There is no doubt that humans are the most scientifically valid surrogates for other humans.
The dilemma is in the scope of one's ethical purview--that is, nonhuman animals are simply not included in the ethical systems of many biomedical researchers. Herein lies the crux of the debate; when one expands one's circle of compassion to include all animals, alternatives must be found for entertainment, clothing, dietary needs, and even biomedical research.
Through the National Anti-Vivisection Society's support, the International Foundation for Ethical Research is actively seeking means of advancing the goals of biomedicine without causing stress, pain, suffering, and death to other creatures.
Is it not axiomatic that moral considerations should necessarily take precedence over scientific hypotheses?
DONALD J. BARNES
Director of Education
National Anti-Vivisection Society
53 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Ill. 60604-3795
