As a result, Frey recognizes that “the case for
antivivisectionismisfarstrongerthanmostpeopleallow.”He
concludes that if one seeks to justify experimenting on
nonhumananimalsbythebenefitstheyproduce(whichis,in
hisview,theonlywayinwhichthepracticecanbejustified),
thereisnointrinsicreasonwhysuchbenefitswouldnotalso
justify experiments on “humans whose quality of life is
exceededbyorequaltothatofanimals.”Henceheaccepts
experimentson animals where the benefitsare sufficiently
important,butonlyatthepriceofacceptingthepossibilityof
similar experiments on humans.^39
Moredramaticstill,wasthechangeofheartshown bythe
Canadian philosopher Michael Allen Fox. In 1986 the
publicationofhisbookTheCaseforAnimalExperimentation
seemed sure to earn him a prominent spot at scholarly
conferencesasthechiefphilosophicaldefenderoftheanimal
research industry. The drug companies and lobbyists for
animal experimentswho thoughtthey had, atlast, a tame
philosopher they could use to defend themselves against
ethical criticism must havebeen dismayedhowever, when
Foxsuddenly disavowedhisownbook. Inaresponse toa
highlycriticalreviewinTheScientist,Foxwrotealetterto
theeditor sayingthat heagreed with thereviewer:he had
cometoseethattheargumentsofhisbookweremistaken,
anditwasnotpossibletojustifyanimalexperimentationon
ethical
grounds. Later Fox followed through on his courageous
change of mind by becoming a vegetarian.^40
TheriseoftheAnimalLiberationmovementmaybeunique
amongmodernsocialcausesintheextenttowhichithasbeen
linked with the development of the issue as a topic of