others described earlier in this chapter could havetold us
moreabouthumanreactionstotheexperimentalsituationif
theyhadbeencarriedoutonseverelybrain-damagedhumans
instead of dogs or rabbits.
Sowheneverexperimentersclaimthattheirexperimentsare
importantenoughtojustifytheuseofanimals,weshouldask
them whether they would be prepared to use a brain-damaged
humanbeingatasimilarmentalleveltotheanimalstheyare
planningtouse.Icannotimaginethatanyonewouldseriously
proposecarryingouttheexperimentsdescribedinthischapter
onbrain-damagedhumanbeings.Occasionallyithasbecome
known that medical experiments have been performed on
humanbeings without theirconsent; one case did concern
institutionalized intellectually disabled children, who were
givenhepatitis.^120 Whensuchharmfulexperimentsonhuman
beingsbecomeknown,theyusuallyleadtoanoutcryagainst
the experimenters, and rightly so. Theyare, very often,a
furtherexampleofthearroganceoftheresearchworkerwho
justifieseverythingonthegroundsofincreasingknowledge.
But if the experimenter claims that the experiment is
importantenough to justifyinflictingsuffering onanimals,
whyisitnotimportantenoughtojustifyinflictingsuffering
onhumansatthesamementallevel?Whatdifferenceisthere
betweenthetwo?Onlythatoneisamemberofourspecies
and theotheris not?Butto appealto thatdifferenceisto
reveal a biasno moredefensible thanracism orany other
form of arbitrary discrimination.
The analogy between speciesism and racism applies in
practiceaswellasintheoryintheareaofexperimentation.
Blatant speciesism leads to painful experiments on other
species, defended on the grounds of their contribution to