Animal Experimentation - A Discussion with Peter Singer

Gulbenkian Lecture Theatre, Oxford University
Friday 8 June, 2007

VERO were very pleased to have the opportunity of this public discussion with the influential and controversial philosopher Peter Singer.

The evening was introduced by Oxford graduate and VERO founder member Matthew Simpson, who welcomed Peter back to the city where he had first begun to develop his ideas on animal rights as a philosophy student back in the 70s. Matthew underlined the inspirational role of Singer's book "Animal Liberation" in the struggle to improve the human treatment of animals, and commented on the continuing relevance and urgency of its message given that Oxford now finds itself once again at the centre of the debate over animal experimentation. He stated VERO's strong opposition to the new animal lab and to the practice of vivisection in general, and its commitment to promoting a more ethically responsible approach to biomedical research.

Peter began by outlining his philosophy of "animal liberation", i.e. the principle that, if all humans have an equal right to life regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, then that right should logically be extended to all species too. He spoke briefly of his time at Oxford and the influences which led him to write his first book, which argues for "equal consideration" of the interests of all species based on utilitarian principles. This is a position which leads him unequivocally to oppose the institutional use of animals in experiments. Aware of the controversy stirred up by his remarks in the recent BBC documentary "Monkeys, Rats & Me", however, he confirmed his consistently utilitarian view that some experiments - whether on human or non-human animals, between whom no ethically viable distinction could be made - may theoretically be justified if the benefits for the many outweighed the suffering of the few. The essential - and in some quarters overlooked - caveat being "provided there is no alternative".

The floor was then opened up to questions. With regard to the latter point, Peter agreed that there is indeed a moral imperative to find alternatives and that, just as he had recommended in previous lectures on ethics and poverty that we support organisations working to alleviate world hunger, so he recognised a similar responsibility to support those which are developing humane, non-animal research techniques. Many of the questions bore on the perceived problems of utilitarianism: for example, how do we decide whether or not the benefits of an experiment will outweigh the suffering involved if we do not know the outcome beforehand? Surely it was immoral to spend money on research when the benefits were uncertain but the suffering a known quantity from the outset? The fact that research into the 90% of diseases afflicting poor countries ill able to afford medication was neglected in favour of the 10% afflicting our own was cited as evidence of such misdirection of research funds. And how should we quantify "suffering" and "benefits"? Could the infliction of severe pain in one individual be balanced by a slight improvement in the condition of large numbers of people? It was also pointed out that basing our behaviour on pure calculation leaves no scope for more disinterested motives such as altruism or a sense of honour. In defence, Peter commented that utilitarianism had sometimes helped to overcome social taboos and prejudices against gays and ethnic minorities.

Asked what he considered the best ways to advance animal liberation, Peter had two points to make. In terms of reducing animal suffering, the most urgent step was to boycott - and urge governments to enact laws against - factory farming, due to the sheer scale of the suffering involved. If this could be achieved, the argument against vivisection could be made all the more forcefully. In terms of the further goal of "animal liberation", it was important to talk to others and use media opportunities to combat prejudice, and to use imagination in communicating the message. Finally, on the question of whether we will "ever learn", given the speed with which self-inflicted crises such as BSE, foot & mouth and bird flu seem to be forgotten, Peter sounded a relatively optimistic note, citing the rapidly increasing numbers of vegetarians as a sign that things may be starting to change.