P. Singer /Parkinson

[Animal 0]

The Sunday Times November 26, 2006


Father of animal activism backs monkey testing
Gareth Walsh



THE father of the modern animal rights movement has endorsed the use of monkeys in research by an Oxford professor at the centre of anti-vivisection protests.
Peter Singer, who is widely admired by activists for writing the seminal work on animal rights, says giving the primates Parkinson’s disease was “justifiable” because of the benefits it subsequently brought to thousands of human patients.

His comments will come as a blow to the protest group SPEAK, which is trying to halt construction of a new animal research laboratory at Oxford.

In a documentary to be screened tomorrow on BBC2 Singer, a professor of philosophy, comes face to face with Tipu Aziz, an Oxford neurosurgeon whose research involving monkeys has helped to develop pioneering ways of treating Parkinson’s disease.

During the exchange Aziz tells Singer: “I am a surgeon and also a scientist, and part of my work has been to induce parkinsonism in primates . . .

“I was one of a group internationally that showed that an area in the brain that was never associated with parkinsonism . . . was overactive, and by operating on it, reducing its activity, one can significantly — very significantly — improve Parkinson’s.

“To date 40,000 people have been made better with this, and worldwide at the time I would guess only 100 monkeys were used at a few laboratories.”

Singer replies: “Well, I think if you put a case like that, clearly I would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment.

“I do not think you should reproach yourself for doing it, provided — I take it you are the expert in this, not me — that there was no other way of discovering this knowledge.

“I could see that as justifiable research.”

Singer, a former Oxford lecturer now working in America and Australia, paved the way for recent animal rights activism with his book Animal Liberation, now considered the bible of the movement.

He said last week that he stood by his comments to Aziz, provided the monkeys had been treated as well as possible.

Aziz said: “It just shows (SPEAK) haven’t a case, to be honest.”

But Mel Broughton, one of the leaders of the SPEAK campaign, said of Singer’s justification of the Oxford experiments: “I would not accept that at all.

“(His comments) certainly do not represent the views of SPEAK, or the vast majority of people that campaign against animal research.”


Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing is on BBC2 tomorrow at 9pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2471990,00.html

[Animal 0]

Tom Regan Replies to Peter Singer
ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL TESTING

by Tom Regan
In "Father of animal activism backs monkey testing" (The Sunday Times, Times Online, November 26, 2006,

Philosopher Peter Singer is quoted as saying that
research that involved giving Parkinson's disease to monkeys was "justifiable."

Singer expresses his opinion as part of an exchange between him and one of the
researchers, Tipu Aziz, an Oxford neurosurgeon who tells Singer that "[t]o date
40,000 people have been made better" because of the research done on "only 100
monkeys." The exchange is part of a BBC2 program, "Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal
Testing," that aired on 27 November.

What makes Singer's opinion noteworthy is not what he thinks but who he is said
to be. He is (we are told) "[t]he father of the modern animal rights movement,"
and his book, Animal Liberation, "is now considered the bible of the [animal
rights] movement." Taken together, these two statements would naturally lead
people to infer that Singer believes in animal rights, and that the judgment he
makes (that the research is "justifiable") is one that animal rights advocates
would accept.

Neither inference is true. The Peter Singer interviewed on the BBC2 program does
not believe that nonhuman animals have basic moral rights. As early as 1978,
three years after the publication of Animal Liberation, he explicitly disavowed
this belief.

No, Singer's moral convictions are those of a utilitarian. He believes that
consequences determine moral right and wrong. Right actions bring about the best
consequences. Wrong actions fail to do so. It is open to Singer, therefore, to
judge the research "justifiable," which he does, based on the consequences Dr.
Aziz describes

People who believe in animal rights could not disagree more. The role basic
moral rights play, whomsoever's rights they are, is to protect individuals
against the very type of abuse so painfully illustrated by the monkey research
under review. The basic moral rights of the individual (the rights to life and
bodily integrity, for example) should never be violated in the name of reaping
benefits for others.

Obviously, nothing I have said here proves that monkeys or other nonhuman
animals have basic moral rights, or that utilitarianism is a flawed moral
outlook. These are matters I have explored in other places. My far more modest
objectives have been to correct some misunderstandings: first, that Peter Singer
is an advocate of animal rights (he is not) and, second, that his judgment (that
the research is "justifiable") would be endorsed by animal rights advocates (it
would not).

There remains a final misunderstanding that needs to be set right. In the Sunday
Times story, Gareth Walsh writes that "[Singer] said last week that he stood by
his comments to Aziz, provided the monkeys had been treated as well as
possible," to which Aziz is quoted as saying, "It just shows (SPEAK) haven't a
case, to be honest."

Precisely what is it that shows that SPEAK has no case against vivisection in
general, the construction of the new research laboratory at Oxford in
particular? It can only be that Peter Singer stands by his judgment that the
research in which Aziz participated was "justifiable." It is the fact that Peter
Singer said this that is supposed to expose SPEAK's opposition as groundless.

One must hope that Dr. Aziz is a better researcher than he is a thinker. It is
an elementary principle of logic that no statement is true because of the
identity of the person who makes it. Granted, Peter Singer is an influential
philosopher. But not even Peter Singer can make statements true merely by making
them. The truth of the matter is, Dr. Aziz and his colleagues will need to
address SPEAK's opposition on its merits, not pretend that they have done so by
enlisting Peter Singer on their side.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Regan is emeritus professor of philosophy, North Carolina State University
(USA). His books include The Case for Animal Rights and Empty Cages: Facing the
Challenge of Animal Rights.

http://www.speakcampaigns.org/articles/20061128tomregan.php