that wiggles is the nose!” Sometimes, however, a little
sensitivitytothecontroversialnatureofthesubjectisshown:
thedescription oftheRodentCarryingCasesuggests,“Use
thisunobtrusivecasetocarryyourfavoriteanimalfromone
placetoanotherwithoutattractingattention.”Inadditionto
the usual cages, electrodes, surgical implements, and
syringes, the catalog advertises Rodent Restraint Cones,
HarvardSwivel-TetherSystems,RadiationResistantGloves,
ImplantableFMTelemetryEquipment,LiquidDietsforRats
andMiceinAlcoholStudies,Decapitatorsforbothsmalland
large animals, and even a Rodent Emulsifier which “will
quickly reduce the remains of a small animal to a
homogenous suspension.”^26
Presumably corporations would not bother to manufacture
and advertise such equipment unless they expected
considerablesales.Andtheitemsarenotgoingtobebought
unless they are going to be used.
Amongthetensofmillionsofexperimentsperformed,onlya
few canpossibly be regarded as contributing to important
medical research. Huge numbers of animals are used in
university departments such as forestry and psychology;
manymoreareused forcommercialpurposes, totest new
cosmetics, shampoos, food coloring agents, and other
inessentialitems. All this canhappenonly because of our
prejudice against takingseriously thesuffering of a being
whoisnotamemberofourownspecies.Typically,defenders
ofexperimentsonanimalsdonotdenythatanimals suffer.
Theycannotdenytheanimals’suffering,becausetheyneed
tostressthesimilaritiesbetweenhumansandotheranimalsin
order to claim that their experiments may have some
relevanceforhumanpurposes.Theexperimenterwhoforces