Animal Rights and Human Needs Considered

i-82e4f84327c5d03c965d61e330a6bc72-cage01.gif
"But Dr. Zaius, the benefits to apedom far outweigh this animal's suffering."

Image: Planet of the Apes


Greg Laden has posted three parts (with more on the way) of a series that looks at how we should decide what animals have rights, what those rights should be, and how we weigh those considerations against the benefits of animal testing:

It is not entirely unreasonable to view the question of what humans can do to other species with suspicion. This would be the same kind of suspicion that a parole board would level against an inmate asking for release. We are a species with a record, and we are asking the question: What ways shall we allow this species, already tried and convicted of serial speciescide, to interact with other animal species? We are a level five extinctionator asking to move into a neighborhood with lots of vulnerable species like chimps and polar bears. And we've done little to earn trust.

Animal Rights and Human Needs: Foundations of the debate (Part I)
Animal Rights and Human Needs: Foundations of the debate (Part II)
Animal Rights and Human Needs: Foundations of the debate (Part III)

More like this

Remember earlier this week when we were discussing some of the positions people might hold with respect to the use of animals in research?
Today at the University of California at Los Angeles, a rally is planned to raise awareness about the value of responsible animal research and to denounce acts of terrorism toward animal researchers and their families.
Many of my ScienceBloglings have rightly called out animal rights terrorists who target researchers' children. They are absolutely right to do so.
Yesterday, as part of ongoing follow up on my story in this week's New York Times Magazine, I posted about