theprospectoffindingacureformajordiseasesthatstillkill
us and our children. In the United States, where
experimenterscandovirtuallyastheypleasewithanimals,
onewayofmakingprogressmightbetoaskthosewhouse
this argument to defend the need for animal experiments
whethertheywouldbepreparedto accepttheverdictofan
ethics committee that, like those in many other countries,
includes animal welfare representatives and is entitled to
weighthecoststotheanimalsagainstthepossiblebenefitsof
the research. If the answer is no, the defense of animal
experimentation by reference to the need to cure major
diseaseshasbeenprovedtobesimplyadeceitfuldistraction
thatservestomisleadthepublicaboutwhattheexperimenters
want:permissiontodowhatevertheylikewithanimals.For
otherwisewhy would theexperimenter not be prepared to
leavethedecisiononcarryingouttheexperimenttoanethics
committee, which would surely be as keen to see major
diseasesendedastherestofthecommunity?Iftheansweris
yes, theexperimenter should be asked to sign a statement
asking for the creation of such an ethics committee.
Supposethatwewereabletogobeyondminimalreformsof
thesortthat already existinthemoreenlightened nations.
Suppose we couldreach a point at which the interests of
animalsreallyweregivenequalconsiderationwiththesimilar
interestsofhumanbeings.Thatwouldmeantheendofthe
vastindustryofanimalexperimentationasweknowittoday.
Aroundtheworld,cageswouldemptyandlaboratorieswould
closedown.Itshould notbe thought,though,that medical
research would grind to a
haltorthatafloodofuntestedproductswouldcomeontothe
market.Sofarasnewproductsareconcerneditistrue,asI
havealreadysaid,thatwewouldhavetomakedowithfewer