.:..::..:..:..:NATURE::=....:v..:::.:::..::.oL302::._::_21=APRIL::....:.:..::1983 ___ CQRRESPQNDENCE------64'

1 been quoted as saying : "What are we to Animals' rights and wrongs do about genuine conflicts of interest like rats biting slum children? ... the essential SIR - The case for animal rights is really from any beliefs, it is a species-specific point is just that we do see this as a conflict much simpler than your anonymous article characteristic of human suffering that it of interests, that we recognize that rats (Nature 24 March, p.287) would suggest. is modified by beliefs concerning its have interests too." Whilst animals differ from us in many aetiology. A simple example of this is A candidate for the Sierra Club Board of ways, such as intelligence, strengt.h, the exclusively human phenomenon of Directors has pushed it a little further in his language and appearance, these dif­ placebos. A more complex example is the election statement by saying" All life forms ferences are entirely arbitrary and can oc­ different affective reactions people have to from blue whales to bacteria have an equal cur within our own species. Animals are similar injuries when they believe they are right to exist". This raises the question of like us in one crucial respect- they too can accidents compared with when they believe the abrogation of the rights of intestinal experience pain, fear and stress, and on they are the products of intention. People coliforms by the end result of peristalsis. that basis the National Anti-Vivisection also suffer differently a similar physical in­ Also, it is doubtful whether pathogenic Society believes they should receive the jury according to whether they have con­ microorganisms perceive the rights of their same respect and consideration we would sented for example to medical treatment or hosts. It brings us back to the darwinian expect for each other. The suffering which have it done against their will. There is no notion of the struggle for existence, in is so often inseparable from animal experi­ comparable sentience in nonhumans. The which our own species has been perhaps mentation, and the intensive forms of involvement of beliefs is central to human over-successful, but not sufficiently suc­ animal husbandry, hardly approach this experience and our sentient nature. It not cessful as to stop competing with other ideal. only underlies our capacity to concep­ biota. Obviously the inflicting of needless It is only the enormous implications of tualize moral frameworks but the human pain is to be avoided. such an ethical revolution that complicate need for them. THOMAS H. JUKES the issue. In the same way, logical (2) His attack on "speciesism" using Department of Biophysics arguments for the abolition of slavery were analogies that animal experience has with and Medical Physics, clouded by implications of economic col­ that of retarded and infant humans ignores University of California, Berkeley, USA lapse. the importance of generalizing human In the case of animal experiments, rights to all classes of human experience. If 1. Parity Foundation Newsmagazine Vol. 1,7 (1981). numerous powerful influences work to certain groups of humans were exempted keep the status quo. The introduction of there could be the risk that by accident or potentially highly profitable products is design - witness present-day psychiatric legally dependent on animal tests whilst practice in the Soviet Union - fully sen­ Toxin gene cloning of tient humans would be denied their rights scientists will be averse to losing one SIR - In considering the applicability of their traditional "research tools". Nor by being misclassified. cloned toxin genes to biological warfare, should we forget the laboratory animal (3) For most of this century anti­ James Larrick's letter (and indeed, the title breeders and associated industries. vivisectionists have concluded, since we your editors attached to it, "Beware cloned With such powerful vested interests cannot predict the beneficial consequences toxins") suggests that cloned toxins are there has been understandable, though of pure research using vivisection, that no more dangerous than these toxins lamentable, lack of government sympathy. moral obligation to human welfare is ef­ produced in their natural hosts (Nature 24 But recent moves to link votes with animal fected by restricting it in the interests of February, p.651). This is highly protection promise to make this an impor­ animal welfare. However, though on any improbable. In fact, it is likely that these tant political issue and it may well be that particular occasion of its being asserted this cloned toxins will be less dangerous (in governments will be finally persuaded to is no doubt true, retrospectively all such Escherichia coli K-12, at least) because of take steps towards reform. To begin with claims until now have been shown to be the differences in cellular compartmental­ this could mean eliminating the LD50 test, false by the sequential development of ization and post-translational processing restricting funds for the use of animals in medical science. I cannot invalidate Peter which must accompany the secretion of psychological and behavioural research, Singer's claims that in restricting vivisec­ these toxic proteins from their natural and real government support for the tion he is not restricting future human hosts. development of alternative methodologies. welfare, but it is clear that all previous The example cited by Mr Larrick, In the case of toxicity testing, at least, the assumptions to this effect have been shown diphtheria toxin, illustrates this point well. to be erroneous and present-day claims need for humane and more reliable tests Diphtheria toxin produced by certain has long been apparent. might be equally so. It is reasonable to be (widely available) strains of Yet how much better it would be for believe that restricting research in the name Corynebacterium diphtheriae may government and scientists to take the in­ of animal rights is to act contrary to our produce and secrete up to 500 xg per itiative and respond positively to moral obligations to future generations not now millilitre of diphtheria toxin (this is growing public concern, instead of acting knowingly to restrict the opportunities they equivalent to about 70,000 human LD oS defensively as your article rather negatively might have to alleviate or prevent human 5 per litre). One hardly needs a recombinant suggests. The question of animal rights can suffering. To have acted on animal rights in E. coli strain to manufacture this toxin. In be ignored. the past would have denied many patients no longer addition, the highly toxinogenic strains of RollEIH SHARPE today the care that medical progress has C. diphtheriae mentioned above are National Anti-Vivisection Society, produced. Can it be right to deny the future essentially avirulent due to their inability to improvement in treatment efficacy conse­ London WJ, UK colonize the throat, pointing to the multi­ SIR - Your News and Views comment, quent to implementing the unproven con­ factorial requirements of virulence. "Do laboratory animals have rights?" cept of animal rights? There is a great need for public aware­ (Nature 24 March, p.287) fails to point out JOHN R. SKOYLI'S ness about the potential dangers and that Professor Peter Singer's notions of LondonNW3, UK abuses of chemical and biological warfare. animal rights, though popular, have The particular letter you chose to print, dubious foundations. SIR - The cacophonous neologism however, did little to advance this ( 1) Peter Singer ignores the basic "speciesism" is used (Nature 24 March, objective. distinctiveness of the human experience of p.287) in a discussion of animal experimen­ KEN COLEMAN pain that underlies morality. While tation, quoting Professor Peter Singer. Harvard Medical School, nonhumans experience pain in isolation Singer's dicta extend beyond this; he has Boston, Massachusetts, USA © 1983 Nature Publishing Group