Meeting The Challenge

As a charter subscriber to The Scientist, I have noted an increasing bias toward the acceptance of traditional "ends-justify-the-means" pro-vivisection arguments in your publication. Albert M. Kligman's Commentary "Animal Rights (And Wrongs) [The Scientist, Oct. 29, 1990, page 16] underscores this perception by damning the animal protection movement with "faint praise," while conveying a surprising bewilderment of non-anthropocentric values. Kligman "demands" that animal advocates be willing t

Donald Barnes
Jan 6, 1991
As a charter subscriber to The Scientist, I have noted an increasing bias toward the acceptance of traditional "ends-justify-the-means" pro-vivisection arguments in your publication. Albert M. Kligman's Commentary "Animal Rights (And Wrongs) [The Scientist, Oct. 29, 1990, page 16] underscores this perception by damning the animal protection movement with "faint praise," while conveying a surprising bewilderment of non-anthropocentric values.

Kligman "demands" that animal advocates be willing to openly debate with members of the scientific establishment, implying a reluctance within the pro-animal camp. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is increasingly difficult to find members of the active biomedical research community who will agree to such debates within our public institutions. As an ex-vivisector who spent 16 years coveting the same anthropocentric views espoused by Kligman before re-educating myself to both the ethical and scientific realities of vivisection, I am delighted by Kligman's challenge: "As for myself, I would...

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?