From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Problems with "Animal Liberation", a review
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:16:08 GMT

From article <1992Apr6.032202.18401@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, by mhollowa@csws16.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway):
mh> I'm copying this book review without permission.  I'm posting it 
mh> primarily for the benefit of the innocent that haven't been 
mh> carted off chanting slogans yet.  The people that insist on 
mh> taking the "moderate" view of EVERYTHING can look at it as 
mh> "another point of view" and the terrorists and their apologists 
mh> will, no doubt, distort it as they filter it through their 
mh> brains.  
mh> 
mh> Animal Liberation, Peter Singer
mh> (1990) Second Edition, New York Review
mh> (author's name withheld to protect them)

Who wrote this review and precisely where/when was it published?  

mh> ...
mh>     In Chapters 2 and 3, Singer cites graphic examples of what he 
mh> views as speciesism at its worst: animal experimentation and 
mh> factory farming.  
mh>     I am not qualified to judge how well his examples of factory 
mh> farming represent the norm in that industry.  However, as a 
mh> scientist, I can judge his appraisal of animal experimentation.  
mh> His naive assertions and accusations about animal experiments (he 
mh> calls them "trivial," "redundant," "meaningless," and "mindless") 
mh> reveal how little he understands of scientific investigation and 
mh> drug development, and of what motivates scientists.  
mh> 
mh> Perhaps the most revealing illustration of Singer's fundamental 
mh> ignorance of drug development and testing appears in Chapter 2, 
mh> when he blames the thalidomide disaster on animal testing.  He 
mh> implies that animal testing of the drug was in vain because its 
mh> teratogenic potential went undetected.  The sad truth, however, 
mh> is simply that those who tested thalidomide never gave it to 
mh> pregnant animals before giving it to pregnant women.  

As a "scientist" claiming to know about drug development and drug
testing, the unnamed author of this review should have known that 
drugs weren't tested on pregnant animals prior to the thalidomide 
debacle because it was believed, back then, that such complex 
substances couldn't cross the placental barrier.  The thalidomide 
experience, not animal experimentation, taught us otherwise.  

mh> Moreover, Singer failed to mention the ironic fact that animal 
mh> testing actually kept this disasterfrom being even worse than it 
mh> was.  Food and Drug Administration officials had suspected the 
mh> drug may cause nerve damage, based on results of animal studies, 
mh> and were awaiting additional results when the disaster unfolded 
mh> in Europe.  Consequently, thalidomide was never sold in the U.S.  

It's true that Dr. Francis Kelsey, the FDA drug evaluator in 
charge of thalidomide withheld FDA approval because of her 
concerns about neuropathy, but this was an entirely fortuitous 
circumstance as Kelsey herself pointed out later on.  To claim it 
as a credit for the use of animal models is either irrational or 
dishonest.  Incidently, Kelsey's concerns about neuropathy turned 
out to be unfounded.  According to a note in JAMA (03/16/90, p 
1473), thalidomide has been used to treat thousands of human 
patients at the National Hansen's Disease Center in Carville, LA, 
but researchers there say they've never seen a case of 
thalidomide-related neuropathy.  

It's worth mentioning that the relationship between thalidomide
and phocomelia was established via epidemiological studies... not
animal research.  After the cause of phocomelia was understood,
animal researchers were unable to replicate terotogenic effects
in lab animals until they administered very large intravenous 
doses of the drug.  Unfortunately, the use of such large doses in 
test procedures warps the models, and often renders bizarre 
results that would oblige us to suspect scores of useful drugs 
and food additives ranging from insulin to artificial sweeteners.  

The thalidomide experience cast serious doubt on the reliability 
and validity of non-primate animal models, and induced congress 
to pass the Harris-Kefauver amendment to the Pure Food and Drug 
Act in 1962 which requires staged testing in humans prior to
FDA approval.  

mh> In Chapter 4, Singer sings the praise of vegetarianism.  He 
mh> argues its moral justification, touts its benefits to health, and 
mh> wrestles with the question of where one should draw the line on 
mh> meatlessness.  

"Touting its benefits"???  

Did the reviewer bother to inform his readers about the many studies 
showing the relationship between meat consumption and heart disease,
stroke, and cancer?  Or, was he too busy using loaded words like "tout" 
to distort the reader's vicarious impressions of Singer's work?

mh> Chapter 5 tracks the historical roots of "speciesist" thought 
mh> from the biblical creation story, in which God grants Adam and 
mh> Eve dominion over the animals, to Darwin's theory of evolution.  
mh> But Singer then side-steps an obvious incongruity of animal 
mh> liberation theology when concludes that Darwin's theory negates 
mh> speciesism.  Since species in Darwin's world mercilessly exploit 
mh> one another for survival, any species foolish enough to grant 
mh> equal consideration to another won't be long for that world.  
mh> [fuzzy comments deleted]

It's clear that this nameless "reviewer" has, neither a firm grasp
of Darwin's ideas, nor a solid understanding of Singer's work.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ