The animal testing industry has come under more pressure than ever to conform its practices to modern ethical standards, and yet it consistently fails to do so. No single factor is to blame, but time and money are certainly among the top reasons for lack of reform and change. Ambition is another, within a conservative culture of systemic biases that direct priority to animal testing over alternatives. Ultimately, it would seem that science simply does not care enough about the ethical treatment of nonhumans to bother changing. More concern might emerge if animal testers could actually see ethics and pain as an issue, if, like those that work in other animal use industries, they did not go about their jobs in “ethical blindness.”This term is cited and explained in Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Ecco, 2002), 71.
In 1993, Mary T. Phillips published “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: The Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” in which she documents time spent researching animal testing laboratories in the mid to late 1980s. She writes that some scientists wanted to perform painful experiments but were put off only because scientific journals do not publish the results of painful research.Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 65. Elsewhere she found a total lack of interest in animal analgesia,” that is, the alleviation of animal pain, except among “specialists in veterinary medicine and pain.” It was “not so much that analgesics were withheld,” she writes, “but that so few researchers even considered the subject worth thinking about.”Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 74. The ability of highly rational scientists to shut out inconvenient dilemmas and inconsistencies to the point of nonexistence—just as vivisections have done for centuries—was clearly evident to Phillips in the behavior of modern animal testers:
Although researchers always acknowledged the ability of animals to feel pain, this knowledge remained an abstraction for most. Scientists rarely saw any pain or suffering in their labs. Their view of lab animals as statistical aggregates overshadowed any perception of an individual animal’s feelings at any given moment. And when I went beyond the issue of physical pain to ask about psychological or emotional suffering, many researchers were at a loss to answer… what they actually see when they look at lab animals is a scientific objective, not the animal’s subjective experience.Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 77.
Besides lack of awareness, there is contradictory thinking. Phillips noted that “Researchers continually made distinctions between lab animals and pets, on the one hand, and between lab and wild animals on the other.”Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 77. Even the most rational minds are prone to double standards, to compartmentalizing and ascribing contradictory values from one aspect of life or being to the next.
Ingrained in animal testing culture—learned on the job, necessary for the job—such attitudes are incredibly easy to adopt in an environment whose first principle is an assumed right to use animals and kill them within a speciesist society that assumes the same right for other purposes.
Richard Dawkins describes discrimination against chimpanzees as one of those speciesist double standards, where “laws and our moral conventions” that allow chimpanzees to be reduced to living tools are “saved from awkward ambiguity only by the convenient fact that most intermediates are now extinct.”Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), 262. As Dawkins remarks, there is no “defensible rationale” to it in the case of the chimpanzee.
I have heard decent, liberal scientists, who had no intention of actually cutting up live chimpanzees, nevertheless passionately defending their right to do so if they chose, without interference from the law. Such people are often the first to bristle at the smallest infringement of human rights. The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), 263.
Yes, even scientists well aware of evolutionary relationships will take to the most speciesist practices, emboldened with an enormous sense of entitlement and a belief that they should be allowed to do whatever they like to nonhuman animals, if only meddlers and their laws would not get in the way.
Threatened privilege and that sense of entitlement under attack can bring out the worst in apologists for vivisection. That was seen in the days of the famous brown dog affair, which began after vivisectors experimented on a brown terrier three times in two months from 1902 to 1903, even though the use of an animal more than once for an experiment was banned under the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. Once anti-vivisectionists learned about the brown dog’s abuses, an angry speech was given and later published. It led to a trial brought by the physiologist involved that ultimately went in his favor.
In 1906, however, a statue of the brown dog on drinking fountain was installed in Battersea with a plaque dedicated to its memory and other vivisection victims. A year later it became the subject of vandalism by medical students and was at the center of anti-vivisection and pro-vivisection rallies across London. Eventually, in 1910, Battersea council removed it to be done with all the trouble. What stood out in this affair was the total lack of concern for the brown dog by medical students during its vivisection, their “hooliganism” in court, their later vandalism of the statue, and their rioting at various locations. This is not an attitude of calm rationality or anything close to what might pass for professional ethics.
Today such behavior continues to be exhibited by so-called animal research professionals who are not interested in rational debate. In January, 2014, a peaceful protest against primate vivisection conducted at UCLA was met by UCLA vivisectionists. Video footage of the event show the vivisectionists violently screaming and hurling abuse, including anti-vegetarian cliches. One commentator writing about the fiasco notes that “The video speaks to the animal activists inability to engage in any civil discourse with the researchers: from the moment they approached the animal researchers, they were surrounded by screaming, raging, violent, aggressive men.”Cheryl Abbate, “Speaking of Logical Fallacies… Why the Speaking of Research Community Could Use a Refresher Course in Critical Reasoning,” Thoughts from a Vegan-Feminist-Philosopher-Military Officer, February 4, 2014, http://aphilosophersblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/speaking-of-logical-fallacies-why-the-speaking-of-research-community-could-use-a-refresher-course-in-critical-reasoning/. The kind of arguments and abuse hurled by the scientists is an embarrassment. You hear the same cliches and logical fallacies all the time from secularists in all walks of life, but it is a shock to see scientists revealing the same level of ignorance. What it conveys is how distant they are from ideas surrounding vegetarianism, animal rights, and vivisection cruelty. Take a look at the video.
Out of those two groups, who would you rather babysit your pets or children?
At this point, let’s get one thing straight: the advances in welfare in animal testing have not come from within mainstream science, but under pressure from activists, former animal-testers, vegan skeptics, and others. Scientists, if not largely apathetic, have been plain lazy because they can afford to be. When interviewed for the HBO documentary To Love or Kill: Man vs. Animal (1995), veterinarian Dr. James Mahoney, who worked at the now-defunct LEMSIP laboratory, concurred that “because animals have been so available to us and because we have had no second thoughts in the past about using animals that we’ve been somewhat lazy.” It is too easy not to change and to go along with a deeply embedded inertia. The fact is the gargantuan animal testing industry has no heart to change, and it just does not matter that so much of it is a sham because that sham generates vast amounts of money. The more you look into the testing industry the more Pinker’s vision of welfare-caring scientists morphs further into a fantasy.
Where the Rectitude?
Doctor Ray Greek has spent many years applying reasoned arguments to expose as a fraud the paradigm that nonhuman animal responses to drugs and diseases can predict human responses, such as in his book Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. He rejects the notion that using animals contributes meaningfully to bettering human health. Of the nine basic ways animals are used in research, applied research for prediction simply does not work. Sure, Greek agrees, if you are using animals for generating data or seeking knowledge, you will get data, but that goal is not meant to be useful to human health medicine. You can use animals to incubate viruses too, although you do not need to used them.
The problem, however, is that predictive research is what is sold to the public as the science of cures and treatments, when it is not—it’s a coin toss. So you have predictive research, which does not predict human responses to disease and drugs, and basic research, which has no aim of bettering medicine, and yet they are both sold in the same box labeled as necessary animal testing science, when neither does what it says on the box. In the interview below Greek explains all of this in more detail:
Before even considering the argument that a percentage of testing cannot be done any way other than with nonhuman animals, there are travesties that any sensible and rational person can see should have been ended a long time ago. They are without ambiguity. We have to wonder, then, why have rational scientists and the secular public not supported and campaigned against these travesties alongside activists?
First, they could protest the negligence and lack of concern for the welfare of laboratory animals. But as Phillips reports, “Typical was the comment of one neuroscientist who, when asked about possible boredom of monkeys kept in bare metal cages, answered with a palpable lack of interest: ‘We can speculate about these things, but I think it’s pointless.’”Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 77. Scientists do not want to spend time and resources on welfare. In this respect, the animal testing industry is little different from other animal exploitation industries. It is not just about the killing itself but everything that leads up to it—the deprivation of sunlight and joy, the loneliness of caged life, the hopelessness in the face of the unfathomable, and the fear of large creatures clutching at you. Beagles and other animals might spend years in a barren cage in a basement. There in the tiny cage, with nothing to play with, with no sunlight and only steel to lean on and wires to sit on, they languish, as many millions around the world do, smelling strange chemicals and staring out at walls in the silence, perhaps for whole days over the weekend, uncomprehending.
This was the world of Jerom, a chimpanzee Steven Wise describes at the beginning of Rattling the Cage, who spent 11 years imprisoned by steel and concrete until he died.Steven Wise, Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publishing, 2000), 1-2. They are no longer real animals or seen that way. They are shadows of themselves. People forget this side of the animal testing industry, the interminable hours and years, where they might be in pain or subjected to other distressing routines, such as cage cleaning or the collection of blood or other fluids. Only the most insensitive could not see the necessity for vast improvement to housing facilities and added enrichments. But these animals are not really seen as individual animals.
Moreover, the lack of thought given to the lives of these living tools manifests in other ways people do not think of, such as the absence of measures to prevent laboratory animals deaths from basement flooding. On October 27, 2012, during hurricane Sandy, around 10,000 animals, mostly mice, were drown in their cages when the laboratory basements of the New York University Medical Center were flooded. A similar number of animals drowned in New Orleans from hurricane Katrina’s flood waters. These are not the only cases and it is bound to happen again.
Second, and in relation to the first area of negligence, animal testing supporters should work to improve oversight failures, as oversight has been continually fraught with incompetence and shortfalls. One group that regularly reveals neglect and violations in animal testing laboratories is Stop Exploiting Animals Now (SEAN). In the year Pinker published The Better Angels of Our Nature with his praise for welfare-minded scientists, for example, SEAN released a report on the abuse of nonhuman primates at federally regulated facilities, citing USDA citations for inadequate housing, lack of supervision and neglect, traumatic injury, illegal surgeries, fraudulent reporting, lying about animal suffering, food deprivation, and various deaths through mishandling.Michael A. Budkie, “The Abuse of Non-human Primates in Federally Regulated Laboratories,” SEAN, October 2011, http://www.saenonline.org/articles-2011-abuse.pdf. Its statements from whistleblowers document animal distress from beginning to end.
“The bottom line,” writes Budkie, “is that even in facilities that follow the law, as many as 43% of the primates used in experimentation are exempted from real protection under the law. As long as an animal care committee will approve a procedure anything goes.” Such committees are “almost entirely of people employed by the facilities who profit from performing primate experimentation.” Ethics oversight committees are supposed to consider testing proposals according to the 3Rs—that is, Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement, so that alternatives are considered and suffering reduced. It looks good on paper, but committees do not work and are structurally unsound, as Denise Russell argues in “Why Animal Ethics Committees Don’t Work,” based on animal ethics committees in Australia. Russell identifies seven areas that limit the effectiveness of animal testing ethics committees. Among them is the problem of members coming from within the animal testing industry and the entrenched conservative culture of animal testing disciplines that are resistant to deviating into the world of alternatives.Denise Russell, “Why Animal Ethics Committees Don’t Work,” Between the Species, Vol. 15, Issue 1 (August, 2012). While scientists could help to improve this situation and lobby for significant changes, we can understand why they are unlikely to do so, and why, like veterinarians in a slaughterhouse, animal ethics committees are basically going to okay whatever they can get away with.
What’s more, even if there are committees and legalities associated with the sources that animals are obtained from, dealers run breeding operations such as puppy mills to churn out animals that will live and die in cages and know nothing of the joys of life. Other dealers might obtain animals by equally dubious means, including by stealing, with the only thought being to make cash, not the care for the lives that pass through their hands. Even animal shelter animals or aged zoo animals might end up in a laboratory dungeon.
Third, it does our species no honor to be continuing to test things like vanity products on animals. Scientists are on the wrong side of history if they cannot recognize the abhorrence of torturing an animal to death for the sake of a new mascara or oven cleaner. Such barbarism is a hangover from the days of anthropocentric arrogance, when the most trivial wants of a human superseded even the lives of animals in great numbers. So the support of scientists should be expected in ridding the world of product testing on animals, which includes testing the ingredients to go into making those products.
More and more countries are introducing bans but testing stills goes on around the world. Among the most infamous tests are acute toxicity tests such as the LD50, which is where a range of animals are force feed chemicals until 50 percent of them die. Death can take days or weeks. Death is the desired result, so there is no intercession to put an animal out of its misery until it occurs. Other tests can last up to 12 months using lower doses. Then there is the Draize test, where substances are placed in rabbits’ eyes and the progressive damage can be observed. There are also painful skin irritation tests, other tests designed to cause birth defects, and toxic tests on animal nervous systems and brain functions. Animals forced to endure these tests can suffer pain, blindness, convulsions, seizures, bleeding, respiratory problems, diarrhea, and death—of course, they are all killed eventually. Any so-called scientist involved in such tests is a shameful parody of a true scientist and an embarrassment to the profession. These tests are torturous, unjustifiable, immoral, and based on the delusion of scientific prediction.See Roy Goulding, “the subject and practice of toxicology has become exalted to the eminence of a religion… (and) like a religion it relies rather more on faith than reason,” quoted in M. Balls, “Time to Reform Toxic Tests” (1992) New Scientist, 2 May 1992, 3, 33. So again, self-respecting scientists should be joining activists in combating this unnecessary testing. But where are they, why do we not hear their voices of opposition?
Fourth, there is an incredible amount of waste in the animal testing industry. This from Jerry Vlasak, MD, surgeon, on his experiences of the testing industry
while I was a surgical resident. I was told that I could make a name for myself if I published papers and experimented on animals; and I was told that universities were given LOTS of money by the government as long as they continued to do experiments on animals. Being the naive young doctor and wanting to follow the lead of others, I did a year of vivisection and visited animal labs throughout the country. What I learned and what I saw with my own eyes was mind-boggling. I learned that 85% of all the data gathered from animal experiments was literally thrown away because it was of no use to anyone, human or non-human; never even published, much less used to help people. Almost all of the remainder of this data was never found useful for human healthcare.
And that 1 or 2% of data that was possibly, one day, maybe going to be useful in helping people? That data could have been obtained more accurately and cheaply using modern, progressive non-animal methods. Then I learned that the pharmaceutical companies spent millions of dollars taking doctors out to dinner and paying for lavish vacations for them and their families, and in turn these researchers were to manipulate animal experiments to get the results that the drug industries wanted. Then I learned that the way universities get grant money isn’t by coming up with the best and most scientific research methods, but by continuing to use animals as a model because of the billions of dollars made in the vivisection industry. I learned that the vivisection industry is like the mafia; the scientists and drug companies who engage in animal research will do whatever it takes to continue the practice even though it not only harms humans, but causes enormous agony and suffering to the animals being experimented on.Jerry Vlasak, “Torturing animals for fun and profit,” Eleventh Hour for Animals, http://universityofflorida.us/torturing-animals-for-fun-and-profit/.
Such assertions are supported by critics of Big Pharma, such as Ben Goldacre who in a TED talk explains how evidence based medicine is flawed and rife with misconduct. For example, the negative studies of drugs in human trials are not published, leading to a positive bias and misleading doctors.http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe. This means that numerous animal studies that were done prior to the human trials were all for nothing in the end.
Other testing is made invalid by even factors such as the gender of the scientist interacting with the animals. A huge amount of testing involves ingredients and products that have been no more than tweaked and yet are tested again. These practices are what David Nibert calls “false needs,” where animals die for companies trying to protect themselves from liability.David Nibert, Animal Rights Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Rowman & Little field Publishers, Inc., 2002), 83; also see Richard Ryder, Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research (London: National Anti-Vivisection Society Limited, 1983), 83. And included in worthless testing are substance abuse and behavioral researchers testing. But government funding goes to pharmacy companies for animal testing to the tune of around 7 billion a year. Who’s going to standing the way of that gravy train?
Fifth, scientist should be condemning the abusive and corrupt practices of their peers—along the lines of the fantasy Pinter assumes already exists—but they do not. Careers are at stake. “For the vast bulk of experiments, however, the only necessities are curiosity, commercial profit, and ambition,” writes Richard Ryder, “the suffering of animals is not a price too much to pay for enhanced academic prestige or a better job.”Richard Ryder, Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research (London: National Anti-Vivisection Society Limited, 1983), 99. David Nibert sums up the consensus among most critics:
Most are not sadistic individuals; rather, like most other who oppress, they are primarily driven by a desire for professional or financial gain.” … Many careers are based on animal research and people in those careers don’t want to give up livelihoods.David Nibert, Animal Rights Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Rowman & Little field Publishers, Inc., 2002), 83.
But when about 70% of the millions given to research goes to salaries, you know where animals that cannot defend themselves are going to come in the order of priorities. Money, career and ambition probably lie behind most instances of moral corruption in science and a percentage of that corruption involves animal killing to get ahead. As Ray Greek notes, huge amounts of funding go to Big Pharma and animals in research. Researchers know that if they work with animals, twice as money will come their way and they can published many more papers than if writing on human research—so if promotion, tenure, and salary are based on papers published, it is more beneficial to participate in animal testing with all your heart. Thus the “institutional inertia” continues.
Ambition, Cash, and the Quiet Conscience
The nature of the beast is why scientists are silent, despite their rational and reasoned thinking, and why they do not campaign against needless, wasteful, and corrupt animal testing alongside activists. It explains why evolution has had little effect on moral attitudes from Darwin’s day until the present. Some inroads are being made with cognitive ethology, resulting in more respect for the inner life and cognitive abilities of animals. But this is slow coming. The animal testing industry still treats animals as if their mental lives do not matter or even exist. In doing so, it commits the same sins usually associated with anthropocentrism, the sins once committed under religious authority, and the thinking behind it is delusional and self-serving.
No surprise, then, that critics today continue to see parallels, as critics did in the 19th century, between religious dominion and scientific dominion, since “the fundamentalist and the evolutionist speak a common language of power, appropriation, and consumption.”Matthew Scully, Dominion: the Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002), 306. The same tactics are used by animal testing industries to protect their profits as the religious once used to use to protect their power
Like the Christian church in its hey day, the popes and priests of Science are compelled to defend their authority and power by attacking and discrediting their opponents (in academia and elsewhere). Science exerts a strong influence over government and has the power to create new laws and enforce its interests. Thus, due to intense pressure from Science, the DAAVM in the UK and US has come under fierce attack by the corporate-state complex. Both UK and US governments have placed severe limitations on free speech rights and, ultimately, have criminalized dissent.Steve Best, “Rethinking Revolution: Animal Liberation, Human Liberation, and the Future of the Left,” Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 2, No. 3 (June 2006), http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol2/vol2_no3_Best_rethinking_revolution.htm.
A change in attitudes and ethics should have come long ago from knowledge of evolution, from its dismantling of the fiction of religious dominion, with humans at the peak of creation. Nonetheless, there is no time like the present for scientists to begin moving on from an approach to nature that bears little difference to religious dominion and anthropocentrism. It is time to show flat-out honesty and transparency in animal testing, a consistency in what they claim about animal welfare and what they are actually doing, an urgency in abandoning useless testing practices, a seriousness in using replacements for live animals, and a clear support for ending unnecessary and cruel experiments. All of this would of course require major changes from what they are doing now. It would require putting an end to the kind of science you get “when what is morally right becomes less important than what is expedient; and when conscience is quieted by ambition.”Curtis Freshel, World Forum, July 7, 1967, quoted in Jon Wynne-Tyson Ed., The Extended Circle: A Commonplace Book of Animal Rights (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 89.
Dr. Ray Greek – “Animals, Science, & Research” at the University of Toronto – Sept. 19th, 2011:
Notes [ + ]
|1.||⇑||This term is cited and explained in Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Ecco, 2002), 71.|
|2.||⇑||Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 65.|
|3.||⇑||Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 74.|
|4.||⇑||Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 77.|
|5.||⇑||Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 77.|
|6.||⇑||Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), 262.|
|7.||⇑||Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), 263.|
|8.||⇑||Cheryl Abbate, “Speaking of Logical Fallacies… Why the Speaking of Research Community Could Use a Refresher Course in Critical Reasoning,” Thoughts from a Vegan-Feminist-Philosopher-Military Officer, February 4, 2014, http://aphilosophersblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/speaking-of-logical-fallacies-why-the-speaking-of-research-community-could-use-a-refresher-course-in-critical-reasoning/.|
|9.||⇑||Mary T. Phillips, “Savages, Drunks, and Lab Animals: the Researcher’s Perception of Pain,” Society and Animals, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1993), 77.|
|10.||⇑||Steven Wise, Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publishing, 2000), 1-2.|
|11.||⇑||Michael A. Budkie, “The Abuse of Non-human Primates in Federally Regulated Laboratories,” SEAN, October 2011, http://www.saenonline.org/articles-2011-abuse.pdf.|
|12.||⇑||Denise Russell, “Why Animal Ethics Committees Don’t Work,” Between the Species, Vol. 15, Issue 1 (August, 2012).|
|13.||⇑||See Roy Goulding, “the subject and practice of toxicology has become exalted to the eminence of a religion… (and) like a religion it relies rather more on faith than reason,” quoted in M. Balls, “Time to Reform Toxic Tests” (1992) New Scientist, 2 May 1992, 3, 33.|
|14.||⇑||Jerry Vlasak, “Torturing animals for fun and profit,” Eleventh Hour for Animals, http://universityofflorida.us/torturing-animals-for-fun-and-profit/.|
|16.||⇑||David Nibert, Animal Rights Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Rowman & Little field Publishers, Inc., 2002), 83; also see Richard Ryder, Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research (London: National Anti-Vivisection Society Limited, 1983), 83.|
|17.||⇑||Richard Ryder, Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research (London: National Anti-Vivisection Society Limited, 1983), 99.|
|18.||⇑||David Nibert, Animal Rights Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Rowman & Little field Publishers, Inc., 2002), 83.|
|19.||⇑||Matthew Scully, Dominion: the Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002), 306.|
|20.||⇑||Steve Best, “Rethinking Revolution: Animal Liberation, Human Liberation, and the Future of the Left,” Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 2, No. 3 (June 2006), http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol2/vol2_no3_Best_rethinking_revolution.htm.|
|21.||⇑||Curtis Freshel, World Forum, July 7, 1967, quoted in Jon Wynne-Tyson Ed., The Extended Circle: A Commonplace Book of Animal Rights (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 89.|