infantbeanorphan,toavoidthecomplicationsofthefeelings
ofparents. Specifyingthecasein this wayis, if anything,
overgenerous to those defending the use of nonhuman
animals in experiments, since mammals intended for
experimentaluseareusuallyseparatedfromtheirmothersat
an early age,when theseparation causes distressfor both
mother and young.)
Sofarasweknow,humaninfantspossessnomorallyrelevant
characteristic to a higher degree than adult nonhuman
animals, unless weareto count theinfants’potential asa
characteristic that makesit wrongto experiment on them.
Whetherthischaracteristicshouldcountiscontroversial—if
wecountit,weshallhavetocondemnabortionalongwith
experimentsoninfants,sincethepotentialoftheinfantand
thefetusisthesame.Toavoidthecomplexitiesofthisissue,
however, we can alter our original question a little and
assumethattheinfantisonewithirreversiblebraindamage
sosevereastoruleoutanymentaldevelopmentbeyondthe
level of a six-month-old infant. There are, unfortunately,
many such human beings, locked away in special wards
throughoutthecountry,someofthemlongsinceabandoned
by theirparents and otherrelatives,and, sadly, sometimes
unlovedbyanyoneelse.Despitetheirmentaldeficiencies,the
anatomy and physiology of these infantsare in nearly all
respectsidenticalwiththoseofnormalhumans.If,therefore,
we were to force-feed them with large quantities of floor
polishordripconcentratedsolutionsofcosmeticsintotheir
eyes,wewouldhaveamuchmorereliableindicationofthe
safety of these products for humans than we now get by
attemptingtoextrapolatetheresultsoftestsonavariety of
other species. The LD50 tests, the Draize eye tests, the
radiationexperiments,theheatstrokeexperiments,andmany