102 / Chapter 4
agree that killing an animal, say, a dog, simply because I might fi nd
it fun to do so is morally wrong. We recognize that the death is a
loss, even if it is a less signifi cant loss than that associated with a
human death. Our objections to such behavior are enshrined in laws
against cruelty. Thus, as a society, we place limits on what we can
do to animals. Scholars from disparate backgrounds have argued
that animals have at least some moral standing, and some take this
to the point of granting animals rights.^57 There is no single qual-
ity that all humans possess, which consequently gives all humans
greater moral weight than any other animal. To experiment on an-
imals simply because they are not humans is considered speciesist,
and species, like the traits of race and sex, is morally irrelevant.^58
Proponents of animal research portray the work they do as
noble, and the suffering and deaths of animals as heroic “sacrifi ces”
on behalf of humankind. They see the opposition as misinformed
and sentimental, and a threat to the scientifi c enterprise. Worse,
they lump groups that use violence and intimidation together with
those who oppose the research but would never break into a lab,
and those who support most kinds of research but want stricter wel-
fare standards and greater scrutiny. Opponents of animal research
see the enterprise as cruel and misguided and the researchers as
“sadistic fools.”^59 The positions appear to leave very little room for
a middle ground. However, as Julian Groves found in his study of
those on both sides of the debate, in reality, the lines are not so
clearly drawn.^60 Animal researchers frequently express care about
and concern for animals. Activists often use scientifi c language to
justify their opposition to experimentation. Like Groves, I would
argue that there is a point of consensus: both sides care about the
well-being of animals.^61
Reducing Animals’ Vulnerability
in Labs
We make animals vulnerable in many ways by confi ning them in
research labs. And we make them vulnerable to whatever experi-
mental procedures researchers may enact on them. We do this so