Animal Research

On page 1 of your May 25, 1992, issue, you state that "the emotional battle over animal welfare is heating up--with many researchers finding themselves caught in the middle." To make matters worse, the article on Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) on page 8 concludes with a statement by Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) implying that AMP ads contribute to a dilemma, with readers having to decide if they are "either for sick children or for the welfare of rats."

Adrian Morrison
Jul 5, 1992
On page 1 of your May 25, 1992, issue, you state that "the emotional battle over animal welfare is heating up--with many researchers finding themselves caught in the middle." To make matters worse, the article on Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) on page 8 concludes with a statement by Martin Stephens of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) implying that AMP ads contribute to a dilemma, with readers having to decide if they are "either for sick children or for the welfare of rats."

There is no battle over animal welfare in the laboratory: AMP and other biomedical researchers are wholeheartedly in favor of good care of their animals. They are, however, unwilling to equate the life of a child with that of a rat.

Stephens is attempting to position his organization in a mythical middle ground between what he sees as two extremes, animal rightists and scientists...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?