minded and on the side of the
angels, or, you disagree and are therefore a misguided
"apologist", a "terrorist" and possibly some other unspeakable
horror.  Gee, I thought moderates are people who don't believe in
simple extremist dichotomies.
 
 
 
>> Animal Liberation, Peter Singer (1990) Second Edition, New York
>>Review (author's name withheld to protect them)
 
And what is the reference?  Frankly, it is intellectually
dishonest not to cite the source.
 
Who are you kidding about protecting the author?  That is why
people use "nom de plumes" (anyway, as far as I know, nobody has
ever been seriously hurt by even the stupid fringe ALF).  I would
very much like to know what kind of disreputable "yellow
journalism" (your term) or biased publication are you too
embarrassed and dishonest to acknowledge as your source.
 
 
 
> Animal Liberation is mostly a work of evangelism.
 
Is it not odd that people who rail against evangelism the most
frequently and the loudest are themselves so very evangelical in
tone and in their sweeping condemnations.
 
 
 
>Singer, a
>philosopher, denounces humankind's sin against nonhuman animals
>and issues a call to new life in which human beings leave other
>animals alone and become vegetarians.  According to Singer, our
>sin is "speciesinsm," or racism applied to other species.
 
Nowhere does Singer, as most contemporary philosophers, ever use
such theological terms like "sin".  What we are dealing with is
not moral failing but a social attitude and practice.  No one, I
hope, would think that social conventions and practices are
written in stone never to be questioned, never to be improved.
 
 
 
>He thinks speciesism begets a "tyranny of human over nonhuman animal
>[comparable to] that which resulted from the tyranny of white
>humans over black humans."  The book reads well.  Singer's style
>shows polish and economy, and his argument is straightforward.
 
This is what is called "damning with faint praise", but there is
a contradiction here.  If the book is as philosophically flawed
and evangelical as our reviewer claims, it simply wouldn't read
well at all.  No amount of polish can compensate for a lack of
substance.  If you think it can, then just try hiking with only
boot polish on your bare feet.
 
 
 
>Nevertheless, the narrative lacks balance as Singer glibly
>dismisses or simply ignores most views which oppose his own. In
>the end, he claims that his "case is logically cogent and cannot
>be refuted."
 
And what are these views he ignores?  Seems like our reviewer is
in the habit of ignoring to substantiate his/her charges with
examples.  Incidentally, this phrase in quotations is something
that Singer NEVER actually said.  It is very misleading, to say
the least, to imply that Singer did use those words.  You can
hardly call a review fair when it suggests that an author used
certain words which in fact were not used.  Who wrote this book
anyway?  Now, all that Singer ever claims is that he offers a
"rational" argument, one that has so far stood up well against
criticisms.  Hardly a claim for irrecusability.
 
 
 
> He warns the faithful against
>harming anyone in their pursuit of animal liberation,m but the
>zeal with which he promotes this cause in the rest of the book
>makes the warning seem largely obligatory.
 
Interesting our supposedly informed book reviewer would simply
discount Singer's position without any rational arguments or
facts but instead merely assert what is most convenient.  How
many times must one repeat for the hard of hearing and the
closed-minded, NO, SINGER DOES NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE OR THE
HARMING ANY INDIVIDUAL.
 
 
 
> In Chapter 1, Singer
>states his belief that because nonhuman animal can feel pain and
>sufer, they deserve the same moral consideration that we grant
>(or should grant) to fellow human beings.  Unfortunately, he
>dismisses the argument that certain differences between us and
>other animals, such as free will and reciprocity of action, might
>justify a refusal to grant entirely equal consideration.
>Instead, he asks if we are propared to do to infants and retarded
>people what we do to other animals in the name of medical
>research.  This point seems absurd and simplistic.  After all,
>struggles against racism and slavery are based at least partly on
>the notion that we should treat others as we would have them
>treat us.
 
Yes, and what about infants and the retarded?  What reciprocity
can we expect from them?  Now much if any, but note that our
reviewer simply dismisses this point as "absurd and simplistic",
and therefore evades addressing the point or provide any argument
against it.
 
The humanitarian sense of "treat others as you would have them
treat us" is surely that we should treat others as we would have
them treat us if they were in our position and we in theirs.
Only is this way, can the retarded, infants, and even slaves who
were at a complete disadvantage, be indeed treated with the
respect and care that is their due.
 
 
 
>  However, as
>a scientist, I can judge his appraisal of animal experimentation.
>His naive assertions and accusations about animal experiments (he
>calls them "trivial," "redundant," "meaningless," and "mindless")
>reveal how little he understands of scientific investigation and
>drug development, and of what motivates scientists.
 
And what did motivate the development of thalidomide?  Very
simple, to put on market another non-essential sleeping tablet so
that one drug company can now compete with another via a new and
superfluous product.
 
Singer does not merely state "naive assertions and accusation",
instead he has documented case after case of actual research that
even the research community itself would acknowledge as indeed
trivial, redundant and ill-conceived.
 
Who indeed is being "naive" when some fuzzy sentiment about the
what truly "motivates scientists" is the only argument our
unknown book reviewer gives against those concrete, documented
case examples provided by Singer.  Scientists are like people
everywhere; all are generally motivated to seek valid knowledge
but not without some contaminating considerations for such
extraneous things as the upholding of a theoretical or private
commitment, the advancing a personal career, the desperate need
to publish or perish, the lure of fame and big money, the doing
of what is most methodologically convenient, and so on.  One only
has to read some of the many documented cases of intentional
scientific fraud, corruption and deceit to see that scientists
are human after all.  Anyone who still believes in the pristine
authority of "scientists" ought to read William Broad & N. Wade,
1985, BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH: FRAUD AND DECEIT IN SCIENCE.
Oxford: Oxford U. Pr.  (at least we AR folk provide hard
references)
 
 
 
> Perhaps the
>most revealing illustration of Singer's fundamental ignorance of
>drug development and testing appears in Chapter 2, when he blames
>the thalidomide disaster on animal testing. He implies that
>animal testing of the drug was in vain because its teratogenic
>potential went undetected.  The sad truth, however, is simply
>that those who tested thalidomide never gave it to pregnant
>animals before giving it to pregnant women.  Moreover, Singer
>failed to mention the ironic fact that animal testing actually
>kept this disasterfrom being even worse than it was.  Food and
>Drug Administration officials had suspected the drug may cause
>nerve damage, based on results of animal studies, and were
>awaiting additional results when the disaster unfolded in
Europe.
 
Talk about revising history to suit prejudices.  Yes, let's talk
about the thalidomide disaster that left some 10,000 children
crippled and deformed.
 
In 1957 the German drug company, Chemie Grunenthal, and the
Distillers Company in Britain in 1958, both marketed another
sedative to help people sleep.  It was readily accepted because
the animal testing of the day showed it to be remarkably non-
toxic -- experimental lab animals could be given massive doses
without any apparent ill-effects.
 
Now, some reports about peripheral neuritis did come in from
human subjects, providing an early warning about the potential
toxic effects of thalidomide on the nervous system.  This is a
serious complaint which often begins with a prickly feeling in
the toes, followed by a numbness and cold, and eventually
resulting in severe muscular cramps, weakness of the limbs and a
lack of coordination.  The animal experiments did not predict
this side effect, and if the drug was withdrawn at this point we
probably would not have had the disaster we all associate with
the drug, thalidomide.
 
A year after these first disturbing signs of toxicity, the first
reports about birth defects started to come in, starting with a
letter by obstetrician McBride published in Lancet, Dec., 1961.
Further reports came in and by late September the clinical
evidence was so unequivocal that McBride alerted the medical
community to the fact that the animal experiments must be wrong.
Still, the animal studies on pregnant rats, hamsters, chickens,
dogs, cats, monkeys all failed to produce the then known birth
deformities.  Talk about replication!  By 1966 there were 14
separate studies of thalidomide on pregnant mice, but none
demonstrated the characteristic birth defects that was then known
to occur in humans.  As Schardein observed:
 
     "in approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11
     breeds of rabbits, two breeds of dogs, three strains of
     hamsters, eight species of primates and in other such varied
     species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets
     in which thalidomide has been tested teratogenic effects
     [birth defects] have been induced only occasionally" (in D.
     F. Hawkins, 1983, ed., DRUGS AND PREGNANCY -- HUMAN
     TERATOGENESIS AND RELATED PROBLEMS)
 
The few defects observed were not the characteristic ones found
in humans.  Many more animals were killed until finally a
particular strain of rabbits produced the characteristic
deformities.  Later, some particular primates could also be
induced to produce the same birth defects.
 
Now, note the moral of this story.  Even if pregnant animals were
used, it would have been highly unlikely that the thalidomide
deformities would have been detected.  They would never have
thought to test on only that one particular strain of rabbits or
primates, even today.
 
Now, even if they did produce the birth defects by accidentally
using the right animals, the results would likely have been
dismissed as a FALSE POSITIVE.  The fact of the matter is that in
medical research both false negatives and false positives are
common.  A "false negative" here simply would mean that our
thalidomide fails to produce terogenic (literally, monster
producing) effects in the test species (model system) but is in
fact toxic to humans.  A "false positive" translates into
something like "the damned bunnies are uniquely susceptible to
thalidomide which is in fact innocuous to humans".  The logical
frustration to scientists (more accurately, drug companies) is
that since "false" +/- is  indistinguishable from "true" +/-, all
results lead to the empiricist's mantra: FURTHER RESEARCH IS
REQUIRED.  Translation: more dead animals.  This is not an
attempt on my part to discredit animal testing by hypothesizing
exemplary logical extremes - real cases of utter confusion are
commonplace.  Most people would naively infer from this
thalidomide result of deformities discovered rabbit strain X that
therefore a single [+] appeared and humans would have been
protected.
 
Let us suppose that thalidomide proves useful in suppressing
aggressive behavior in pet mice.  Does the tragic human
experience offer any valuable insights into the safety of
phthalimids in rodents?  Nope - our history is just a false
positive as far as Mickey & Minnie are concerned.  Conversely,
did all the thriving bunnies, mice, marsupials, water fleas,
Abyssinian tree hyraxes etc. in the ICI labs prove of any value
to us?  Nope again.  False negative.   The assurance of
safety/efficacy sought by the toxicologist is inherently elusive
- all positives terrify the public; no negative reassures the
public.  Consider "dioxin" (2,3,6,7-tetrachloroparadibenzodioxin)
which has proven devastatingly toxic to an exotic strain of
guinea pigs.  To the scientist shielded from hysteria, the only
remotely supportable conclusions to date are: (1) no human has
ever been exposed to lethal or carcinogenic doses of any chloro-
DBD's; (2) its a damned good idea to keep your dioxin stash
hidden from our pet guinea pigs.
 
So, where does that leave us?  Well, it has now become more
widely accepted that teratogenicity tests are of little value
simply because predictions are practically impossible given the
profound differences in the physiology, function and even the
biochemistry of placenta that so modifies even the overall
differences of organ system functions between species.  Dr.
Sharpe cites in his book (THE CRUEL DECEPTION, 1988), that "of
800 chemicals identified as teratogens in laboratory animals,
less than 25 are known to harm people" (p. 108).  Aspirin, for
example, is a proven teratogen in rats, mice, guinea pigs, cats,
dogs and monkeys, yet we do not tell pregnant women to never use
aspirin.  Even caffeine is a teratogen in rats and mice.  Hence,
it is simply not likely that the thalidomide disaster would have
been prevented, even if it was tested on animals today.
 
 
>Consequently, thalidomide was never sold in the U.S.  In Chapter
 
This indicates that teratogen tests killing hundreds of thousands
of pregnant animals yearly are performed not for scientific or
medical purposes, but more likely for political and legal
reasons.  Sharpe quotes R. Smithells, Professor of Paediatrics
and Child Health at the University of Leeds:
 
     "The extensive animal reproductive studies to which all new
     drugs are now subjected are more in the nature of a public
     relations exercise than a serious contribution to drug
     safety.
     . . . The illogicality of the situation is demonstrated by
     the continued use of well-established drugs which are known
     to be teratogenic in some mammalian species (e.g., aspirin,
     penicillin/streptomycin, cortisone).  Conversely a new drug
     which comes through its animal reproductive studies with
     flying colours may nevertheless be teratogenic in man."
 
 
 
>4, Singer sings the praise of vegetarianism.  He argues its moral
>justification, touts its benefits to health, and wrestles with
>the question of where one should draw the line on meatlessness.
 
Singer at least provides evidence for his claims.  Instead of an
even-handed summary of what Singer presents in his book, our
unknown book reviewer simply makes derisive remarks as he/she
purports to tell us what the book is all about.
 
 
 
>In the first edition of Animal Liberation, he considered it
>morally acceptable ot eat oysters, scallops and clams.  In this
>edition, he announces that he now give molluscs the benefit of
>the doubt and doesn't eat them either.
 
Far from being a failing, this show Singer to be an open-minded
intellectual who is improving his views with time.  Something we
don't find with the dogmatically inclined.
 
 
 
>Chapter 5 tracks the
>historical roots of "speciesist" thought from the biblical
>creation story, in which God grants Adam and Eve dominion over
>the animals, to Darwin's theory of evolution.  But Singer then
>side-steps an obvious incongruity of animal liberation theology
>when concludes that Darwin's theory negates speciesism.  Since
>species in Darwin's world mercilessly exploit one another for 
>survival, any species foolish enough to grant equal consideration
>to another won't be long for that world.
 
The olde `nature is red in tooth and claw' argument.  Whatever
might be the ways of nature or evolution, such is hardly relevant
to human ethics.  Orangutans rape, therefore should humans rape?
Some sociobiologists in fact think we share this evolutionary
strategy of the gene propagation, but hardly would they be so
foolish as to then suggest that rape is morally justified.
 
 
 
>. . . Singer's reductionist arguments are
>flawed and unconvincing (as even other proponents of animal
>rights have noted), and his emotional bias in presenting the case
>against animal experimentation is clearly evident.
 
That one might disagree with Singer's utilitarian starting place
for his argument hardly makes those arguments "flawed".  The
arguments are sound and the conclusions logically follow from
Singer's premises.  Some of us AR folk, however, prefer a
different starting point than that of utilitarianism.  But I
guess such legitimate differences in ethical philosophy are too
subtle for our book reviewer.
 
 
 
>Nevertheless,
>many have adopted the animal liberationist faith.  This book
>defines the basis for that faith and should be read by anyone who
>wants to understand it.
 
Simply being derisive and merely chanting repetitively that it is
a "faith" doesn't make it so.  Instead of logical arguments and
careful analysis, all that our book reviewer can offer is mere
vilification and tiresome chants.
 
 
 
>  When viewed from a scientist's
>perspective, this faith may seem to be largely rooted in emotion,
>nurtured by distortion, and sustained through ignorance.  Sadly,
>Animal Liberation promotes all three.
>
 
And yet, our unknown "scientific researcher" would have us put
our faith in him/her, without benefit of argument or empirical
evidence or even case examples.  He would incite us to accept on
faith rather than on reason, that what he asserts is scientific
truth and what Singer says is mere emotion and blind faith.  Did
not good old George Orwell call this "double-think" -- war is
peace, diatribe is argument, errors are facts, hatred is love,
compassion is killing animals . . .
 
                                              ted