toputitintopracticewhenjudgingapplicationstoperform
animal experiments, because they would be unable to
persuadeothermembersofthecommittee.Instead,theyare
likely to insist on proper consideration of alternatives,
genuineeffortstominimizepain,andacleardemonstrationof
significant potential benefits, sufficiently important to
outweighanypainorsufferingthatcannotbeeliminatedfrom
theexperiment.Ananimalexperimentationethicscommittee
operating today would almost inevitably apply these
standardsina speciesistmanner,weighinganimalsuffering
morelightlythanpotentialcomparablehumanbenefit;even
so, an emphasis on such standards would eliminate many
painful experiments now permitted and would reduce the
suffering caused by others.
Inasocietythatisfundamentallyspeciesist,thereisnoquick
solutiontosuchdifficultieswithethicscommittees.Forthis
reason someAnimalLiberationistswillhavenothingto do
with them. Instead they demand the total and immediate
elimination of all animal experimentation. Such demands
havebeenputforwardmanytimesduringthelastcenturyand
a half of antivivisection
activity,but theyhaveshown nosignof winningover the
majorityofvotersinanycountry.Meanwhilethenumberof
animalssufferinginlaboratoriescontinuedtogrow,untilthe
recentbreakthroughsdescribedearlierinthischapter.These
breakthroughsresultedfromtheworkofpeoplewhofounda
wayaroundthe“allornothing”mentalitythathadeffectively
meant “nothing” as far as the animals were concerned.
One reason thedemand forimmediate abolitionof animal
experimentation has failed to persuade the public is that
experimentersrespondthattoacceptthisdemandistogiveup