impossible.”^106 Inotherwords,Whiteseeshimselfasunder
noethicalconstraintsinregardtowhathedoestoanimals.
Henceitisnotsurprisingthatanotherreporterinterviewing
him should have found that White “chafes at regulations,
whether from hospital administrators or insurers. ‘I’m an
elitist,’hesays.Hebelievesdoctorsshouldbegovernedby
their peers.”^107
AnotheractiveopponentofgovernmentregulationsisDavid
Baltimore, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of
TechnologyandaNobellaureate.Inarecentaddresstothe
national meeting of the American Association for the
AdvancementofSciencehereferredtothe“longhours”that
heand hiscolleagueshad spentfightingregulationoftheir
research.^108 The basis for Baltimore’s opposition to such
regulation was made clear some years earlier, when he
appearedonatelevisionprogramwith Harvardphilosopher
Robert Nozick and other scientists. Nozick asked the
scientists whether the fact that an experiment will kill
hundreds of animals is ever regarded, by scientists, as a
reasonfornotperformingit.Oneofthescientistsanswered:
“NotthatIknowof.”Nozickpressedhisquestion:“Don’tthe
animals countatall?” Ascientist countered:“Why should
they?”AtthispointBaltimoreinterjectedthathedidnotthink
that experimenting on animals raised a moral issue at all.^109
MenlikeWhiteandBaltimoremaybebrilliantscientists,but
their utterances on animals show that they are philosophical
ignoramuses.Iknowofnotasingleprofessionalphilosopher
writingtodaywhowould agreethat itis“meaningless” or
“impossible”toincludeanimalsinourethicalsystemorthat
experimenting on animals raises no moral issue. Such