Best Read-Aloud Books Gr. 6 to 8

17 Pages·2012·0.27 MB·English

HIGH SCHOOL BIOETHICS PROJECT
ETHICS OF ANIMAL USE IN RESEARCH
OVERVIEW LEARNING OUTCOMES
This module urges students to think about 1. Understand the ethical issues surrounding
how we use animals in our everyday lives and killing or inflicting pain on animals for human
in biomedical research, and to evaluate philo- benefit
sophical and ethical issues surrounding animal 2. Review and evaluate philosophical and ethical
use. Animals are obviously living, breathing, arguments concerning the value, rights, or
complex beings like humans, but at the same welfare of animals
time, they differ from us in many ways, and we 3. Assess possible shortcomings and challenges
treat animals very differently than we treat other of current regulations of research on animals
humans. In what fundamental ways do animals and consider changes
differ from humans? What justifies our differen-
tial treatment of animals? Do animals deserve
the same level of rights and respect as humans?
If so, why? Or are they so significantly different PROCEDURES AND ACTIVITIES
that we should treat them with a different code
of ethics? Students will explore these and other This unit uses a student-centered and interactive
questions from a variety of religious and philo- approach to teaching. Activities are designed to
sophical perspectives. allow for a maximum degree of student partici-
pation and collaboration. Each activity is marked
CONTENTS as an individual-, partner-, or group activity, or as
a teacher-directed class discussion.
1. Introduction to Topic
2. Animal Use, Cases, and Controversies The following icons are used to designate the
3. Do Animals Have Moral Status or Value? different types of activities:
4. The Modern Philosophical Debate About
Animal Use in Research
5. Rules and Regulations
6. Alternatives to Animal Use in Biomedical Individual Activity

Research
7. References and Additional Resources
Partner Activity

Group Activity
Teacher-Directed Class Discussion
1. INTRODUCTION TO TOPIC 2. Share and compare your notes with a
partner. How did your response differ from
A note on terminology: Emphasize to students that of your partner? Divide words into two
that human beings are animals, but for purpos- categories: positive, negative. Which of
es of this lesson, the term “animals” will be the two categories has more items? What
used to refer specifically to non-human animals. prompted your negative reactions? (e.g.
disgust, pity, compassion, hunger, etc.)
3. Mention to the class that the Whole Foods

supermarket chain stopped selling live
Students will answer the following questions to
lobsters in 2006. Any idea why?
gauge their pre-existing knowledge of the topic:
• Have you ever conducted experiments in
science class using living animals?
• Have you ever dissected an animal in sci-
ence class?
• Do you own a pet? Do you think it/he/she Share the following quotations with your stu-
experiences pain in the same way we do? dents:
• What do you think is the main difference
between animals and humans? PETA: “Lobsters are known to live more than
• Do animals have emotions? 145 years in the ocean and can travel more
• Do you think animals do or should have than 100 miles per year. Lobsters have sophis-
rights the way humans do? ticated nervous systems, and are capable of
experiencing pain and suffering. In their natural
ocean homes, they have been observed walk-
2. ANIMAL USE, CASES AND CONTROVERSIES ing claw-in claw, the old leading the young.”
Below are various options for teacher-directed John Mackey, Whole Foods’ co-founder and
activities to spur class discussion of animal use chief executive: “We place as much emphasis
in our society and controversial cases. on the importance of humane treatment and
quality of life for all animals as we do on the
expectations for quality and flavor.”
Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman for PETA: “The

ways that lobsters are treated would warrant
felony cruelty to animals charges if they were
dogs or cats.”
Tony Blankley, Washington Times Op-ed, June 21.
2006: “Invertebrates, such as lobsters and snails
(which are also delicious) conveniently (for those
of us who love to eat lobsters and snails and also
feel sympathy for animals) have simple nervous
systems made up of chain ganglia — groups of
1. Look at the picture above. Write down the
neurons connected by nerve fibers. According to
first 3-5 words that come to mind.
Professor Craig W. Stevens of Oklahoma State
University in Tulsa, the chain ganglia network is
so simple it doesn’t require a brain.”
Ask students: Are the statements in the Consider the following list of animals: chimpan-
quotations above for, or against the sale and zee, clam, elephant, octopus, mouse, dog, your
cooking of live lobsters? pet, goldfish, cow, corals, fly, dolphin, canary,
shark, horse, rat, spider.
For
• Lobsters have simple nervous systems that Divide these animals into three categories to
don’t require a brain, so they don’t feel pain. the best of your ability: animals that can feel
pain, animals that cannot feel pain, and animals
Against you aren’t sure about.
• Lobsters have complex nervous systems
and are capable of experiencing pain and Feels Pain Cannot Feel Pain Not Sure
suffering
• The treatment of lobsters would warrant
felony [charges for] cruelty to animals if they
were dogs or cats
Discussion Questions:
• How can the obvious contradiction be-
tween the descriptions of the nervous Compare your assumptions with a partner. What
system of lobsters be resolved? What are criteria, principles or assumptions determined
the definitions of “simple” and “complex” your decision? (e g. animals’ behavior indicates
in these statements? pain, assumptions about nervous system, intu-
• Are there ways to determine whether ition, degree of similarity to humans, etc.)
animals can experience pain based on the
make-up and structure of their brains? Collect and discuss the students’ findings.
• Is it possible (at all) to determine with cer- What are these decisions based on? Record
tainty whether animals (human or nonhu- and organize principles used to make their de-
man) can experience pain? cisions on the board, e.g. behavior indicating
• If so, should our knowledge about pain pain, human reactions to pain, which class of
influence the way we treat our animals? animals they belong to, level of intelligence,
• One of the arguments above compares structure/make-up of brain/nervous system.
the treatment of lobsters to that of dogs
and cats. Is this argument convincing? Discussion Questions:
Why or why not? • Based on what we know so far, do you
• If the lobster in the picture above were believe it is possible to determine whether
instead a cat or a chimpanzee, would you or not an animal experiences pain, and to
feel differently? How and why? what degree?
• Should the ability to experience pain be
our main criterion in determining how we
should treat animals?
• If so, is it always wrong to inflict suffering

on those animals that definitely experi-
Let’s assume the ability to experience pain could,
ence pain?
and should, be used in determining the way we
treat animals. Where should we draw the line?

Let’s take a step back for a moment and look
at the many different ways in which animals
are used in our society. What are some exam- mine how we should treat animals?
ples? (E.g. sports, food, pets, research, agri- • Should we distinguish between different
culture, etc.) degrees (more or less justifiable amounts)
of discomfort, pain, or suffering?
Break up students into small groups of three to • Finally, does our treatment of animals (and
five. Each group will research one of the follow- our justification for inflicting pain and suf-
ing areas in which animals are used by humans. fering) depend on the purpose and benefit
Based on our previous discussions about pain for us?
and the status of animals, consider whether the
use of animals in the category you research is:
1) always justified, 2) never justified, or 3) some- 3. DO ANIMALS HAVE MORAL STATUS
times justified. Provide reasons for your decision. OR VALUE?

Categories: As we have seen in the first segment of this
1. Raising and killing animals to serve as food module, one approach to the question of
for us how animals should (and, more importantly,
2. Killing animals that are a direct threat or nui- shouldn’t) be treated is to look at whether an-
sance to us (e.g. sharks, mosquitoes, rats, imals experience pain as we do. The problem
deer in urban areas, etc.) with relying on pain as the only criterion is
3. Using animals in research that could help that it may not be easy (or possible) to deter-
protect us from disease, pain, suffering, mine whether animals experience pain at all,
premature death, etc. and to what degree.
4. Using animals to make our lives more plea-
surable (e.g. to make fur products or test Furthermore, there may be cases in which we
perfumes and beauty products) may consider it ethically permissible to inflict
5. Using animals in sports/entertainment at least some level of discomfort, pain, or even
(horseback riding, hunting, dog-, bull-, cock- death on (some) animals.
fighting, circus, etc.)
6. Using animals to work or perform tasks Perhaps there is another way to determine
for us (agriculture, seeing-eye dogs, police how we should treat animals. Namely by
dogs, dogs in the military, etc.) determining the value or moral status of an-
imals, which may then allow us to formulate
Groups will present their findings. As they principles that could be used as a guide to our
listen, students should identify and record the treatment of animals.
reasons/principles that were used to decide
which of these uses of animals are justified or When we talk about something having “value,”
not (e.g. degree of benefit to humans, necessi- what exactly do we mean? To do this, we must
ty, nature, suffering, etc.) distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic value.
Further Questions for Discussion: Intrinsic Vs. Extrinsic Value
• If in some cases, it is permissible to kill or
inflict some level of discomfort or pain on Intrinsic Value and Goods:
animals, what justifies such treatment? • Something just is valuable; non-derivative-
• If pain is not the main criterion, are there ly good
other criteria that could be used to deter- • The value is an internal property of some-
thing, defines its existence
• Something has intrinsic value if it is valu-
able “in itself,” “for its own sake,” “as
such” or “in its own right” Religious and Philosophical Views on the
Value of Animals
Extrinsic Value:
• Instrumental goods

• Good for something else, i.e. “is a means
With a partner, decide which of the following
to an end”
quotes from a variety of religious and philo-
sophical texts consider animals to have intrin-
sic value, extrinsic value, or both.
Hebrew Scripture/Old Testament

“Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the sev-
Based on the definitions above, students
enth day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine
should decide on at least three things they
ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and
believe have “intrinsic” value. (e g. democra-
the stranger, may be refreshed.” (Exodus)
cy, freedom, liberty, life, beauty, art, the earth/
environment, nature, etc.).
“You shall not muzzle an ox when it is tread-
ing out the grain.” (Deut. 25:4)
Collect and discuss students’ findings. What
gives these items “intrinsic” value? In other
“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
words, what makes them good “as such” or “in
earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over
themselves”? (E.g. the line in the declaration
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
of independence: “We hold these truths to be
air, and over every living thing that moveth
self-evident...” shows the need for basic princi-
upon the earth.” (Genesis)
ples that we can all agree upon and that cannot,
or should not, be further questioned).
“For the fate of the sons of men and the fate
of beasts is tine same. As one dies so dies
In what way can we say that humans have in-
the other; indeed, they all have the same
trinsic value that is not limited to being used for
breath and there is no advantage for man over
some purpose? (i.e. that a human is an end-in-
beast for all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19)
itself rather than a means to an end?)
“His compassion rests upon all his creatures.”
Do animals also have intrinsic value, or do they
(Psalms 145:9)
merely have extrinsic value, e.g. the value of be-
ing used by humans as a means to (our) ends?
New Testament
“What man of you, if he has one sheep and it
Questions for Discussion:
falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold
• What would make animals not have intrin-
of it and lift it out? Of how much more value
sic value the way humans do?
is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do
• What are some key differences that give us
good on the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:11-12)
rights and moral standing, but not animals?
• Do some animals have more (or a different
St. Thomas Aquinas
degree of) intrinsic value than others? Why?
“...According to the Divine ordinance the life of
animals and plants is preserved not for them-
selves but for man. Hence, as Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei i, 20), ‘by a most just ordinance
of the Creator, both their life and their death
are subject to our use!” (Summa Theologica)
ting oneself in the place of the other, let no
St. Francis of Assisi one kill nor cause another to kill.” (Dhamma-
“Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first pada 129, Karma and status)
duty to them, but to stop there is not enough.
We have a higher mission—to be of service Native American
to them wherever they require it.” “What is a man without the beasts? If all the
beasts were gone, men would die form great
Hinduism loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the
“Having well considered the origin of flesh foods. beasts also happens to man.” (Chief Seattle)
And the cruelty of fettering and slaying corpo-
real beings let man entirely abstain from eating Aristotle
flesh.” (Manusmriti 5.49, Early Hindu Scripture) “In like manner we may infer that, after the
birth of animals, plants exist for their sake,
“To my mind the life of a lamb is no less pre- and that the other animals exist for the sake
cious than that of a human being. I should be of man, the tame for use and food, the wild,
unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake if not all at least the greater part of them, for
of the human body. I hold that the more help- food, and for the provision of clothing and
less a creature, the more entitled it is to the various instruments. Now if nature makes
protection by man from the cruelty of man.” nothing incomplete, and nothing in vain, the
(Mahatma Gandhi) inference must be that she has made all ani-
mals for the sake of man.” (Politics)
“I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All
the scientific discoveries stained with inno- Immanuel Kant
cent blood I count as of no consequence.” “...Every rational being, exists as an end in
(Mahatma Gandhi) himself and not merely as a means to be
arbitrarily used by this or that will...Beings
Jainism whose existence depends not on our will but
“In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief on nature have, nevertheless, if they are not
we should regard all creatures as we regard rational beings, only a relative value as means
our own self, and should therefore refrain and are therefore called things. On the other
from inflicting upon others such injury as hand, rational beings are called persons inas-
would appear undesirable to us if inflicted much as their nature already marks them out
upon ourselves.” (Yogashastra, Jain Scripture) as ends in themselves.” (Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals)
“This is the quintessence of wisdom; not to
kill anything. All breathing, existing, living sen- “So far as mere reason can judge, man has
tient creatures should not be slain, nor treated duties only to man; for his duty to any subject
with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor is moral necessitation by that subject’s will.
driven away. This is the pure unchangeable Hence the necessitating (obligating) subject
Law. Therefore, cease to injure living things.” must, first, be a person; and this person
(Yogashastra, Jain Scripture) must, secondly, be given as an object of
experience . . . but with all our experience we
Buddhism know of no being other than man that would
“All living things fear being beaten with clubs. be susceptible of obligation. Therefore man
All living things fear being put to death. Put- can have no duties to beings other than man.”
(Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals)
Jeremy Bentham
“The day may come when the rest of the an- Primarily Primarily Not Sure/
Intrinsic Extrinsic Both (?)
imal creation may acquire those rights which
Buddhism New Testament Hebrew
never could have been witholden from them
Jainism Thomas Aquinas Scripture/
but by the hand of tyranny The French have
Francis of Assisi Aristotle Old Testament
already discovered that the blackness of the Bentham Kant Hinduism
skin is no reason why a human being should Schopenhauer Native American (?)

be abandoned without redress to the caprice
of a tormentor. It may one day come to be
recognized that the number of the legs, the
villosity of the skin, or the termination of the
os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient

for abandoning a sensitive being to the same
Collect students’ findings and consider the
fate.” (An Introduction to the Principles of
following questions:
Morals and Legislation)
• What are the main criteria used in these
quotes to determine whether animals have
“What else is it that should trace the insu-
intrinsic or extrinsic value?
perable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or
• Which of the arguments/criteria used to
perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-
determine how we should treat animals do
grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a
you find most compelling, and why?
more rational, as well as a more conversable
• Do you believe that there is a conclusive
animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or
answer to this question, or is it ultimately
even a month, old. But suppose they were
up to each individual person to decide how
otherwise, what would it avail? The question
to treat animals?
is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk?
• What additional information do we need to
but, Can they suffer?” (An Introduction to the
arrive at a conclusion?
Principles of Morals and Legislation)
4. THE MODERN AND PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE
Arthur Schopenhauer ABOUT ANIMAL USE IN RESEARCH
“Compassion for animals is intimately asso-
ciated with goodness of character, and it may
In this section, we will discuss the modem phil-
be confidently asserted that he, who is cruel
osophical debate on the issue of the use of ani-
to living creatures, cannot be a good man.”
mals in research. Students will explore positions
(On the Basis of Morality)
on this issue, held by four prominent ethicists,
namely Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Bernard Rollin,
“The assumption that animals are without rights
and Arthur Caplan. After considering possible
and tire illusion that our treatment of them has
arguments for and against the use of animals in
no moral significance is a positively outrageous
research, students will be introduced to some
example of Western crudity and barbarity.
basic facts about the scale and nature of animal
Universal compassion is the only guarantee of
use in research today, followed by a discussion
morality.” (On the Basis of Morality)
of views of the four ethicists mentioned above.

Ask students to categorize the views repre-
Vivisection
sented in the quotations above by how they
interpret non-human animals’ value.
The question of the treatment of animals (in
the West) began with a public debate about
the pros and cons of vivisection in England in
the 19th century. This debate led to the first use is now a huge part of research and experi-
legislation on the treatment of animals in 1876. mentation in many different industries.
1. What is vivisection? (Etymology: Combina-
tion of the Latin words “vivus” (alive) and Number of animals currently used in research
“secure” (to cut). Vivisection is the practice in the US:
of doing scientific or medical experiments
on live animals. Recent (2009) United States Department of
2. Based on our discussions so far, what do Agriculture statistics list a total of 1,136,841
you think would have been the main argu- primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs,
ments for and against vivisection, when hamsters, and other species as being subject-
this first became an issue in England in the ed to experimental procedures. The species
19th century? by species listing includes:
3. Collect and discuss students’ findings, then 72,037 dogs
share with students some of the actual 69,990 primates
arguments used in the debate, and the 65,615 pigs
principles on which these arguments were 236,511 rabbits
based, as well as information about legisla- 22,687 cats
tion from the debate about vivisection. 172,498 hamsters
31,106 other farm animals
Pro Vivisection Contra Vivisection 13,240 sheep
136,509 other animals
Need For human health We can eliminate much of
207,257 guinea pigs
and well being; no the animal research we
real alternatives. currently conduct;
The species that are not covered by the
continued reliance of
scientists on animal Animal Welfare Act, such as rats, mice, etc.
models because of an are not counted. Additionally, these statistics
economic or financial
do not cover animals that are caged in labora-
power structure
tories, but are being held for conditioning or
maintaining the status
breeding rather than used for experiments.
quo; cosmetics
Moral Animals don’t Research shows animals Four views of contemporary philosophers:
Equity experience pain and are remarkably similar to
distress the way humans; sentience,
Introduction: The four ethicists highlighted in
humans might; consciousness; feel pain.
this section of the unit represent different po-
humans count more.
sitions in the current debate on the treatment
Priority There’s plenty of High priority b/c animals of animals. Their positions are summarized in
misery in human are vulnerable to
direct quotations from their writings and in-
conditions that unavoidable suffering
terviews. Your task will be to identify the key
could use the caused by humans.
arguments contained in the views they hold.
attention of the
antivivisectionists.
or
Contemporary Use of Animals in Research
Students will work in small groups. They will
While vivisection constituted a very small
be provided information on each of the four
part of research in the 19th century when the
thinker’s position. Alternatively, groups of stu-
debate about vivisection took place, animal
dents may be provided with the information
on just one of these thinkers listed below, and
be asked to research them independently.
mals do not have to the same or a higher de-
Each group will try to answer the following gree. Someone might try to argue that what
questions about the view of the ethicist they makes it wrong to experiment on a human
have been assigned: infant is that the infant will, in time and if left
• What is the main criterion or guiding princi- alone, develop into more than the nonhuman,
ple used to determine how we should treat but one would then, to be consistent, have
animals? to oppose abortion, since the fetus has the
• Does your ethicist believe that conducting same potential as the infant—indeed, even
research on animals is morally legitimate, contraception and abstinence might be wrong
or not? on this ground, since the egg and sperm, con-
• Do you agree with the position represented sidered jointly, also have the same potential.
by your ethicist? Why or why not? In any case, this argument still gives us no
reason for selecting a nonhuman, rather than
#1 PETER SINGER a human with severe and irreversible brain
This book [Animal Liberation] is about the tyr- damage, as the subject for our experiments.
anny of human over nonhuman animals This (All Animals Are Equal)
tyranny has caused and today is still causing
an amount of pain and suffering that can only #2 TOM REGAN
be compared with that which resulted from There are many people who feel that we have
the centuries of tyranny by white humans an obligation to be kind to animals, and not to
over black humans. The struggle against this be cruel to them. But this view doesn’t make
tyranny is a struggle as important as any of it a matter of justice that we treat animals in a
the moral and social issues that have been certain way—just that it is nice if we are kind
fought in recent years. (Animal Liberation) and not very good if we are cruel. Many peo-
ple think that we should be nice to animals
[The A]rgument about vivisection...has been put because if we are not nice to animals we will
in absolutist terms: would the abolitionist [i.e. a not be nice people, and then we will end up
person in favor of abolishing animal testing] be beating up our children and our neighbors
prepared to let thousands die if they could be and so on. The problem is, these views don’t
saved by experimenting on a single animal? The focus on our duty to animals but only on the
way to reply to this purely hypothetical question effects our treatment of animals has on us.
is to pose another: Would the experimenter The rights view says, “We owe it as a matter
be prepared to perform his experiment on an of strict justice to treat animals in a certain
orphaned human infant, if that were the only way.” In particular we owe it to these animals
way to save many lives? If the experimenter is not to eat them, for example, or not to put
not prepared to use an orphaned human infant, them in cages for our entertainment, or not to
then his readiness to use nonhumans is simple use them in education or in surgery, which is
discrimination, since adult apes, cats, mice, so anachronistic and yet characteristic of mo-
and other mammals are more aware of what is dem medical education in the United States.
happening to them, more self-directing and, so The current view is, “These animals are ours,
far as we can tell, at least as sensitive to pain as we may do with them as we wish.” The rights
any human infant. view says, “No you may not. They cannot
claim their rights, they cannot understand
There seems to be no relevant characteristic their rights, and in this way they are very
that human infants possess that adult mam- much like mentally enfeebled human beings.
But they have them none the less.’’
(Interview, taken from: http://appethics.
blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/interview-with-re- have communicated their sorrow and perplex-
gan-animal-rights.html) ity and anxiety and anger and fear and grief
when they are wrenched out of a rich environ-
In the case of the use of animals in science, ment where they were being treated as ‘hon-
the rights view is categorically abolitionist. orary humans’—sometimes living as a child in
Lab animals are not our tasters; we are not the researchers’ homes—and suddenly in-
their kings. Because these animals are treat- carcerated in a place where they are used for
ed routinely, systematically as if their value invasive research, and have no one, human or
were reducible to their usefulness to others, ape, to communicate with, and live wretched,
they are routinely, systematically treated with isolated, deprived, lives. Most tragic, perhaps,
a lack of respect, and thus are their rights is that they cannot understand what they
routinely, systematically violated. have done to merit what they, in their sublime
innocence, must surely see as punishment.
This is just as true when they are used in
trivial, duplicative, unnecessary or unwise re- Here, I have suggested, we can accelerate the
search as it is when they are used in studies moral and legal enfranchisement of animals,
that hold out real promise of human benefits. at least of these animals, by using the extant
We can’t justify harming or killing a human be- legal machinery, and letting them tell their
ing (my Aunt Bea, for example) just for these story in the context of the judicial system. I
sorts of reason. Neither can we do so even in am envisioning a plausible legal case based on
the case of so lowly a creature as a laboratory the notions of denial of due process and cruel
rat. It is not just refinement or reduction that and unusual punishment. Surely one can make
is called for, not just larger, cleaner cages, the reasonable case that these animals are, by
not just more generous use of anesthetic or all rational standards, persons who have been
the elimination of multiple surgeries, not just denied the fundamental civil rights and proce-
tidying up the system. It is complete replace- dures due to persons. These animals possess
ment. The best we can do when it comes to measurable intelligence, sometimes in excess
using animals in science is not to use them. of that possessed by certain humans, they can
That is where our duty lies, according to the reason and, most important, they can elo-
rights view. (The Case for Animal Rights) quently speak for themselves, and tell of their
anguish and sorrow.
#3 BERNARD ROLLIN
Consider, then, a chimpanzee or an orangutan I am thus envisioning a new ‘monkey trial,’
or a gorilla who has learned to communicate at least as spectacular in its appeal and im-
with humans using a system perceived by plications as the Scopes trial, which tested
most people as indeed linguistic. The exper- the Tennessee law against the teaching of
iment is terminated, and the animal is no evolution. Such a trial would be extraordinarily
longer of use and is turned over to a zoo, or salubrious in just the same sense...This trial
to a laboratory. When I first discussed this would force an examination of our moral and
sort of case, in the late 1970s, this scenario attendant legal commitments, and illuminate
was hypothetical. By the late 1980s, however, areas too long left in the dark.
it was all too real. Unfortunately, as Eugene
Linden has so deftly documented, this sort of Whatever the outcome of such a trial, the an-
case has occurred with heart-rending fre- imals would of necessity win. If the trial were
quency. Linden has told of how these animals lost, the issues would still have been powerful-
ly and unforgettably aired, and the failure of our
current law and morality to protect these inno-