Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Animal House Falls Apart - Peter Singer shocks with monkeys. (Flips on medical research!)
National Review Online ^ | November 30, 2006 | Wesley J. Smith

Posted on 12/01/2006 5:25:21 PM PST by neverdem







The Animal House Falls Apart
Peter Singer shocks with monkeys.

By Wesley J. Smith

Is the animal-rights movement beginning to fracture? The evidence definitely points in that direction. Liberationists have been engaged recently in some nasty infighting over basic issues of ideology and the propriety of violent and intimidating protest tactics. Indeed, the antipathy among the various factions seems to have grown so intense that the animal-rights movement could soon segregate into antagonistic camps.

A shattering blow accelerating this potential disintegration may have just been struck — ironically, by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, who is often called the godfather of animal rights because of the popularity of his 1975 book, Animal Liberation. A primary goal of animal-rights advocacy is to end all use of animals in medical experiments. But this week, in a BBC documentary on animal research, Singer unexpectedly endorsed the use of monkeys in a series of brain surgery experiments that culminated in the development of a promising treatment to alleviate the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. When Tipu Aziz, the researcher who experimented on the monkeys, told Singer, “To date 40,000 people have been made better with this [procedure], and…I would guess only 100 monkeys were used at a few laboratories,” the bioethicist replied, “Well, I think if you put a case like that, clearly I would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment.”

Supporting brain experiments on 100 monkeys to benefit 40,000 humans does not entail a break on Singer’s part with his overall utilitarian philosophy. Still, it is a far cry from Singer’s previous statements decrying animal experimentation. In his 1990 update of Animal Liberation, for example, Singer called medical research with animals an odious form of “speciesism” and urged that “the interests of animals” be “given equal consideration with similar interest of human beings.” The consequences of this paradigm shift, he wrote, would “mean the end of the vast industry of animal experimentation” and the replacement of animals in experiments with human volunteers. Singer’s judgment about animal research was unequivocal: “Surely,” he wrote, “one day our children’s children, reading about what was done in laboratories in the twentieth century, will feel the same sense of horror and incredulity at what otherwise civilized people could do that we now feel when we read about the atrocities of the Roman gladiatorial arenas or the eighteenth-century slave trade.”

The context in which Singer gave his blessing to primate research is also worth noting. Professor Aziz and his employer, Oxford University, have been targeted in a sustained campaign of harassment, threats, and intimidation by radical U.K. liberationists. (Aziz admits fearing for his life.) Indeed, Oxford’s plan to build a new primate testing laboratory unleashed from liberationists such a frenzy of terrorizing activities that they succeeded in driving construction workers away from the Oxford project in July 2004. Building was finally resumed last December, but even now construction workers wear masks when they arrive on site to avoid being identified and having their families targeted.

Throughout this ordeal, the Oxford protestors have insisted that animal research is essentially useless — a demonstrably false assertion that is nevertheless a central tenet of liberationist dogma. But now, with Peter Singer of all people agreeing with Aziz that his monkey experiments led directly to the alleviation of much human suffering, willful delusion and intentional deception are the only explanations for the liberationists’ dismissal of research.

So how will the story of Singer’s apostasy ultimately play out? I raised the issue with two committed activists who are on opposite sides of the animal liberation controversy: Gary Francione, a professor at Rutgers University Law School and an internationally famous vegan activist, and David Martosko, the director of research for the industry-financed Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization that has been very effective in opposing animal-rights activism.

Francione is one of the few admirable leaders of the animal-rights movement. He has integrity (for example, he acknowledges that animal testing does result in at least some human benefit), he is utterly committed to peaceful persuasion, and he believes in leadership by example, urging his supporters to lead fully vegan lifestyles as a way to convince the rest of us to accept the belief that “all sentient beings have a fundamental moral right not to be treated exclusively as a resource.”

Francione told me via e-mail that animal-rights/liberation activists had already split between those “who express their beliefs in a quiet and non-violent way in their daily lives through being vegan, doing animal rescues, etc,” and what he called “the movement,” consisting of large groups such as PETA, which he sees as “more of a cult than a political and social movement.” Since he sees Singer as being part of the latter category, he says, “It simply doesn’t matter what Singer said. He is the leader of the cult. I suspect that other than possibly causing [Ingrid] Newkirk [the head of PETA] to announce an ‘I’d rather go naked than have Parkinson’s’ campaign to further fill PETA's coffers, and my getting hate mail from ‘animal rights’ people who think I am a heretic for criticizing Singer, nothing much will happen.”

Martosko sees things similarly, although he believes that Singer “will find himself a pariah in some animal-rights circles.” And indeed, a quick check of the blogosphere in the wake of Singer’s statement shows that the more radical minions of animal liberation are not in the least amused. For example, Arkangel: For Animal Liberation, a website that warns, “The contents of this website … should not be used to commit any criminal acts or harassment,” growled that Singer “talks rubbish and the sooner the notion that he has any place in the modern animal rights movement is dispelled the better.”

Major animal-rights groups will adjust to Singer’s support for primate research. Some will embrace Singer’s statement, according to Martosko, as evidence of a “moderate third way between the PETAs of the world and the biomedical researchers they secretly despise,” while others will oppose Singer as a way of ensuring access to liberationists’ bounteous contributions: “As long as there is money to be made,” Martosko told me, “PETA will adapt. Heck, they might even start protesting outside Singer’s Princeton office until he sees the ‘error of his ways.’”

I think Singer’s validation of monkey experimentation will actually make bigger waves. Francione’s bitterness — and he is not alone — speaks loudly of a movement already at odds with itself. And given Singer’s prominence, his pro-research statement will surely undermine the general liberationist meme that animal experimentation is useless, as well as cruel, and hence an equivalent evil to the research conducted by Mengele in the concentration camps. Better still, his apostasy should exacerbate the movement’s ongoing splintering, a development most earnestly to be wished. After all, the less effective animal-rights/liberation advocacy is, the less likely we will ever perceive human beings as merely another animal in the forest.

— Wesley J. Smith, a frequent contributor to NRO, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His website is www.wesleyjsmith.com.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: animalliberation; animalrights; healthcare; medicalresearch; peta; petersinger; utilitarian

1 posted on 12/01/2006 5:25:28 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Peter Singer.

He's the twisted nutcase who thinks parents should be able to kill their children AFTER birth if they're not working out too well.

No, I am not kidding.


2 posted on 12/01/2006 5:30:11 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
... by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, who is often called the godfather of animal rights because of the popularity of his 1975 book, Animal Liberation. A primary goal of animal-rights advocacy is to end all use of animals in medical experiments....

When Tipu Aziz, the researcher who experimented on the monkeys, told Singer, “To date 40,000 people have been made better with this [procedure], and…I would guess only 100 monkeys were used at a few laboratories,” the bioethicist replied, “Well, I think if you put a case like that, clearly I would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment.”

Well, it's obvious why this mental giant is warming a Professor's chair at Princeton.

3 posted on 12/01/2006 5:31:00 PM PST by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The moonbat faction takes on the loons, while the nutcase phalangists feud with the butterfly-chasers. Trying to bring reason are the flower children, earth mommas, and Woodstock refugees, but their influence has been undercut by the neo-Anarchists, vegans, and Breatharians. The New Age wiccans and Orthodox Druids cut out right after the last planetary alignment, but the satanists and Chthulu cultists are hanging on to the bitter end.


4 posted on 12/01/2006 5:31:49 PM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

One of my very favorite pastimes is to watch AIDS "advocates" and animal rights "advocates" fighting each other in dueling demonstrations.


5 posted on 12/01/2006 5:32:23 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (An empty limousine pulled up and Hillary Clinton got out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I wouldn't be so sure that he has changed. Since animals and humans are equal according to Singer; he would probably sacrfice the life of one human to save one hundred monkeys.
6 posted on 12/01/2006 5:32:53 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; billhilly; proud_yank; Diana in Wisconsin; SJackson; george76; Calpernia; cf_river_rat

THANKS for posting this.

Interesting. A lot of people think "animal rights" "animal welfare" and "animal liberation" organizations are two different animals, but they aren't. They ALL want to end animal research. This is what I try to tell well-meaning freepers who think the HSUS is about helping animals.







7 posted on 12/01/2006 5:37:32 PM PST by girlangler (Fish Fear Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: neverdem

Here we come
Walkin' down the street
We get the funniest looks from
Every one we meet...


9 posted on 12/01/2006 5:39:29 PM PST by Edgar3 (Demoblicans lie to your face, Republicrats lie to themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP

an interesting point.

i wonder if we could develop a scale that would equate the number of each type of animal that would balance with the value of one human.
(e.g., one human = 3 whales = 200 elephants = 500 chimps, etc.)
this could cause some serious controversy.


10 posted on 12/01/2006 5:42:06 PM PST by drhogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Yeah I know. I called his mom and did my damndest to convince her.


11 posted on 12/01/2006 5:46:49 PM PST by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
The moonbat faction takes on the loons, while the nutcase phalangists feud with the butterfly-chasers. Trying to bring reason are the flower children, earth mommas, and Woodstock refugees, but their influence has been undercut by the neo-Anarchists, vegans, and Breatharians. The New Age wiccans and Orthodox Druids cut out right after the last planetary alignment, but the satanists and Chthulu cultists are hanging on to the bitter end.


Masterfully worded. I'm stealing it!! I will remember to give credit...if I only could remember that name ...Rustbelt,no...Steelboot, no. I am sure I will remember, someday:-)
12 posted on 12/01/2006 5:47:04 PM PST by crazyhorse691 (The faithful will keep their heads down, their powder dry and hammer at the enemies flanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.' "
The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature", but beavers and their dams are.
But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity.
In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race, i.e. his own self-hatred.
In the case,of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot.
But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have.
Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women, it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural."

Robert Anson Heinlein


13 posted on 12/01/2006 5:49:07 PM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
he is utterly committed to peaceful persuasion, and he believes in leadership by example, urging his supporters to lead fully vegan lifestyles as a way to convince the rest of us to accept the belief that “all sentient beings have a fundamental moral right not to be treated exclusively as a resource.”

IIRC tests using EEG equipment have shown that plants react to even the threat of harsh treatment, IOW they are sentient. I'd bet Professor Singer has no compunctions at all while he eats his salad... alive... heedless of the suffering he inflicts.

At least I have the decency to kill my food before I eat it.

Vegetable rights, an issue for our time. Do you realize that the bulk of human consumption consists of the unborn children or reproductive organs of poor and innocent plants?

It's just too much to bear (sob!).

14 posted on 12/01/2006 5:51:58 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"Singer unexpectedly endorsed the use of monkeys in a series of
brain surgery experiments that culminated in the development
of a promising treatment to alleviate the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease."

Only a suprise to those that have not read Peter Schweizer's great
book: "Do As I Say (Not As I Do); Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy".

Prof. Singer is ready to be a hypocrite (and good for him) on two accounts.
He hasn't followed his own advise and have his mother euthanized
due to her Alzheimers.
And he probably hopes new brain surgery techniques will help his mum.
Even if monkeys have to suffer and die.

Here a bit more on Peter Singer, The Hypocrite.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508908/posts

"The mother of Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer is lucky
that her son is an hypocrite. Her son is a leading proponent of
excising the undesirable — the imperfect via abortion, infanticide,
and euthanasia. The disabled would fall under there, also, sometimes, the elderly.

Peter Singer's mother has Alzheimer's."


15 posted on 12/01/2006 5:57:56 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

LOL!


16 posted on 12/01/2006 6:09:25 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VOA

Thanks for the link.


17 posted on 12/01/2006 6:10:17 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Isnt' he also the guy that advocated human-beast sex a few years ago?


18 posted on 12/01/2006 6:20:11 PM PST by Bigg Red (Never trust Democrats with national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: girlangler

The FBI labels these ar's as terrorists.

I think the words were the number one domestic terror threat against Americans.


19 posted on 12/01/2006 6:38:11 PM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: drhogan
i wonder if we could develop a scale that would equate the number of each type of animal that would balance with the value of one human.
(e.g., one human = 3 whales = 200 elephants = 500 chimps, etc.)
this could cause some serious controversy.

---
You laugh, but these moral mutants with their brain chemistry permanently corrupted by LSD and other recreational drugs are trying to develop that scale as we speak. Then they're going to try to get all governments through the UN to adopt it.
20 posted on 12/01/2006 6:42:13 PM PST by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Isnt' he also the guy that advocated human-beast sex a few years ago?
---
Probably because he couldn't get any action on Saturday night.
21 posted on 12/01/2006 6:44:58 PM PST by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VOA
Singer should have been booted from any position of merit due to his philosophy when he was able to say, straight-faced, "I guess it's different when it's your own mother."

Good grief, what a fraud.

22 posted on 12/01/2006 6:50:37 PM PST by AnnaZ (I keep 2 magnums in my desk.One's a gun and I keep it loaded.Other's a bottle and it keeps me loaded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
EEG equipment have shown that plants react to even the threat of harsh treatment

Ah yes. "A rose screams when it is plucked." I read that in a James Bond novel about forty years ago.

23 posted on 12/01/2006 6:58:55 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"At least I have the decency to kill my food before I eat it."

So you cook ALL your vegetables and cereals?

(It's OK, really! I saw the sarcasm tag. ;)
24 posted on 12/01/2006 7:00:46 PM PST by Old Student (We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

i think i could get on the bandwagon for vegetable rights.

(i had tried to build a movement for the rights of unconceived children, but i didn't get too much support. maybe veggie rights will work better!)

PETV (people for the ethical treatment of vegetables?)
we could have tv ads of people chopping up veggies with ginsu knives and blenders, with the cries of dying veggies on the soundtrack. poor Mr. Potato Head going into the blender. and if we can get a Baby Potato Head, the contributions should come rolling in!
and maybe a guy mowing a lawn, and screams coming from the grass being cut!


25 posted on 12/01/2006 7:06:02 PM PST by drhogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

i wonder if there are sadists who TAUNT their carrots before they eat them?


26 posted on 12/01/2006 7:08:51 PM PST by drhogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: drhogan
i wonder if there are sadists who TAUNT their carrots before they eat them?

I have been known to torture my carrots before eating them. I use a sharp metal instrument to remove paper thin slices of their flesh.

27 posted on 12/01/2006 7:32:07 PM PST by knuthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
Link Between Huntington's And Abnormal Cholesterol Levels Discovered In Brain

Promising Treatment For Huntington's Disease Soon To Be Tested Clinically

Genetically engineered blood protein can be used to split water into oxygen and hydrogen

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

28 posted on 12/01/2006 7:42:04 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: george76

True, george, they have been labeled as such, and the extreme AR people are terrorists, use the same tactics.

A lot of people don't know the difference between the animal "welfare" and "animal rights" labels; that's my point. Or, they think there is a difference, when there isn't. All of these organizations pump money and propaganda toward the same goals.

I used to process checks, as part of my job, for outdoor writers, people who fish and hunt, and you'd be surprised how many of these were HSUS checks -- in other words, the kind you get from your bank, and if you order a certain kind, a portion of the proceeds go to that organization (Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, HSUS).

These people (or mostly their wives) were supporting an organization that these donors thought helped animals, shelters for dogs and cats, etc. Little did they know they were donating money to an organization that wants to see hunting, animal research, commercial agriculture, etc. outlawed!!!!!! And these groups spend all their donor money lobbying, reaching those goals, and don't shelter, feed, house, spay or neuter any animals (unless it is a high profile case like Katrina, where they can do some token work in front of the cameras for marketing/donation purposes).

How much you want to bet Singer has/or has someone close to him that has Parkinsons?

Look at Paul and (the late) Linda McCartney. They both were/are animal rights activists and campaigned heavily against animal research.

However, when Linda was diagnosed with breast cancer, she used state of the art treatment to try and save her life -- TREATMENTS developed using animal research.


29 posted on 12/01/2006 7:55:33 PM PST by girlangler (Fish Fear Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Isnt' he also the guy that advocated human-beast sex a few years ago?

Yeah.. When I saw the headline, "Peter Singer Shocks with Monkeys." I thought it would be about some new-fangled perversion, electrical banana, something that really upset Ingrid Newkirk.

30 posted on 12/01/2006 8:03:16 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Wee sleekit cowering timorous beastie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: drhogan

"i wonder if there are sadists who TAUNT their carrots before they eat them?"

I actually dredge the poor things (and celery) in cholesteral/fat laden Ranch dressing so I can eat them.


31 posted on 12/01/2006 8:14:27 PM PST by girlangler (Fish Fear Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think on Fox they mentioned that Congress just passed new federal legislation against the terrorism of medical researchers here or overseas that was aimed directly at the PETA people. Probably this is why Singer is backing away, for fear of being accused of being an animal rights terrorist ringleader.


32 posted on 12/01/2006 9:17:19 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drhogan; neverdem; hinckley buzzard; Old Student; george76
i wonder if there are sadists who TAUNT their carrots before they eat them?

Oh worse, far worse. They dose them on a chemical diet toward unnatural maturity. they're jammed as tightly as possible with their friends, ripped bodily out of the only home they've ever known, to have the source of life sustaining water slowly dried away...

Sob!

They stuff them unceremoniously into a box with their family, surrounded with the screams of slow death, hunked onto a truck whiffing diesel fumes down the I-5 for "processing."

Sniff!

They grind away their only source of food, plop them in a plastic bag, and leave them just above freezing so that they die... slower. Hose them with a little water in the store to make them look good, and then into the "crisper," where mold and fungi slowly infuse their bodies with mushy cancer.

Gasp!

If they don't get crushed alive in pieces or boiled to death, their only future is to become the soil whence they came, unfulfilled, without even the pleasure of even one flower, one pollination, one seed. A life whose only purpose is to die.

It's too much to bear!

33 posted on 12/01/2006 9:31:04 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
Singer should have been booted from any position of merit due
to his philosophy when he was able to say, straight-faced,
"I guess it's different when it's your own mother."


Actually, this just shows that Singer is in good company in academia.

Most professors are diligent seekers of truth, no matter the consequences.
Those are worthy of that respectable image of Priest In Labcoats
or are at least trying to live up their ideals.

But there are too many like Singer. And as Peter Schweizer has
nailed them, they are indeed "liberal hypocrites".
I'm afraid I've worked around and with some like him.
34 posted on 12/02/2006 8:43:15 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson